Flea Party

[PLC1]

The commies begged Nixon to stop the bombing and mining in 1973. That is what resulted in the Paris agreement ending the war in 1973. All we needed to do was continue bombing and mining and the commies would have stopped their aggression in 1975...but the Dems said sorry South Vietnam you are F**KED!.

Firstly, the CIC was not a Democrat at that time.

Secondly, had the government decided to pull out troops in '73 and simply continue bombing, it would have taken most of the wind out of the sails of the protesters. We could have ended the draft and spun the situation that we were winning over the Godless Commies, and the country would at least have been mollified.

And your statement '...military dictatorship being propped up by a foreign power is no match for a domestic movement.' Is terribly misguided and wrong.

You're actually saying that the government of South Vietnam was not a military dictatorship propped up by the USA? Just what sort of government do you think it was?

You need to read up on Korea too.

Really? I thought my characterization of it as half under an Orwellian dictatorship, the other half free was pretty accurate. What sort of situation do you see there?

Domestic movement...WTH is that? You seem to think the Vietnamese wanted to be commies. NO ONE WANTS TO BE COMMIES...except of course a few western fools. Ever heard of the Boat People...they sure did not want to be commies. The NVA and VC were ruthless and if you did not do as they told you, they killed you. Just like all other commie movements. Now don't you think people would do their bidding to stay alive?

No government is strong enough to stand up to the world's strongest military for 19 years unless the people are firmly behind that government.

 

[Openmind]

The commies begged Nixon to stop the bombing and mining in 1973. That is what resulted in the Paris agreement ending the war in 1973. All we needed to do was continue bombing and mining and the commies would have stopped their aggression in 1975...but the Dems said sorry South Vietnam you are F**KED!.

And your statement '...military dictatorship being propped up by a foreign power is no match for a domestic movement.' Is terribly misguided and wrong. You need to read up on Korea too. Domestic movement...WTH is that? You seem to think the Vietnamese wanted to be commies. NO ONE WANTS TO BE COMMIES...except of course a few western fools. Ever heard of the Boat People...they sure did not want to be commies. The NVA and VC were ruthless and if you did not do as they told you, they killed you. Just like all other commie movements. Now don't you think people would do their bidding to stay alive?

You think that "victorious armies" EVACUATE a city just before that city falls in the ends of their enemies?

You have a really weird interpretation of history!

Fall of Saigon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_SaigonCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jump to American administration plans for final evacuation‎: The Pentagon sought to evacuate as fast ... The U.S Ambassador to South Vietnam

 

[dogtowner]

You think that "victorious armies" EVACUATE a city just before that city falls in the ends of their enemies?

You have a really weird interpretation of history!

lets lay this out...

Paris Peace Accords beg 1968 end 1973

The Paris Peace Accords of 1973 intended to establish peace in Vietnam and an end to the Vietnam War, ended direct U.S. military involvement, and temporarily stopped the fighting between North and South Vietnam. The governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) that represented indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries, signed the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam on January 27, 1973.


The negotiations that led to the accord began in 1968 after various lengthy delays. As a result of the accord, the International Control Commission (ICC) was replaced by International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS) to carry out the agreement. The main negotiators of the agreement were United States National Security Advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger and Vietnamese politburo member Lê Ðức Thọ; the two men were awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts, although Lê Ðức Thọ refused to accept it.

Seems like the world saw this as the end of the war.

Fall of Saigon 1975

The Fall of Saigon was the capture of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, by the People's Army of Vietnam and the National Liberation Front on April 30, 1975. The event marked the end of the Vietnam War and the start of a transition period leading to the formal reunification of Vietnam into a communist state.


North Vietnamese forces under the command of the Senior General Văn Tiến Dũng began their final attack on Saigon, which was commanded by General Nguyen Van Toan on April 29, with a heavy artillery bombardment. This bombardment at the Tân Sơn Nhứt Airport killed the last two American servicemen that died in Vietnam, Charles McMahon and Darwin Judge.[1]. By the afternoon of the next day, North Vietnamese troops had occupied the important points within the city and raised their flag over the South Vietnamese presidential palace. South Vietnam capitulated shortly after.

Hmmm sounds like a Vietnamese guy to me. So what gives ?

again from the first source

On 15 January 1973, Nixon announced a suspension of offensive actions against North Vietnam. Kissinger and Tho met again on 23 January and signed off on a treaty that was basically identical to the draft of three months earlier. The agreement was signed by the leaders of the official delegations on 27 January at the Majestic Hotel in Paris./quote]


sounds good but...

