On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 05:35:31 -0400, Ivan Gowch
<gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com> wrote:

>On 11 Jul 2003 15:28:00 -0700, basis_consultant@hotmail.com (SAP BASIS
>Consultant) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>==>Well, do you not agree that there were restrictive rules of
>==>engagement?
>
> There may well have been rules against
> targeting Soviet and Chinese assets in
> Vietnam, for reasons so obvious they need not
> be listed here. But that hardly stopped the
> U.S. from throwing everything it had -- except
> for nukes -- including chemical and and biological
> weapons the use of which was and is regarded as
> a war crime, at the Vietnamese.

Please show where we used bio-weps. The chemical stuff we used was
defoliates that later caused problems on both sides and teargas in
caves/tunnels.


>
> The fact that at least one million Vietnamese
> -- that's 1,000,000, folks -- died at the hands of
> the United Snakes makes a mockery of the
> claim that U.S. forces were compelled to
> hold back and were thereby prevented from
> winning. The U.S. dropped many times the amount
> of heavy explosives on Vietnam than it did in both
> world wars, it napalmed countless hectares of
> forest and poisoned countless acres of farm land,
> it bombed Hanoi and mined Haiphong Harbor and
> other North Vietnam ports, and planted more mines
> than it did in all previous conflicts combined.
>
> And you are seriously suggesting that some
> "rules of engagement" document dredged up by the
> execrable and completely discredited Barry Goldwater
> (!) proves that the U.S. military wasn't allowed to
> win?
>
> Gimme a break. Please.
>
>==>Do you not agree that had many of these rules not been there,
>==>the USA would have had a better chance of winning?
>
> No. The U.S. never had a snowball's chance in
> hell of winning.
>
> Ironically, the several administrations that
> prosecuted that doomed war could have saved
> themselves the agony -- as well more than a million
> lives -- if they had only heeded their own CIA, which
> warned repeatedly that America was going to get its
> ass kicked.
>
> But then, as now, the morons in power regarded
> intelligence as something to be manipulated and
> used for political purposes, rather than as actual
> information on which to base sensible policies.
>
> Idiots then, idiots now.
>

--

Sig file, I don't need any stinking sig file.

Ivan Gowch <gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q0dvgv8orbhihd8ajs6sbpc6st4mr68ttb@4ax.com>. ..
> [Newsgroups trimmed]
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:12:17 GMT, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>
> wrote:
>
> IG:
> ==>> America's "enemy" in Vietnam were the
> ==>> Vietnamese people -- virtually all of them
>
> ==>Then why did so many attempt to flee the communists?
>
> Thousands of Vietnamese in the south who had done
> business with or collaborated with the Americans
> were persuaded by U.S. propaganda that they
> would be slaughtered if the nationalist forces took
> control of the country.

Well, first of all, considering that by that time it was well
known that Communism kills people by the millions (i.e China
and the USSR to name a couple), then if the U.S warned the Vietnamese
of that danger it was not propaganda. (Though there was U.S
propaganda).

Secondly, the U.S conservatives were right and the Chomskies and
Jane Fondas were wrong; According to the 'Black Book of Coummunism'
some 1 million were killed in Vietnam by the Communists. Untold
others fled as refugees, were 'reeducated', etc..

Again, none of these was suprising as this is the history of
Communism.



> Understandably, once the
> Americans ran for their lives, these collaborators
> and war-profiteers (and others, who faced starvation
> because their lands had been laid to waste by American
> bombing and chemical defoliation and could no longer
> support them) took to the boats to escape. Needless
> to say, the propaganda was a lie, and the feared
> reprisals never happened.

Well, most of the people who took to the boats were not
collaborators and war-profiteers.

Secondly, you blame the boat people on the starvation caused
by the American forces.

Look at the timeline; The boat people are associated with the
year 1978, some 5 years after the U.S forces (Except for small
holdouts) left.

When is the last time that you heard of a farmer blame poor
production in 2003 on a flood in 1998?

Note the mention of 'fleeing the new regime'.

Can you backup your claim that the boat people left due to U.S
bombing a few years beforehand with actual testimony by them
or some survey?

http://www.photo.net/vietnam/luong/timeline.html

# 1973: After the ratification of the Paris accords, the US military
withdraw.
# 1975 (April 30): Viet Cong troops enter Saigon, after a two-month
campaign in spite of the Paris accords.
# 1976: The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is officially proclaimed.
# 1978: Vietnam joins the USSR-lead Comecon. The tragedy of the Hai
Hong,
old cargo boat overloaded with refugies brings to the world attention
about
the "boat people" fleeing the new regime. They will total more than
half a million people.
# 1979 (Jan): Vietnamese troops enter Phnom Penh and end the murderous
Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. (Feb): A retaliatory invasion from China
is
repelled during a month-long war.



