On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:28:20 -0600, Barney-Killer
wrote:

On 13 Jan 2006 06:07:42 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article 01c61637$811cd2c0$d4a5c3d8@race, * says...



Thousands of deaths at The World Trade Center on 9/11

Many more than that dead and wounded in Iraq.

And what ever happend to afghanistan? We've given
up there.

Jim


No, you just out-sourced it to us Canadians, where, I might add, for
what it is worth, one of our snipers beat Carlos Hathcock's record...
:=)




BK


And damned well done too. Not bad for a country that is disarming
itself at a fevered pace.

G

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 It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,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,

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:40:54 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


Back in 1968, I knew something had gone terribly wrong in Vietnam, even
before there was anything on the news about the Tet offensive, because we
lived a dozen blocks from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. All of
a sudden, one morning, CH-47 helicopters started buzzing over our house
every 15 minutes all day. We usually had 3 flights a week back then.
News seems a lot harder to come by, now!

Jon

You mean the Tet Offensive that the Leftist Media portrayed as a
terrible defeat for the US, when in actuality..it spelled the
decimation of the Viet Cong, and would have forced the North to terms,
if it wasnt for the Media giving them much needed support?

That would not have forced the North to terms, the loss of people was of
no concern to them. Insurgents are willing to take losses forever and
will fight another hundred years to get unconditional victory.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article , Gunner says...

And what ever happend to afghanistan?
????????????

Apparently the country is one huge private
heroin factory. Granted there hasn't been
much about it in the news but the man we
installed there can't even leave his own
house.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:16:29 GMT, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:40:54 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


Back in 1968, I knew something had gone terribly wrong in Vietnam, even
before there was anything on the news about the Tet offensive, because we
lived a dozen blocks from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. All of
a sudden, one morning, CH-47 helicopters started buzzing over our house
every 15 minutes all day. We usually had 3 flights a week back then.
News seems a lot harder to come by, now!

Jon

You mean the Tet Offensive that the Leftist Media portrayed as a
terrible defeat for the US, when in actuality..it spelled the
decimation of the Viet Cong, and would have forced the North to terms,
if it wasnt for the Media giving them much needed support?

That would not have forced the North to terms, the loss of people was of
no concern to them. Insurgents are willing to take losses forever and
will fight another hundred years to get unconditional victory.


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Ca...erals/giap.htm

Gen. Giap planned and directed the military operations against the
French that culminated in their defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu
in 1954. During the 1960's Giap controlled guerrilla operations
against South Vietnam and the United States and planned the Tet
Offensive of 1968.

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without
sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet"
'68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an
effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the
NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their
knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the
Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their
defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and
correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive
by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at
hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had
not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been
killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further
reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the
NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided
instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week,
month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to
achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield.
Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties
were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.

http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silve...re_nation.html


For many that recall the Vietnam era, this approach is deja vu. In a
recent article in the Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave noted
that during the Vietnam War, General Giap relied on the American peace
movement to weaken American resolve. That had the effect of turning an
American military victory into a political defeat. Former North
Vietnamese General Staff officer Bui Tin once said that the peace
movement was "essential to our strategy." In America, the open support
of Hanoi by Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (now head
of International ANSWER, which coordinates the largest protests) and
others "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of
battlefield reverses," Bui Tin said. "Through dissent and protest,"
the US "lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

As a result, the surprise 1968 Tet Offensive (which involved suicidal
attacks by the Viet Cong in some 70 cities and towns, and 30 other
strategic objectives simultaneously) turned the political tide of the
war against America and eventually led to the protest movement that
(in turn) led to the American defeat in Vietnam. From a military
perspective, it is important to note that the Tet Offensive was a
singularly unmitigated disaster both for Hanoi and for its Viet Cong
troops in South Vietnam. Not one of the objectives of the Viet Cong in
that Offensive was achieved. Yet, it proved to be a major turning
point in the war.

Being the first major "television war," Americans watched the carnage
in horror and concluded (incorrectly) that it was a military disaster
for America. One of America's most trusted newsmen, CBS's Walter
Cronkite, even appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a
backdrop. Donning a helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost. Eugene
McCarthy carried New Hampshire and Bobbie Kennedy stepped forward to
challenge the policies of an already distraught President. Six weeks
later, Lyndon Johnson, in the midst of national protest, announced
that he would not seek re-election. His ratings had plummeted to 30
percent after Tet. Approval of his handling of the war had dropped to
20 percent. He had concluded that the war was unwinnable.

