Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 12:07 am
@oralloy,
Perhaps in an alternate universe it would be.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 12:09 am
@Sturgis,
No matter how much progressives deny reality, reality keeps on existing.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 12:17 am
@oralloy,
There was no contindnta! Armyat lex and concord it
Was formed lte as one of the out comes. They were ununiformed
Irregular. Whicn you want to lynch


Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 12:19 am
@oralloy,
That sounds far fetched, even for you.

(once again, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Progressive)
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 12:28 am
@oralloy,
out so. . South viet had lost control the land.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 12:59 am
@MontereyJack,
South Vietnam lost control of the land after the Democrats slashed their aid.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 01:00 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:
That sounds far fetched, even for you.

Not at all. Reality really does keep on existing when you deny it.


Sturgis wrote:
once again, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Progressive

You certainly deny reality like a progressive, and you engage in name-calling like a progressive.

But it doesn't matter really. Your denials of reality don't change reality even if you aren't a progressive.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 01:01 am
@Sturgis,
oralloy is taking a simplistic view of history that was badly written for the time by one group of historians. Not an uncommon occurrence. After this one and only truly successful TET, 1968, the Viet Cong went underground North of Saigon. They preformed "mule" duty for the NVA along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and In Country, moving supplies about and watching/reporting on ARVN and USA troup movements.

South of Saigon in the delta they were still very active in combat duty. The Viet Cong for the most part were villagers living in the same villages with those that held allegiance with the South Vietnamese government. A lot of them were for one side or the other depending upon who they were dealing with at the time.

How did you know if you were dealing with NVA regulars or Viet Cong? NVA wore uniforms and Viet Cong wore civilian clothes - typically, black pajamas (as we called them) or other civilian clothing. We came into contact with Cong wearing both outfits.

From history:
Quote:

Fall of Saigon

In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case–Church Amendment to prohibit further U.S. military intervention in Vietnam in June 1973 and reduced aid to South Vietnam in August 1974.[79] With U.S. bombing ended, communist logistical preparations could be accelerated. An oil pipeline was built from North Vietnam to Việt Cộng headquarters in Lộc Ninh, about 75 miles northwest of Saigon. (COSVN was moved back to South Vietnam following the Easter Offensive.) The Ho Chi Minh Trail, beginning as a series of treacherous mountain tracks at the start of the war, was upgraded throughout the war, first into a road network driveable by trucks in the dry season, and finally, into paved, all-weather roads that could be used year-round, even during the monsoon.[80] Between the beginning of 1974 and April 1975, with now-excellent roads and no fear of air interdiction, the communists delivered nearly 365,000 tons of war matériel to battlefields, 2.6 times the total for the previous 13 years.[69]


Loc Ninh is where I operated in Nam in '69-'70. The Viet Cong were hardly ineffective, I would think. They were simply laying low performing odd tasks and supporting the NVA until they could come out into the open again.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 01:02 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Whicn you want to lynch

Hanging war criminals doesn't mean lynching. I don't propose denying them a fair trial where it will have to be proved that they were non-uniformed combatants.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 01:05 am
@BillW,
Quote:
In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment to prohibit further U.S. military intervention in Vietnam in June 1973 and reduced aid to South Vietnam in August 1974.[79]

As I said.

Shame on the Democrats for doing this.
BillW
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 01:12 am
@oralloy,
Your ignorance is always apparent - Case is a Republican Senator and Nixon was President. Yet, I don't write, shame on Republicans.
Quote:
What strategy was employed by Nixon to end American involvement in Vietnam?
January 27, 1973: President Nixon signs the Paris Peace Accords, ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese accept a cease fire. But as U.S. troops depart Vietnam, North Vietnamese military officials continue plotting to overtake South Vietnam.

I bet you know a lot about windmills too Confused
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 01:34 am
@BillW,
BillW wrote:
Your ignorance is always apparent

You can't point out a single thing that I am wrong about.


BillW wrote:
Case is a Republican Senator and Nixon was President. Yet, I don't write, shame on Republicans.

What do them being Republicans have to do with the Democrats slashing aid to South Vietnam?


BillW wrote:
I bet you know a lot about windmills too Confused

I'll leave the jousting to you.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 06:18 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
@blatham,
That the democratic party of today is liberal is bull shyt. It is at best centrist if not slightly consertive. I vote for it because the republicans have become uber ultra conservative. I get sick when I hear democrats or anyone else call the Clinton's or any of the presidents elected since Kennedy lliberal. They were at best centerests.
I don't find conversations of this sort helpful or illuminating unless one begins with some pretty clear definitions of terms with good historical references.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 06:19 am
@Real Music,
You're welcome. NY Mag has picked up a lot of good people.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 11:05 am
@blatham,
You disagree with my contension, or are you saying i should post proof of what I say. I think my statement is apparent. The democratic party of today is not the Kennedy party of the 60,s. At 84 years of age I have lived the history of the past and don't feel I have to prove my statement. If you disagree with my assment show me where I'm wrong. I am saying we are voting for the lesser of two evils. In this election that will be a democrat. Any democrat.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 11:09 am
@RABEL222,
What’s evil about say, Sanders or Warren?
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 11:37 am
@snood,
I thought better of you snoot. I dident say either of them were evil. I said that Warren is not liberal. Like most of today's democrats she is middle of the road. Sanders is not a democrat, he is a socialist. Not necessarily a bad thing but just as bad as capitalism if not controlled by people interested in wealth for all rather than people who are interested in making a buck no matter who they screw. By the way merry Christmas to all, even my teacher George.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 01:17 pm
@RABEL222,
Sorry, I thought I saw another post saying that you considered the next election to be a choice of the lesser of two evils. I must have gotten some posts or threads mixed up.

No reason to call me snoot.
Merry Christmas.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 02:04 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
At 84 years of age I have lived the history of the past and don't feel I have to prove my statement.
You don't. But of course no one has any obligation or, I'd argue, good reason to accept your interpretation of how these terms ought to be applied. That's because you don't make the case, you simply make an assertion. Others can also make such assertions but very differently weighted. For example, many modern conservatives would and do claim that the Dem party is now much further left than it was in the past. And many or most will believe that true.
Quote:
I said that Warren is not liberal.
That's an example. How would you go about measuring the differences in "liberalness" between Warren and John Kennedy? You'd really have to lay that out with some care to make a convincing case. In this case, I doubt you could do it but I might be wrong, of course. I'm not saying you should take the time and study necessary to make a good case for you position, just that unless you do, it remains simply an assertion.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 12:21 am
@snood,
Sorry Snood . This damn tablet changes spelling constantly and I sometime miss it. Between that and overlarge thumbs I have lots of spelling problems. And yes I do consider it a lesser evil to vote democrat by a large margin than to vote crooked republican.
Edit. Ill be go to hell, it did it again and I missed it again. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 06:05:40