• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

Suggest reading "Embers of War" and "A Solider Reports".

appreciate the response, not the format. I can't answer you inside quotes. Yes I'm aware the NVA and the V.C. are not the same.
The VC. were 'irregulars", to my knowledge.

I wasn't there, I would not have gone by the time my lottery number made me available in '73.
By that time it was evident that long war was not going to end with anything but more dead for no reason.
Except some insane idea that Vietnam was part of the Cold War - the only reason sold to us back stateside that we needed to be there.

Thanks for the suggestion on the reads, it not all that important to me since I wasn't there, but I do respect those whom were.
 
Ho Chi Minh was the "George Washington" of Vietnam, even in South Vietnam. He had united the citizenry against a common enemy, France, and had we not butted in, there would be a million more Vietnamese.

How many soon to be Americans did George Washington murder?

He united "the citizenry" by executions and threat of execution for a large part.

Had he never been born, there would be millions more Vietnamese.
 
Thanks, Annata. There are a whole lot of google articles of varying opinions here https://www.google.ca/search?q=amer...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=BUGBUua2FMblyQHrt4DwBg It was a very painful time in American history and I don;t know if it worthwhile going through the whole thing again. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert but i do like to some some research when I feel that propaganda is being used, as it certainly was.

They've done that in Europe but the troops could have left for deployment Vietnam rather than remaining scattered across Europe, well after the time they became essential.. It seems we have learned to much from Vietnam and not enough from WWII.



These constant 'withdrawals' are not doing anyone any good. As far as the enemy is concerned it is a 'retreat'. not a withdrawal.

That's what you do in a war until the enemy retreats.

The war was lost in the United States, not in Vietnam



South Vietnam could not win without American help. Remember they were fighting Russia and Chinese communists as well.

The enemies of democracy seem to have learned a great deal more from Vietnam than many of the American people. If the combined forces of the United States, the world's only Superpower, and all the other democracies, cannot defeat a ragtag army of third world terrorists what does that say about our futures, and those of our children?

As the US retreats from the world stage there will be other powers, probably from Asia, who will take its place. Perhaps these next 'superpowers' will have the stomach to finish a war as easily as it starts, or before it gets out of hand.
we'll have to agree to disagree, as you said it was a very painfuol time, and we just look a that war in different ways.
The "superpower" thing (bolded) is a good discussion; most of my anti-war friends are quite sure the US role in the world is due to our "American exceptionalism"
run wild.
I don't disagree - it is a bad way to think, but I also do know that since WWII, and perhaps back to WWI, when the world screws itself up.
the world does look to the US to "fix it".

I'd rather see self-policing regional powers take care of their own flare-ups/conflicts. The US has a global reach, and a somewhat global role,
but i'd argue that our exclusive role is no longer needed, or wanted.

Take AfPak for ex: we leave there a hated occupiers - and our drone wars did cause some of that.
We should have just gone in and taken out the terrorist bases.

Which does bring us back to Vietnam, our global reach wasn't needed. Vietnam,whatever the outcome really made no difference to our nat'l security.
 
Do you spell "Communists" FRANCE. Vietnam was a French colony. Colony a/k/a colonizers. Imperialists. Ho Chi Minh was Vietnamese. French are French. Americans are Americans. Vietnam is for Vietnamese. Ergo, if there is any fighting in Vietnam, it should be between Vietnamese and any others are interlopers. We do not spread liberty, justice, freedom, liberty and justice for all. We acquire resources for Corporate America and strategic geography for our military. Wake up.

looking back at French IndoChina, the reason for being there was colonialism. What we now call corporatism, as corporations now have the global reach the old colonial powers used to do with their 'hard power'.
 
we'll have to agree to disagree, as you said it was a very painfuol time, and we just look a that war in different ways.
The "superpower" thing (bolded) is a good discussion; most of my anti-war friends are quite sure the US role in the world is due to our "American exceptionalism"
run wild.
If you consider the number of wars going on in the world prior to the US becoming a world power (some time during WWII) then you will see hw things changed dramatically. We can talk of European becoming Nazi but there is little doubt that all of Europe, rather than just the Eastern half, would have been communist. Some Europeans were even voting for it. That they are neither Nazi or Communist is more to America than any other country. The problem appears to be that few recognize America's importance to the world , as well as its relevance, and that holds especially true in America. If your friends believe that there is no 'exceptionalism' to America than they have not familiarized themselves with the term or have only a limited and bias view of history.
I don't disagree - it is a bad way to think, but I also do know that since WWII, and perhaps back to WWI, when the world screws itself up.
the world does look to the US to "fix it".
This all part of that 'exceptionalism'.