In the end, American support for the Vietnam War faded. Giap admitted
in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar
demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of
negotiating what he called a "conditional surrender," Giap said they
would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the
possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.



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,

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.


Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Nick Hull wrote:
In article ,
Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:40:54 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


Back in 1968, I knew something had gone terribly wrong in Vietnam, even
before there was anything on the news about the Tet offensive, because we
lived a dozen blocks from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. All of
a sudden, one morning, CH-47 helicopters started buzzing over our house
every 15 minutes all day. We usually had 3 flights a week back then.
News seems a lot harder to come by, now!

Jon

You mean the Tet Offensive that the Leftist Media portrayed as a
terrible defeat for the US, when in actuality..it spelled the
decimation of the Viet Cong, and would have forced the North to terms,
if it wasnt for the Media giving them much needed support?


That would not have forced the North to terms, the loss of people was of
no concern to them. Insurgents are willing to take losses forever and
will fight another hundred years to get unconditional victory.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"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.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
'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.

Who are "you guys"? Wasn't it the Democrats who got us into Vietnam?
And do the anti-war folks take any credit for the Millions of people
killed in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left?

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
'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.

Who are "you guys"? Wasn't it the Democrats who got us into Vietnam?

Yeah, Democrats were in power at the time, but I don't recall conservatives
objecting to the war. Do you remember any?

And it's ironic that it's the conservatives today who blame the liberals for
losing the war. The conservatives are ****ed off we lost, but they usually
turn silent when someone asks what it was they thought they would have won.

And do the anti-war folks take any credit for the Millions of people
killed in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left?

About the same as the credit the conservatives take for the 3-1/2 million
who got killed because we were there.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:30:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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.

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

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,

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:30:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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

"Barney-Killer" wrote :

[snip ]
No, you just out-sourced it to us Canadians, where, I might add, for
what it is worth, one of our snipers beat Carlos Hathcock's record...
:=)

Which record: Total kills? or the head shot through his opponent's rifle
scope?

-jc-

Thousands of deaths at The World Trade Center on 9/11

Many more than that dead and wounded in Iraq.

And what ever happend to afghanistan? We've given
up there.

Jim

????????????

You dont pay much attention to any news source besides the Anti-Bush,
Anti-Republican big media, do you?

Gunner

If that's true then that would make him just like you except the only news
source you pay attention to is the Pro-Bush, Pro-Republican media. I doubt
that is true in his case but in yours I'm sure it is.

Hawke

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

And what ever happend to afghanistan?
????????????

Apparently the country is one huge private
heroin factory. Granted there hasn't been
much about it in the news but the man we
installed there can't even leave his own
house.

Jim

Why, that sounds like we've made great strides there, doesn't it?

Hawke

"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

"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

gfulton wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

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.

That's kind of the way I remember it too. The North Vietnamese could
never defeat the US military on the battle field but they could defeat
us at home in our own public opinion. (with a little help from their
friends in the US media) Of course, in 1968 I wasn't too concerned
about politics because the Marine Corps was taking all my time.
GW

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

That's kind of the way I remember it too. The North Vietnamese could
never defeat the US military on the battle field but they could defeat
us at home in our own public opinion. (with a little help from their
friends in the US media) Of course, in 1968 I wasn't too concerned
about politics because the Marine Corps was taking all my time.
GW

Gee, Gus, even though it was a Democrat war, it sounds like you really kind
of favored it, huh?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

That's kind of the way I remember it too. The North Vietnamese could
never defeat the US military on the battle field but they could defeat
us at home in our own public opinion. (with a little help from their
friends in the US media) Of course, in 1968 I wasn't too concerned
about politics because the Marine Corps was taking all my time.
GW

Gee, Gus, even though it was a Democrat war, it sounds like you really kind
of favored it, huh?

Well you know, Democrats in the 60's were not all that different from
Republicans today. At that time I considered myself somewhat of a Scoop
Jackson type Democrat. I don't think that I have changed all that much
but I sure do think that the Democrats of today have swung way off to
the left.

Hey, how about those Seahawks!

GW

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:08:53 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
roups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
'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.

Who are "you guys"? Wasn't it the Democrats who got us into Vietnam?

Yeah, Democrats were in power at the time, but I don't recall conservatives
objecting to the war. Do you remember any?

actually..yes .

And it's ironic that it's the conservatives today who blame the liberals for
losing the war. The conservatives are ****ed off we lost, but they usually
turn silent when someone asks what it was they thought they would have won.

Ask me.

And do the anti-war folks take any credit for the Millions of people
killed in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left?

About the same as the credit the conservatives take for the 3-1/2 million
who got killed because we were there.

?????