>
> ==>America's enemy in Vietnam was the Soviet Union.
>
> Wrong. America's enemy in Vietnam was freedom
> and democracy and the natural right of the Vietnamese
> people to determine their own future and form of
> government.

Well, how much freedom and democracy was there after
the U.S left?

> That's not to say that the Soviets did
> not help and support the Vietnamese. They did,
> to their everlasting credit.

Yes, they taught the Vietnamese Communists how to run gulags,
create tons of refugees, and cause misery all around.


>
> ==>Ho Chi Minh was a KGB agent who spent decades behind a desk in
> ==>Moscow before being sent to rule Vietnam.
>
> You're (partially) full of crap.
>

Accolades of Ho Chi Minh deleted..

Ivan Gowch <gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q0dvgv8orbhihd8ajs6sbpc6st4mr68ttb@4ax.com>. ..
> [Newsgroups trimmed]
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:12:17 GMT, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>
> wrote:
>
> IG:
> ==>> America's "enemy" in Vietnam were the
> ==>> Vietnamese people -- virtually all of them
>
> ==>Then why did so many attempt to flee the communists?
>
> Thousands of Vietnamese in the south who had done
> business with or collaborated with the Americans
> were persuaded by U.S. propaganda that they
> would be slaughtered if the nationalist forces took
> control of the country.

Well, first of all, considering that by that time it was well
known that Communism kills people by the millions (i.e China
and the USSR to name a couple), then if the U.S warned the Vietnamese
of that danger it was not propaganda. (Though there was U.S
propaganda).

Secondly, the U.S conservatives were right and the Chomskies and
Jane Fondas were wrong; According to the 'Black Book of Coummunism'
some 1 million were killed in Vietnam by the Communists. Untold
others fled as refugees, were 'reeducated', etc..

Again, none of these was suprising as this is the history of
Communism.



> Understandably, once the
> Americans ran for their lives, these collaborators
> and war-profiteers (and others, who faced starvation
> because their lands had been laid to waste by American
> bombing and chemical defoliation and could no longer
> support them) took to the boats to escape. Needless
> to say, the propaganda was a lie, and the feared
> reprisals never happened.

Well, most of the people who took to the boats were not
collaborators and war-profiteers.

Secondly, you blame the boat people on the starvation caused
by the American forces.

Look at the timeline; The boat people are associated with the
year 1978, some 5 years after the U.S forces (Except for small
holdouts) left.

When is the last time that you heard of a farmer blame poor
production in 2003 on a flood in 1998?

Note the mention of 'fleeing the new regime'.

Can you backup your claim that the boat people left due to U.S
bombing a few years beforehand with actual testimony by them
or some survey?

http://www.photo.net/vietnam/luong/timeline.html

# 1973: After the ratification of the Paris accords, the US military
withdraw.
# 1975 (April 30): Viet Cong troops enter Saigon, after a two-month
campaign in spite of the Paris accords.
# 1976: The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is officially proclaimed.
# 1978: Vietnam joins the USSR-lead Comecon. The tragedy of the Hai
Hong,
old cargo boat overloaded with refugies brings to the world attention
about
the "boat people" fleeing the new regime. They will total more than
half a million people.
# 1979 (Jan): Vietnamese troops enter Phnom Penh and end the murderous
Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. (Feb): A retaliatory invasion from China
is
repelled during a month-long war.



>
> ==>America's enemy in Vietnam was the Soviet Union.
>
> Wrong. America's enemy in Vietnam was freedom
> and democracy and the natural right of the Vietnamese
> people to determine their own future and form of
> government.

Well, how much freedom and democracy was there after
the U.S left?

> That's not to say that the Soviets did
> not help and support the Vietnamese. They did,
> to their everlasting credit.

Yes, they taught the Vietnamese Communists how to run gulags,
create tons of refugees, and cause misery all around.


>
> ==>Ho Chi Minh was a KGB agent who spent decades behind a desk in
> ==>Moscow before being sent to rule Vietnam.
>
> You're (partially) full of crap.
>

Accolades of Ho Chi Minh deleted..

Ivan; your too stupid to rewrite history. Give it up, your making a fool of
yourself.
"Ivan Gowch" <gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7aosgv09canrjsd3j9cd05pf2o0b2s4qen@4ax.com...
> [newsgroups trimmed]
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:27:26 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> ==>:==>The loss in Vietnam was not a failure on the part of the troops.
It
> ==>:==>was a failure in political will.
>
> IG:
> ==>: Nonsense.
>
> ==>Oh, nonsense, your ass.
> ==>
> ==>When did we invade North Vietnam? Never.
> ==>
> ==>Why not? Lack of political will.
>
> 1. There never was an entity in reality called
> "North Vietnam."
>
> 2. The U.S. administration knew damn well
> that if it sent troops above the 17th parallel
> few, if any, would return alive.
>
>