On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:18:36 -0500, "gfulton"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
In recent years the previous leaders of the north stated in no
uncertain
terms
that the TET was their last gasp. If it didn't run them off then
the
North
would be dead. It was that close. News and Politics being driven
by
Yellow news
turned out to be the guilty one.

It was one of those chilling interviews that I forced myself to
listen.

Just about like the chilling war series on WWII.

'Too bad we didn't win. Then Vietnam could have been democratic and no
more
Americans would have been killed...just like Iraq.

Furthermore, the commies wouldn't have swept SE Asia, Australia, and
Japan,
and then wound up putting us in a pincer with the USSR on the other
side.

If we'd only listened to you guys, we wouldn't be speaking Russian
today.


Your satire is so wrong on so many levels...its a masterpiece Ed.
Bravo.

Except it falls down as satire on one key point, Gunner: It happens to be
the unvarnished truth.

You really should consider submitting a resume to the DNC as a staff
writer.

Wait a minute, didn't Gus just say Vietnam was a Democrat war? That must
mean you were opposed to it, right?

--
Ed Huntress


Only if he's consistent, which he's obviously not. Moreover, he's spewing
nothing but revisionist history and outright lies. Claiming that we were
on
the verge of victory or that the North was about to give up in 1968 is
total
nonsense. I was prime for being drafted in 1969 so I know what was really
going on at the time. First off, the North Vietnamese had been fighting
foreign invaders since 1940. They went through the Japanese, the French,
and
then us. Anyone that thinks we had them licked and ready to throw in the
towel after Tet is full of crap. That idea is on par with the Holocaust
deni
ers. The second thing is that by 1968 half of the casualties of the war
had
been inflicted, so instead of the 10,000 figure he uses it was closer to
28,000 dead by then. That was also when general Westmoreland was asking
LBJ
for an increase of troops of 200,000. Which LBJ turned down. Westmoreland
was lying about how the light at the end of the tunnel was in sight right
before Tet. After Tet and the request for more troops was made everyone
with
half a brain knew that we not anywhere near victory of any kind and that
they war was going to continue on and on with no end in sight. That is
when
the political will of the country to continue the war broke. It had
nothing
to do with the media lying or fooling the public. After all the lies told
by
the military and the civilian leadership the public had had enough. Guys
like Gunner can make up all the flat earth lies they want about Vietnam
but
there are too many of us around that know bull**** when we hear it. And so
far everything Gunner has said about Vietnam is 100% bull****.

Hawke



So. You didn't get drafted, didn't go, and now are more qualified than Giap
to tell us what the_real_affect of Tet was on the North. I've read that
interview with Giap before, and Gunner did post what he said. That is not
revisionist history.

Garrett Fulton

Hawke..and most Lib-Leftists tend to deny the consequences of their
"good intentions". They love to feel good "Doing Something"© but
continually fail to look past the act at the consequences. Social
welfare..ie the Great Society is a perfect example. It turned at least
3 generations of people into slaves to the Nanny State and killed
millions here in the US.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,