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,

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:50:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:30:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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.

Actually Ed..it fails in some many levels..because its spun dreck.

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?

I agreed with the war..just not how the Democrats fought it. They do
tend to **** up wars badly and require Republicans to get them out of
it. Unfortunately...the Democrats got themselves largely out of it and
millions died after we left. Dems dont believe in Peace with Honor.
They believe in Cut and Run, and be damned to those left behind.

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,

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,

In article , Gunner says...

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.

Gunner you unfortunately need to get the history behind you.

We lost the war in vietnam, and oddly enough won the peace there.
They want US investment in their economy the last time I looked.

Their brand of communism failed utterly, and our economics won.

But it did not have anything to do with the war.

You need to get the jane fonda thing behind you and look to the
future. Also the teapot dome scandal.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:50:39 GMT, "John Chase"
wrote:

"Barney-Killer" wrote :

[snip ]
No, you just out-sourced it to us Canadians, where, I might add, for
what it is worth, one of our snipers beat Carlos Hathcock's record...
:=)

Which record: Total kills? or the head shot through his opponent's rifle
scope?

-jc-

Distance. The Canadians wacked a dude at 2,430 metres
Hathcocks record was 2,250 meters

Both used .50 BMG rounds, though Hathcocks was single shot via a
fairly worn MaDuce..and the Canadians used a McMillian target rifle.

a ballistics tidbit of interest...

"the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 44.5 m
(146 ft)" at that range.

More than enough time to squeeze off, fart, and light up a smoke
before the target got his 72 virgins.

Pretty good shooting for Canadians..though they Were from the Prarie
Provences and from what Ive heard..varmint shooters. Which works for
me.

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,

snip
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.
=========================
In my not so humble opinion, the war in Vietnam was lost (or at
least not winnable) before the first American boots (and blood)
ever hit the dirt over there.

With huge benefit of historical hindsight, the basic dynamics of
the situation were never understood by any but a few people in
the west (which did not include any of the real-politik policy
makers), policy was driven by consensus [read groupthink], and
the "rules of engagement" were dictated by people that had never
heard a "shot fired in anger." Despite 10,000 years of
experience in making war, a policy of "graduated and proportional
response" was followed. The war was based on the "Tonkin
incident," which at best was a "panic response" and at worst, a
cynical creation.

Uncle George

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:08:53 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
roups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
'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.

Who are "you guys"? Wasn't it the Democrats who got us into Vietnam?

Yeah, Democrats were in power at the time, but I don't recall
conservatives
objecting to the war. Do you remember any?

actually..yes .

And it's ironic that it's the conservatives today who blame the liberals
for
losing the war. The conservatives are ****ed off we lost, but they
usually
turn silent when someone asks what it was they thought they would have
won.

Ask me.

I have asked you, over a year ago. You were notably non-responsive the first
time.

So, what would we have won, had we won?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

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

Actually Ed..it fails in some many levels..because its spun dreck.

'Can't wait for the specifics. They're coming soon, I hope?


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?

I agreed with the war..just not how the Democrats fought it.

So, it wasn't the Democrats who got us into the war, it was practically
everyone in the country -- especially conservatives, as I recall.

A lot of those conservatives were southern Democrats, who are now
Republicans...same crowd, different flag.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , F. George McDuffee
says...

With huge benefit of historical hindsight, the basic dynamics of
the situation were never understood by any but a few people in
the west (which did not include any of the real-politik policy
makers), policy was driven by consensus [read groupthink], and
the "rules of engagement" were dictated by people that had never
heard a "shot fired in anger."

Sadly this is the same effect we are now experiencing in
iraq and afghanistan.

Basically those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
The only smart thing about the neocons is they've gotten
somebody else to fight because obviously they've never
fired a shot in anger.

Wolfowitz is now, what, a 'banker?'

The ultimate golden parachute.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sun, 15 Jan 2006
17:07:27 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

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.

The worse part is that there had been a culture process which dealt
with unwed mothers. Generally, the baby was raised by 'grandma & grandpa'
until either the child was 5, or the mother got pregnant a second time. At
which time, everybody said "It is time for you to settle down and get
married." [1]
Along came the great Society, and there was money for single unwed
mothers, and the cultural pressure to get married was eliminated. How can
your pressure someone to do something, if they can get money, food and
housing form somewhere else? We had soft hearted social workers with hard
heads, in those days, not soft hearted and soft headed ones as we do today.

tschus
pyotr

There is an old story of the Vermont town meeting, where one of the
citizens, having read the town report, takes note of the fact that the Town
had paid out $100 dollars for the delivery of Betsy Brown's baby. (I told
you,it was an old story.) "That is correct." And it says further that the
city did take in $150 in fines for Bobby Jones for having gotten her into
the family way without marrying here. "A-yup, that is correct." Seems the
town made a profit on the deal, and "I was a wondering if it might not be
time to breed her again?"