The Paris Peace Accords had little practical effect on the conflict, and were routinely flouted by the North Vietnamese and even more so by the Saigon government, which enlarged the area under its control in 1973. North Vietnamese military forces gradually moved through the southern provinces and two years later were in position to capture Saigon.

oooh, neither combatant played fair after the US had gotten the two to call it quits.

Nixon had secretly promised Thieu that he would use airpower to support the Saigon government should it be necessary. During his confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was sharply criticized by some Senators after he stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam. However, Nixon was driven from office due to the Watergate scandal in 1974 and when the North Vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men."[12]
​

and then the feces hit th4e rotary oscillator two years later after we were effectively out. a sorry end to LBJ's desire to protect Lady Bird's family rubber plantations.

Looks like the gipper has a valid point.

 

[Gipper]

lets lay this out...

Paris Peace Accords beg 1968 end 1973



Seems like the world saw this as the end of the war.

Fall of Saigon 1975



Hmmm sounds like a Vietnamese guy to me. So what gives ?

again from the first source

On 15 January 1973, Nixon announced a suspension of offensive actions against North Vietnam. Kissinger and Tho met again on 23 January and signed off on a treaty that was basically identical to the draft of three months earlier. The agreement was signed by the leaders of the official delegations on 27 January at the Majestic Hotel in Paris./quote]


sounds good but...






oooh, neither combatant played fair after the US had gotten the two to call it quits.





and then the feces hit th4e rotary oscillator two years later after we were effectively out. a sorry end to LBJ's desire to protect Lady Bird's family rubber plantations.

Looks like the gipper has a valid point.

Thanks dogtowner and well done.

Some people have been so effectively brainwashed that they are incapable of accepting the truth. Arguing with them is often a complete waste of time. I gave it my best shot. Now its your turn.

 

[PLC1]

Looks like the gipper has a valid point.

That we won the war, or that it was the Democrats' fault that we didn't?

 

[Openmind]

lets lay this out...

Paris Peace Accords beg 1968 end 1973



Seems like the world saw this as the end of the war.

Fall of Saigon 1975



Hmmm sounds like a Vietnamese guy to me. So what gives ?

again from the first source



Thanks dogtowner and well done.

Some people have been so effectively brainwashed that they are incapable of accepting the truth. Arguing with them is often a complete waste of time. I gave it my best shot. Now its your turn.

So. . .for you, the US entering in an accord with North Vietnam to have a quick way out of a war they couldn't win is "a victory?"

And the fact that our withdrawal from Vietnam, (which should have come much earlier in my opinion) with our tail between our legs is a "victory?"

And the fact that, because we withdrew and abandonned South Vietnam to the North Vietnamese, they got massacred and eventually Ho Chi Minh got "his vision realized to unify North and South Vietnam under ONE Communist regime" is . . .A victory for the US?

The fact that it put an end to the huge number of our soldiers who died and were wounded in this war is (in my opinion) a victory for our people. . .it certainly is by no means a "political" or "military" victory.

In fact, it is kind of shameful the way we left South Vietnam.

Vietnam War: End of the Conflict - Military History militaryhistory.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/VietnamEnd.htm

Working for Peace
In October 1972, Nixon’s National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, concluded a secret peace agreement with North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho. After reviewing the agreement, President Thieu demanded major alterations to the document. In response, the North Vietnamese published the details of the agreement and stalled the negotiations. Feeling that Hanoi had attempted to embarrass him and to force them back the table, Nixon ordered the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong in late December 1972 (Operation Linebacker II). On January 15, 1973, after pressuring South Vietnam to accept the peace deal, Nixon announced the end of offensive operations against North Vietnam.

Paris Peace Accords
The Paris Peace Accords ending the conflict were signed January 27, 1973, and were followed by the withdrawal of the remaining American troops. The terms of the accords called for a complete ceasefire in South Vietnam, allowed North Vietnamese forces to retain the territory they had captured, released US prisoners of war, and called for both sides to find a political solution to the conflict. As an enticement to Thieu, Nixon offered US airpower to enforce the peace terms.

Standing Alone, South Vietnam Falls
With US forces gone from the country, South Vietnam stood alone. The situation worsened in December 1974, when Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, cutting off all military aid. This act removed the threat of air strikes should North Vietnam break the terms of the accords. Shortly after the act’s passage, North Vietnam began a limited offensive in Phuoc Long Province to test Saigon’s resolve. The province fell quickly and Hanoi pressed the attack. Surprised by the ease of their advance, against largely incompetent ARVN forces, the North Vietnamese stormed through the south, finally capturing Saigon. South Vietnam surrendered on April 30, 1975, following the fall of its capital. After thirty years of conflict, Ho Chi Minh’s vision of a united, communist Vietnam had been realized.

By the way, it seems that ALL your GOP presidential candidate would also agree that WE FAILED in Vietnam. . .based on their assertion that, Obama's announcement of bringing all the troops back home from Iraq is a "huge failure!"

And. . .that withdrawal was planned years ago!

Despite their inability to agree on the economy or much else, Republican presidential candidates spoke with one voice in reaction to President Obama’s announcement of a full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq this year.
They were against it

It was an “astonishing failure” that risked all the gains made “through the blood and sacrifice” of thousands of Americans, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he was “deeply concerned” that Obama had put “political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) cited it as another example of the president’s foreign policy weakness, and Jon Huntsman, Obama’s former ambassador to China, called it a “mistake.”

Herman Cain let stand his assessment of last weekend, in which he announced that withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan were “a dumb thing to do.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/g...

 

[dogtowner]

So. . .for you, the US entering in an accord with North Vietnam to have a quick way out of a war they couldn't win is "a victory?"

And the fact that our withdrawal from Vietnam, (which should have come much earlier in my opinion) with our tail between our legs is a "victory?"

And the fact that, because we withdrew and abandonned South Vietnam to the North Vietnamese, they got massacred and eventually Ho Chi Minh got "his vision realized to unify North and South Vietnam under ONE Communist regime" is . . .A victory for the US?

The fact that it put an end to the huge number of our soldiers who died and were wounded in this war is (in my opinion) a victory for our people. . .it certainly is by no means a "political" or "military" victory.

In fact, it is kind of shameful the way we left South Vietnam.



By the way, it seems that ALL your GOP presidential candidate would also agree that WE FAILED in Vietnam. . .based on their assertion that, Obama's announcement of bringing all the troops back home from Iraq is a "huge failure!"

And. . .that withdrawal was planned years ago!

the peace was primarily between the divided Vietnamese states, obviously we interfered due Congressional approved agreement be that right or wrong.

that both sides acted in poor faith is beyond our control sans Crongressional will that simply was not there.

an ugly situation no matter how you slice it.

Obama is acting to attempt to force an agreement when he sought to use diplomacy not intimidation in foreign affairs. by his standard its a failure.

 

[Openmind]

the peace was primarily between the divided Vietnamese states, obviously we interfered due Congressional approved agreement be that right or wrong.

that both sides acted in poor faith is beyond our control sans Crongressional will that simply was not there.

an ugly situation no matter how you slice it.

Obama is acting to attempt to force an agreement when he sought to use diplomacy not intimidation in foreign affairs. by his standard its a failure.

You are of such bad faith!

When Nixon forces an agreement on South Vietnam after over 100,000 American death, and over 1 million Vietnamese death, then "get out of there as fast as he can with his tail betwen his legs" . ..that is a "VICTORY for the US."

But when Obama manages to get along with NATO (in Lybia) AND with IRAQ to stop the killing, and to bring our troops home, so that we stop the bleeding both of our money AND of our soldiers' blood. . .that is a failure?

Yes dear. . . I'm sure the sky is purple in your lala land!

By the way, did you hear the latest? PERRY made the brilliant comment that, "by announcing the withdrawal of out troops from Iraq, Obama is ENDANGERING our troops!"

Now. . . wouldn't any reasonable mind see that, by leaving our troops in harms way, we would be endangering our troops even further? And that by leaving our troops in a country that doesn't want us there (never did want us there in the first place) WITHOUT immunity from their laws would endanger our troops even further?

I'm sure you'll come up with a really nice spin for that one!

 

[dogtowner]

You are of such bad faith!

When Nixon forces an agreement on South Vietnam after over 100,000 American death, and over 1 million Vietnamese death, then "get out of there as fast as he can with his tail betwen his legs" . ..that is a "VICTORY for the US."

But when Obama manages to get along with NATO (in Lybia) AND with IRAQ to stop the killing, and to bring our troops home, so that we stop the bleeding both of our money AND of our soldiers' blood. . .that is a failure?

Yes dear. . . I'm sure the sky is purple in your lala land!

By the way, did you hear the latest? PERRY made the brilliant comment that, "by announcing the withdrawal of out troops from Iraq, Obama is ENDANGERING our troops!"

Now. . . wouldn't any reasonable mind see that, by leaving our troops in harms way, we would be endangering our troops even further? And that by leaving our troops in a country that doesn't want us there (never did want us there in the first place) WITHOUT immunity from their laws would endanger our troops even further?

I'm sure you'll come up with a really nice spin for that one!

58,212 American deaths. Perhaps you were rounding.

The goal was not to get out, the goal was peace which we got.

Its interesting you bring up Perry's comment when discussing Vietnam as that clearly demonstrated the hazards of retrieving troops especially when the numbers are few.

 

[Openmind]

58,212 American deaths. Perhaps you were rounding.

The goal was not to get out, the goal was peace which we got.

Its interesting you bring up Perry's comment when discussing Vietnam as that clearly demonstrated the hazards of retrieving troops especially when the numbers are few.

You are correct the number of US DEATH in COMBAT was as you state. Here are the other numbers:

Vietnam War 1955–1975: 47,424 (death in combat) 10,785 (other death) 58,209 (total death) 153,303 (wounded) 211,454 (total casualties death and wounded) 2,489 (still missing. . . presumed death?)

The goal was certainly not "peace," or if it was. . .that would have been an even BIGGER failure, as the peace never materialized until North Vietnam WON completely. . .and the Americans even backed out of their promise to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnam air strikes! (see the quote I previously posted).

Don't quite understand your last comment! Perry was not talking about Obama endangering IRAQUI military by bringing our troops home, but was talking about him endangering OUR military by bringing them home!

 

[dogtowner]

The goal was certainly not "peace,"

oh, ok

Don't quite understand your last comment! Perry was not talking about Obama endangering IRAQUI military by bringing our troops home, but was talking about him endangering OUR military by bringing them home!

by stating a date its easy to calculate backwards from that to know the rate of withdraw. as numbers and capabilities diminish it makes it easy to determine when an enemy is too weak to defend itself. that is to say, when they are put in danger.

its never a good idea to advertise your intentions.

 

[steveox]

Again the 99% people pay these taxes

Tax our land,
Tax our beds
Tax our work,
Tax our pay,
Tax our cows,
Tax our goats,
Tax ourpants,
Tax our coats.
Tax our ties,
Tax our shirts,
Tax our tobacco products,
Tax our cokes,
Tax our beers,
Tax our cars,
Tax our gas,


Then when we die
Tax our coffins,
Tax our graves,
Tax the sod in
Which were laid.

When were gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

THE 1% dont pay these taxes.

 

[steveox]

The 99% of the people dont propose a federal budget. The President does hes the 1%.

The 99% of the people don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The 1% Members of Congress does.

The 99% of the people don’t write the tax code, The 1% Members of Congress does.

The 99% of the people don’t set fiscal policy, the 1% members of Congress does.

The 99% of the people don’t control monetary policy, the 1% people on Federal Reserve Bank does

 

[Openmind]

oh, ok



by stating a date its easy to calculate backwards from that to know the rate of withdraw. as numbers and capabilities diminish it makes it easy to determine when an enemy is too weak to defend itself. that is to say, when they are put in danger.

its never a good idea to advertise your intentions.

Give me a break!!! Again, you are grasping at straws to try to explain an idiotic statement by a loser in the GOP candidate pool!

ALL our "enemies" want is for us to get out of there. . .they know full well that, if they staged ANY attacks, this would give us (at least the GOP) a perfect excuse not to continue the withdrawal!

Could you use YOUR mind instead of party line propaganda, just for once?

 

[dogtowner]

Give me a break!!! Again, you are grasping at straws to try to explain an idiotic statement by a loser in the GOP candidate pool!

ALL our "enemies" want is for us to get out of there. . .they know full well that, if they staged ANY attacks, this would give us (at least the GOP) a perfect excuse not to continue the withdrawal!

Could you use YOUR mind instead of party line propaganda, just for once?

I'm presenting documented facts showing that the war was won.

If you were capable of it you could admit that what actually happened is that we lost the peace. I would agree with that as thatch what factually happened. This happens a lot by the way.