I'd rather see self-policing regional powers take care of their own flare-ups/conflicts. The US has a global reach, and a somewhat global role,
but i'd argue that our exclusive role is no longer needed, or wanted.
Yes, that would be wonderful if Nazis didn't want more power, fascist, communists, islamofacists, and so on, but the hard fact is that they do. They are quite open about it. It seems that America has been so successful at extinguishing serious outbursts and controlled possible world wars that people are now taking this peace for granted. But that's never been the world we lived in.

Take AfPak for ex: we leave there a hated occupiers - and our drone wars did cause some of that. We should have just gone in and taken out the terrorist bases.
This is what happens when you fight wars through half measures by trying to mollify the critics at home. Certainly BHO is not a war time President, nor was any of those who gained political appointments. In fact he lost several four star generals and has used the military more as a social laboratory than as a fighting machine.

Which does bring us back to Vietnam, our global reach wasn't needed. Vietnam,whatever the outcome really made no difference to our nat'l security.
I prefer listening to what the communists had to say in this regard and in fact Russian leaders said later that if the Americans made such a big deal out of a country on the other side of the world, what would they do closer to home? Post war comments by former communist leaders is the best place to learn about what went on during those times. They also give Ronald Reagan credit for the collapse of the USSR, by the way, while leftists would never do that.
 
Last edited:
looking back at French IndoChina, the reason for being there was colonialism. What we now call corporatism, as corporations now have the global reach the old colonial powers used to do with their 'hard power'.

Then you must be pleased that so many corporations are leaving the United States, even though they are taking many of the jobs with them.
 
Not entirely. We've now established that if you're the one saying it, we know it's not true. Peace out.

And, unable to defend your position you resort to insult. I had hoped for better. Regardless, I suggest you revisit the (fictional) case of Philip Nolan as described by Edward Everett Hale. There is no atonement for some crimes against country.:peace
 
Then you must be pleased that so many corporations are leaving the United States, even though they are taking many of the jobs with them.
i was reading about "reshoring"
The decision by General Motors to bring 10,000 IT jobs back to the U.S. over the next three to five years has been well chronicled. GM is definitely the biggest mover in the emerging insourcing or reshoring trend. We have also seen major U.S. companies including GE, Starbucks and Caterpillar announce the reshoring of manufacturing, services and IT jobs. Others will follow as the "Made in America" trend gains momentum
Outsourcing Vs. Insourcing: You Need Both - Global Cio - Outsourcing
, it is such a complex topic,
beyond my ability to grasp, but so needed to be able to understood, to design policies to facilitate it.
 
If you consider the number of wars going on in the world prior to the US becoming a world power (some time during WWII) then you will see hw things changed dramatically. We can talk of European becoming Nazi but there is little doubt that all of Europe, rather than just the Eastern half, would have been communist. Some Europeans were even voting for it. That they are neither Nazi or Communist is more to America than any other country. The problem appears to be that few recognize America's importance to the world , as well as its relevance, and that holds especially true in America. If your friends believe that there is no 'exceptionalism' to America than they have not familiarized themselves with the term or have only a limited and bias view of history.
This all part of that 'exceptionalism'.
It is indeed, but Vietnam wasn't a war for the US to concern itself about.
We thought it was in the frenzy of the cold war, and after Korea, but it really had no bearing on our hemisphere.

Yes, that would be wonderful if Nazis didn't want more power, fascist, communists, islamofacists, and so on, but the hard fact is that they do. They are quite open about it. It seems that America has been so successful at extinguishing serious outbursts and controlled possible world wars that people are now taking this peace for granted. But that's never been the world we lived in.
not recently. Not Syria -a regional proxty war, that we almsot stumbled into.
Such is the danger of thinking the US always has a role to play -we don't

This is what happens when you fight wars through half measures by trying to mollify the critics at home. Certainly BHO is not a war time President, nor was any of those who gained political appointments. In fact he lost several four star generals and has used the military more as a social laboratory than as a fighting machine.
I don't know how else to have fought Afg. we picked the counterinsurgency strategy, similiar to waht we did in Vietnam -commonly called "nationbuilding"
we cannot build outside societys, we can assist for a short term, but the danger becomes like Vietnam and Afganistan - long drawn out wars which leave those countries dependent on US forces to succeed.

I prefer listening to what the communists had to say in this regard and in fact Russian leaders said later that if the Americans made such a big deal out of a country on the other side of the world, what would they do closer to home? Post war comments by former communist leaders is the best place to learn about what went on during those times. They also give Ronald Reagan credit for the collapse of the USSR, by the way, while leftists would never do that.

Cuba was much more relevant to the US, even there the Bay of Pigs was badly played, though JFK recovered nicely during the Cuban missile crisis.
 
It is indeed, but Vietnam wasn't a war for the US to concern itself about.
We thought it was in the frenzy of the cold war, and after Korea, but it really had no bearing on our hemisphere.

The Cold War was international and world wide. There is no 'our hemisphere' during that period than there was in WWII.

not recently. Not Syria -a regional proxty war, that we almsot stumbled into.
Such is the danger of thinking the US always has a role to play -we don't

I think the United States had a major role but they are rapidly losing power. Whether that is a good thing or not we don't yet know. It depends on whether the next power is as benevolent as its predecessors, Britain and the US.

I don't know how else to have fought Afg. we picked the counterinsurgency strategy, similiar to waht we did in Vietnam -commonly called "nationbuilding"
we cannot build outside societys, we can assist for a short term, but the danger becomes like Vietnam and Afganistan - long drawn out wars which leave those countries dependent on US forces to succeed.

You explained the problem in the first sentence. You enter a war to defeat your opponents and that's it. Once they are totally and absolutely defeated then you assist on nation building. Neither Churchill nor FDR would have announced a 'withdrawal date' during WWII and yet we've come to accept that nonsense as normal.

Cuba was much more relevant to the US, even there the Bay of Pigs was badly played, though JFK recovered nicely during the Cuban missile crisis.
And yet Cuba remains communist with millions dead and yet still receiving support from many leftists. It's just amazing and depressing how little mankind has advanced when we still support that sort of thing.
 
We acquire resources for Corporate America and strategic geography for our military. Wake up.

Just what "resources" did corporate America acquire from South Vietnam? Rubber? if we didn't get it from there. we'd get it from somewhere else which really is what we were doing anyway. We did acquire a bunch of refugees that were fleeing for their lives from the communists though. Do you place any value on them? To imply the Vietnam war was about corporate profits or influence for America is silly.

What's wrong with entering partnerships with host countries for "strategic geography? A quick review on who and how we have been attacked should demonstrate the value. If not, a quick review on what the USSR was doing against us (Cuba for one) should demonstrate the value. If either of those won't convince you, look at what China has been doing for the last ten or fifteen years. Taking a peek at that realistically, would sober up a drunk man. The world has never been a safe place and it never will be a safe place.
 
Just what "resources" did corporate America acquire from South Vietnam? Rubber? if we didn't get it from there. we'd get it from somewhere else which really is what we were doing anyway. We did acquire a bunch of refugees that were fleeing for their lives from the communists though. Do you place any value on them? To imply the Vietnam war was about corporate profits or influence for America is silly.

What's wrong with entering partnerships with host countries for "strategic geography? A quick review on who and how we have been attacked should demonstrate the value. If not, a quick review on what the USSR was doing against us (Cuba for one) should demonstrate the value. If either of those won't convince you, look at what China has been doing for the last ten or fifteen years. Taking a peek at that realistically, would sober up a drunk man. The world has never been a safe place and it never will be a safe place.

Never a mention of Corporate Holland, Corporate Germany, Corporate Australia, Canada, Japan, Britain or China. It's just Onespeak. "Corporate America!"

From that singular angst all irrational theories flow.
 
And, unable to defend your position you resort to insult. I had hoped for better. Regardless, I suggest you revisit the (fictional) case of Philip Nolan as described by Edward Everett Hale. There is no atonement for some crimes against country.:peace

I'm sorry you took that as an insult as I thought I was quite clear I was giving you a compliment. When I said that "asking the questions" in this case was perpetuating a lie, you seemed quite proud of this since you believe that truth was irrelevant compared to Jane Fonda receiving justice for her participation in the propaganda photo op. I took this to mean that you held your beliefs in such high regard that truth was irrelevant, and I was trying to communicate to you that I respect your convictions. So when I said, "We've now established that if you're the one saying it, we know it's not true," I did of course mean that you stayed true to your beliefs, and can expect you to hold true to them in this manner in the future.

Unless you consider this insulting now? Because I wouldn't want you to feel insulted.
 
I'm sorry you took that as an insult as I thought I was quite clear I was giving a compliment. When I said that "asking the questions" in this case was perpetuating a lie, you seemed quite proud of this since you believe that truth was irrelevant compared to Jane Fonda receiving justice for her participation in the propaganda photo op. I took this to mean that you held your beliefs in such high regard that truth was irrelevant, and I was trying to communicate to you that I respect your convictions. So when I said, "We've now established that if you're the one saying it, we know it's not true," I did of course mean that you stayed true to your beliefs, and can expect you to hold true to them in this manner in the future.

Unless you consider this insulting now? Because I wouldn't want you to feel insulted.

And now descending into incoherence . . . . :roll:
 
Just what "resources" did corporate America acquire from South Vietnam? Rubber? if we didn't get it from there. we'd get it from somewhere else which really is what we were doing anyway. We did acquire a bunch of refugees that were fleeing for their lives from the communists though. Do you place any value on them? To imply the Vietnam war was about corporate profits or influence for America is silly.

What's wrong with entering partnerships with host countries for "strategic geography? A quick review on who and how we have been attacked should demonstrate the value. If not, a quick review on what the USSR was doing against us (Cuba for one) should demonstrate the value. If either of those won't convince you, look at what China has been doing for the last ten or fifteen years. Taking a peek at that realistically, would sober up a drunk man. The world has never been a safe place and it never will be a safe place.

You're right. The World has not been safe against USA aggression from Granada, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yemen, Chile, etc. and not one of those Nations attacked us. We attacked them. Afghanistan is partially justified because of OBL, but Omar asked for evidence that OBL was behind 9-11 and implied if we could prove that, then he would submit OBL to authorities. We've attacked lots of Nations. Full time war. Good for business, don't you think? You're right. The World is not a safe place. The War Machine is out to getcha.
 
You're right. The World has not been safe against USA aggression from Granada, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yemen, Chile, etc. and not one of those Nations attacked us. We attacked them. Afghanistan is partially justified because of OBL, but Omar asked for evidence that OBL was behind 9-11 and implied if we could prove that, then he would submit OBL to authorities. We've attacked lots of Nations. Full time war. Good for business, don't you think? You're right. The World is not a safe place. The War Machine is out to getcha.

Omar was lying.:peace
 
You're right. The World has not been safe against USA aggression from Granada, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yemen, Chile, etc. and not one of those Nations attacked us. We attacked them. Afghanistan is partially justified because of OBL, but Omar asked for evidence that OBL was behind 9-11 and implied if we could prove that, then he would submit OBL to authorities. We've attacked lots of Nations. Full time war. Good for business, don't you think? You're right. The World is not a safe place. The War Machine is out to getcha.
So you're good with communism. How did you feel about the fascists and the nazis?
 
Regardless of whether or not she turned POW letters over to the enemy, she's still a bitch for what she did, consorting with the enemy like that, as they had some of OUR guys being held as POWs.

fonda3.jpg
 
Regardless of whether or not she turned POW letters over to the enemy, she's still a bitch for what she did, consorting with the enemy like that, as they had some of OUR guys being held as POWs.

fonda3.jpg

While I'm not privy to Jane Fonda's deepest private thoughts on the matter, the pictures make me uneasy. She's supposedly anti-war, roughly 35 years old and in my opinion a little past being like "wow gosh lookit the big boom stick!" I'm in my thirties, relatively anti-war myself, and know what a damn cannon is and what it's used for.
 
While I'm not privy to Jane Fonda's deepest private thoughts on the matter, the pictures make me uneasy. She's supposedly anti-war, roughly 35 years old and in my opinion a little past being like "wow gosh lookit the big boom stick!" I'm in my thirties, relatively anti-war myself, and know what a damn cannon is and what it's used for.

And to think, that very gun was used to try and kill Americans. And she cheers the gun and it's crew on.
 
Back
Top Bottom