--
pyotr filipivich
Old farts these days - no like when I was a boy. We used to
have us Real Geezers in those days. Now, they'll let anybody
with a little gray hair be an old fart.

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sun, 15 Jan 2006
17:46:38 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:50:39 GMT, "John Chase"
wrote:

"Barney-Killer" wrote :

[snip ]
No, you just out-sourced it to us Canadians, where, I might add, for
what it is worth, one of our snipers beat Carlos Hathcock's record...
:=)

Which record: Total kills? or the head shot through his opponent's rifle
scope?

-jc-

Distance. The Canadians wacked a dude at 2,430 metres
Hathcocks record was 2,250 meters

Both used .50 BMG rounds, though Hathcocks was single shot via a
fairly worn MaDuce..and the Canadians used a McMillian target rifle.

a ballistics tidbit of interest...

"the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 44.5 m
(146 ft)" at that range.

More than enough time to squeeze off, fart, and light up a smoke
before the target got his 72 virgins.

Pretty good shooting for Canadians..though they Were from the Prarie
Provences and from what Ive heard..varmint shooters. Which works for
me.

"Well, gawlee, look at all that target area!"
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:07:14 GMT, the renowned pyotr filipivich
wrote:


"Well, gawlee, look at all that target area!"

Them SOBs just took out the top Canadian diplomat leading the
reconstruction in the Khandahar area, and seriously wounded some
soldiers with a big car bomb (probably techniques transplanted from
Iraq).

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060115/w011566.html

Then-ambassador Christopher Alexander was pretty optimistic about the
effort when I heard him back in mid-2004, but apparently the country
has enough weapons (heavy and light) for many months of high-intensity
conflict and a lifetime of low-intensity conflict. There isn't much
opportunity for an economy other than drug production (dried fruits is
one possibility). But Canada has been pouring hundreds of millions of
dollars directly into the Afghan economy directly paying salaries of
many of the Kabul city employees, using the RCMP to train police and
so on. I get the feeling that since many of the remaining US troops
are now withdrawing by the many thousands, things are about to get a
bit more sticky, as the bad guys think they have us on the run.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:44:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:




And damned well done too. Not bad for a country that is disarming
itself at a fevered pace.



Hah! So the Liberals think.. BSEG


BK

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:57:12 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:07:14 GMT, the renowned pyotr filipivich
wrote:


"Well, gawlee, look at all that target area!"

Them SOBs just took out the top Canadian diplomat leading the
reconstruction in the Khandahar area, and seriously wounded some
soldiers with a big car bomb (probably techniques transplanted from
Iraq).

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060115/w011566.html

Then-ambassador Christopher Alexander was pretty optimistic about the
effort when I heard him back in mid-2004, but apparently the country
has enough weapons (heavy and light) for many months of high-intensity
conflict and a lifetime of low-intensity conflict. There isn't much
opportunity for an economy other than drug production (dried fruits is
one possibility). But Canada has been pouring hundreds of millions of
dollars directly into the Afghan economy directly paying salaries of
many of the Kabul city employees, using the RCMP to train police and
so on. I get the feeling that since many of the remaining US troops
are now withdrawing by the many thousands, things are about to get a
bit more sticky, as the bad guys think they have us on the run.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany



LOL, evidently they still don't know not to **** with the Canadian
soldier.
We not only do "Hearts and Minds", we also seriously ruin the day of
anyone who pushes us too hard.
Now if only the bleeding heart liberals and the brain-dead UN would
let us have our way a bit more...


BK

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:26:30 -0600, the renowned Barney-Killer
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:44:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:




And damned well done too. Not bad for a country that is disarming
itself at a fevered pace.



Hah! So the Liberals think.. BSEG


BK

They (the big-L ones) are going to have some time on their hands to
think about it in a week or so, and half the bigwigs in their own
party don't give a hoot.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 15 Jan 2006 09:28:10 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

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.

Gunner you unfortunately need to get the history behind you.

Those who ignore history..are doomed to repeat it.

We lost the war in vietnam, and oddly enough won the peace there.
They want US investment in their economy the last time I looked.

We won the peace there? Ever talk to any of the Viets that were there
after 1973 when we cut and ran? I strongly suggest you buy a 6 pack
of Heinicin beer, a pack of 555 cigarettes and go visit a Viet machine
shop at quitting time, and ask them about Winning the Peace.
I should note also..that only the very brave or wealthy will start
business's in Vietnam today..the local party members tend to let the
business start making a profit..then steal it.

Their brand of communism failed utterly, and our economics won.

Sort of..but it took 30 yrs and about 2 million lives after 1973 to do
it.

But it did not have anything to do with the war.

You need to get the jane fonda thing behind you and look to the
future. Also the teapot dome scandal.

Jim

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And of course
Jim..we should have simply looked past Timmy McVeigh and let him run
free, correct? Afterall..it was old news.

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,

In article ,
Gunner wrote:


I should note also..that only the very brave or wealthy will start
business's in Vietnam today..the local party members tend to let the
business start making a profit..then steal it.

Is China any different?

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

That's kind of the way I remember it too. The North Vietnamese could
never defeat the US military on the battle field but they could defeat
us at home in our own public opinion. (with a little help from their
friends in the US media) Of course, in 1968 I wasn't too concerned
about politics because the Marine Corps was taking all my time.
GW

Gee, Gus, even though it was a Democrat war, it sounds like you really
kind
of favored it, huh?

Well you know, Democrats in the 60's were not all that different from
Republicans today.

There are people here who will gag and vomit over that statement, Gus. g

At that time I considered myself somewhat of a Scoop
Jackson type Democrat. I don't think that I have changed all that much
but I sure do think that the Democrats of today have swung way off to
the left.

The main thing that happened was Nixon's "Southern Strategy." He peeled off
the southern conservatives from the Democrats and converted them into
Republicans, by using code phrases and selective silences to give the
impression that he was a racist, just like them. It worked.

With the Dems no longer trying to bridge the gap and keep the old
northern/southern Democratic coalition together, they swung left. A lot of
people, probably like yourself, switched parties somewhere along the line --
not over race, but because of the excesses of '60s/'70s liberalism. In fact,
I've been a registered Republican for a very long time, myself, after having
been a Democrat when I was young.


Hey, how about those Seahawks!

I didn't watch any football this weekend, but it sounds like the Seahawks
ground them down on Saturday, eh? Keep the faith. I'm just waiting for
baseball season. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:



The main thing that happened was Nixon's "Southern Strategy." He peeled off
the southern conservatives from the Democrats and converted them into
Republicans, by using code phrases and selective silences to give the
impression that he was a racist, just like them. It worked.



Ed Huntress

The conversion of the South to Republicans started long before Nixon.
You are probably too young to remember the Dixiecrats, but that was a
revolt of the South from the Big CIty Democratic party. It was obvious
to most people that the Democrats were no longer the party of States
Rights, Right to Work, etc. Sure the Democrats tried to heal the
schism, but things never got back owning the Solid South.


Dan

wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:



The main thing that happened was Nixon's "Southern Strategy." He peeled
off
the southern conservatives from the Democrats and converted them into
Republicans, by using code phrases and selective silences to give the
impression that he was a racist, just like them. It worked.



Ed Huntress

The conversion of the South to Republicans started long before Nixon.
You are probably too young to remember the Dixiecrats, but that was a
revolt of the South from the Big CIty Democratic party. It was obvious
to most people that the Democrats were no longer the party of States
Rights, Right to Work, etc. Sure the Democrats tried to heal the
schism, but things never got back owning the Solid South.

But the Dixiecrats failed. Both Kennedy and LBJ were able to pull the two
wings of the Democratic party together to win the presidency, years after
the Dixiecrats.

Nixon pulled it off. That's when the Republicans turned strongly right, and
the Dems turned left.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:37:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

With the Dems no longer trying to bridge the gap and keep the old
northern/southern Democratic coalition together, they swung left. A lot of
people, probably like yourself, switched parties somewhere along the line --
not over race, but because of the excesses of '60s/'70s liberalism. In fact,
I've been a registered Republican for a very long time, myself, after having
been a Democrat when I was young.


So with advancing age..you decided to return to your roots?

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,

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:37:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

With the Dems no longer trying to bridge the gap and keep the old
northern/southern Democratic coalition together, they swung left. A lot
of
people, probably like yourself, switched parties somewhere along the
line --
not over race, but because of the excesses of '60s/'70s liberalism. In
fact,
I've been a registered Republican for a very long time, myself, after
having
been a Democrat when I was young.


So with advancing age..you decided to return to your roots?

No, I just came too late. The Republicans were just starting to be overrun
by authoritarian racists, right-wing nutbags, holy rollers, and warmongering
neocons.

However, I try to keep hope alive. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress