Celebrating Shame

[Flanders]

Those filthy traitors who brought defeat to their own country still brag about it. Twelve days from today they will celebrate their shameful “victory”:

Those of us old enough to recall the date April 30, 1975, will forever remember those final newscasts of Saigon being overwhelmed by invading North Vietnamese infantry and armor.​

Note that one traitor who was a mouthpiece for the enemy is now secretary of state. Another is a former president who may return to the White House with his wife.

Few will argue that the generation of folks who engineered America’s victory in World War II – the well-described Greatest Generation – did a superb job. What is difficult to fathom is that the “Vietnam Generation” has been defined not by those men who quietly and honorably answered their nation’s call to serve, but much more by those men and women who took an active part in not serving and who, in quite a number of cases, were, without consequence, actually mouthpieces for our enemies.​

Parenthetically, one of the foulest Vietnam era traitors found a new cause to justify her own Communist beliefs;

Jane Fonda at Tribeca: 'Hillary Clinton will be president'
Nigel M Smith
Friday 15 April 2016 13.16 EDT

Jane Fonda at Tribeca: 'Hillary Clinton will be president'​

Cut through image and the fawning that movie stars demand from their fans, and you will find the hate-filled bitter old lady:

I, a Socialist, think we should strive toward a Socialist society, all the way to Communism. Jane Fonda

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." Jane Fonda (speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)

Jane Fonda - Biography - IMDb​

Millions pay attention to anything Jane Fonda says simply because it is reported by media; many more millions will listen to the same garbage-mouth industry that betrayed the country in Vietnam now deciding who the next president should be. Thanks to television, very few Americans understood Vietnam when it was happening. Thanks to television, fewer Americans today will take the trouble to find out what Vietnam was all about:

​

If you watched the video you heard Richard Botkin lay betrayal on the US Congress, but more than members of Congress the deadliest traitors did their best work on television in the person of Walter Cronkite. “Misreported” is the understatement of all time:

Assessing the situation years later, it was a long-retired and partially publicly restored Richard Nixon who would give us, arguably, the greatest two-line observation on our experience in Vietnam when he said:

“No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War.

“It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now.”​

Finally, history is nothing more than rehash. Tragically for future generations, it was Vietnam more than the Soviet Union, more than Communist China, that moved Communism into the realm of accepted forms of government instead of asking the “What ifs?” had American traitors not succeeded in Vietnam.

It is certainly futile to rehash the historical “What ifs?” – and yet it is crucial that people grasp the real history of the Vietnam War. Unless and until one learns the truth, the lies that have stood for so long do not matter. It did not need to end as it did, and it did not end as it did on the count of RVN corruption or lack of fighting spirit. These myths serve largely to assuage and expiate the guilt of those who needed a reason to feel good about not serving even if they were not actively opposed to the war.​

Vietnam vets deserve a proper place in history
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 04/17/2016 @ 3:49 pm

Vietnam vets deserve a proper place in history​

 

[gipper]

It was a dumb war that never should have happened, but apparently nothing was learned from allowing the elites to take us into war, based on lies.

Of course, this does not mean Hanoi Jane and John Fing Kerry are not traitors.

Our troops won the war and we left, after forcing the North to sign a peace treaty. Of course, the North had no intention of honoring the peace treaty. They invaded and won...and the Ds in Congress reneged on the agreement to assist the South, should hostilities begin again. Old sad story....

Had deep dark forces not murdered JFK, that war might not ever have happened.

 

[DarkFury]

Those filthy traitors who brought defeat to their own country still brag about it. Twelve days from today they will celebrate their shameful “victory”:

Those of us old enough to recall the date April 30, 1975, will forever remember those final newscasts of Saigon being overwhelmed by invading North Vietnamese infantry and armor.​

Note that one traitor who was a mouthpiece for the enemy is now secretary of state. Another is a former president who may return to the White House with his wife.

Few will argue that the generation of folks who engineered America’s victory in World War II – the well-described Greatest Generation – did a superb job. What is difficult to fathom is that the “Vietnam Generation” has been defined not by those men who quietly and honorably answered their nation’s call to serve, but much more by those men and women who took an active part in not serving and who, in quite a number of cases, were, without consequence, actually mouthpieces for our enemies.​

Parenthetically, one of the foulest Vietnam era traitors found a new cause to justify her own Communist beliefs;

Jane Fonda at Tribeca: 'Hillary Clinton will be president'
Nigel M Smith
Friday 15 April 2016 13.16 EDT

Jane Fonda at Tribeca: 'Hillary Clinton will be president'​

Cut through image and the fawning that movie stars demand from their fans, and you will find the hate-filled bitter old lady:

I, a Socialist, think we should strive toward a Socialist society, all the way to Communism. Jane Fonda

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." Jane Fonda (speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)

Jane Fonda - Biography - IMDb​

Millions pay attention to anything Jane Fonda says simply because it is reported by media; many more millions will listen to the same garbage-mouth industry that betrayed the country in Vietnam now deciding who the next president should be. Thanks to television, very few Americans understood Vietnam when it was happening. Thanks to television, fewer Americans today will take the trouble to find out what Vietnam was all about:

​

If you watched the video you heard Richard Botkin lay betrayal on the US Congress, but more than members of Congress the deadliest traitors did their best work on television in the person of Walter Cronkite. “Misreported” is the understatement of all time:

Assessing the situation years later, it was a long-retired and partially publicly restored Richard Nixon who would give us, arguably, the greatest two-line observation on our experience in Vietnam when he said:

“No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War.

“It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now.”​

Finally, history is nothing more than rehash. Tragically for future generations, it was Vietnam more than the Soviet Union, more than Communist China, that moved Communism into the realm of accepted forms of government instead of asking the “What ifs?” had American traitors not succeeded in Vietnam.

It is certainly futile to rehash the historical “What ifs?” – and yet it is crucial that people grasp the real history of the Vietnam War. Unless and until one learns the truth, the lies that have stood for so long do not matter. It did not need to end as it did, and it did not end as it did on the count of RVN corruption or lack of fighting spirit. These myths serve largely to assuage and expiate the guilt of those who needed a reason to feel good about not serving even if they were not actively opposed to the war.​

Vietnam vets deserve a proper place in history
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 04/17/2016 @ 3:49 pm

Vietnam vets deserve a proper place in history​

Oh I remember. Nixon promised South Vietnam the money to continue the fight and democrats withheld the funds leading to their fall.

 

[gtopa1]

It was a dumb war that never should have happened, but apparently nothing was learned from allowing the elites to take us into war, based on lies.

Of course, this does not mean Hanoi Jane and John Fing Kerry are not traitors.

Our troops won the war and we left, after forcing the North to sign a peace treaty. Of course, they had no intention of honoring the peace treaty. They invaded and won...and the Ds in Congress reneged on the agreement to assist the South, should hostilities begin again. Old sad story....

Had deep dark forces not murdered JFK, that war might not ever have happened.

The Nation of Vietnam was attacked by communists and in a typical Stalinist takeover the North fell. Predictably, there was a mass slaughter of the intelligentsia; anyone who might not conform to the Stalinist state. yep; those teachers and doctors were indeed tools of the Oppressors!!

And then the Nth attacked the South. The USA fought on the side of Freedom until some asshole Democrat Congressmen capitulated and the words "USA" became a term of mocking cowardice. The USA not only failed millions of its allies but unleashed a wave of weakness that exists every time a Democrat becomes President. Iran, Rwanda, and now Syria. Forgive me for thinking Democrats are debased cowards.

Greg

 

[DarkFury]

I needed to find a video. Even today liberals do NOT know what happen and are re-writing history.


Ain't THAT some sh#t?

 

[Kosh]

The far left is under the impression that the new winning is Losing!

 

[DarkFury]

The far left is under the impression that the new winning is Losing!

Fits with their America should be punished for being so great.

 

[Kosh]

The far left is under the impression that the new winning is Losing!

Fits with their America should be punished for being so great.

No they have the same goal as ISIS, to destroy America!

 

[DGS49]

Although most of America is too young to have any cogent understanding of the Vietnam War, and most of those who are old enough to remember it are too dim-witted to understand what transpired, the Vietnam War marked the beginning of the end of America's true greatness.

Nixon was right about the "anti-war demonstrators."

And now they run the country. They don't completely control the government yet, but in the news media, academe, and entertainment, communist subversives rule.

If Hillary wins the presidency, the only firewall left will be (hopefully) the Republican majority in the Senate.

 

[Flanders]

Of course, this does not mean Hanoi Jane and John Fing Kerry are not traitors.

To gipper: You got that Right.

Had deep dark forces not murdered JFK, that war might not ever have happened.

To gipper: You got that wrong. It was JFK’s war —— one of the few policies he got right. Note that Lefties would bite their tongues off before admitting one of their icons fought the spread of Communism in Vietnam.

Also note that Bush the Younger did the right thing in Iraq by taking the war to Muslim territory. Lefties never stop calling Iraq a disaster even though America won. The Chicago sewer rat turned it around by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The far left is under the impression that the new winning is Losing!

To Kosh: Conversely, losing is winning.

If Hillary wins the presidency, the only firewall left will be (hopefully) the Republican majority in the Senate.

To DGS49: A super majority is needed to shutdown Senates Democrats —— and the inevitable clique of RINO —— who will do whatever Hillary demands. The fear is that the Senate never stood up to the current piece of garbage in the White House; so there is every reason to believe they will not stand up to his successor.

 

[Moonglow]

Communism had not problem dying on it's own, there was really no need for Americans to die to prove that point..

 

[gipper]

Of course, this does not mean Hanoi Jane and John Fing Kerry are not traitors.

To gipper: You got that Right.

Had deep dark forces not murdered JFK, that war might not ever have happened.

To gipper: You got that wrong. It was JFK’s war —— one of the few policies he got right. Note that Lefties would bite their tongues off before admitting one of their icons fought the spread of Communism in Vietnam.

Also note that Bush the Younger did the right thing in Iraq by taking the war to Muslim territory. Lefties never stop calling Iraq a disaster even though America won. The Chicago sewer rat turned it around by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The far left is under the impression that the new winning is Losing!

To Kosh: Conversely, losing is winning.

If Hillary wins the presidency, the only firewall left will be (hopefully) the Republican majority in the Senate.

To DGS49: A super majority is needed to shutdown Senates Democrats —— and the inevitable clique of RINO —— who will do whatever Hillary demands. The fear is that the Senate never stood up to the current piece of garbage in the White House; so there is every reason to believe they will not stand up to his successor.

No.

JFK clearly intended to end the war in Vietnam, as soon as he was reelected in 1964. Dark forces within and without our government knew this and were not willing to allow it. As such, they had him murdered and LBJ their stooge, ascended to power and gave them their failed war.

America under the warmongers, must have a boogie man at all times. Communism was the boogie man then, now it is terrorism. It makes lots of wealthy people even more wealthy and ever more powerful.

 

[Flanders]

JFK clearly intended to end the war in Vietnam, as soon as he was reelected in 1964.

To gipper: You know my opinion because you read this thread:

One Opinion On The JFK Assassination

Even if I am wrong about the reason JFK was assassinated, he never said he intended to change his war policy had he been reelected. Indeed, he was committed to victory.

Martin:
That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.​

NOTE: Democrats controlled the Senate from 1955 through 1980. My point: Senate Majority Leader ——Democrat Mike Mansfield —— began torpedoing the fight against Communist expansion while JFK was still alive.

[Robert] Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin:
What if it did?

[Robert] Kennedy:
Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

[Robert} Kennedy:
No.

Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?​

 

[gipper]

JFK clearly intended to end the war in Vietnam, as soon as he was reelected in 1964.

To gipper: You know my opinion because you read this thread:

One Opinion On The JFK Assassination

Even if I am wrong about the reason JFK was assassinated, he never said he intended to change his war policy had he been reelected. Indeed, he was committed to victory.

Martin:
That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.​

NOTE: Democrats controlled the Senate from 1955 through 1980. My point: Senate Majority Leader ——Democrat Mike Mansfield —— began torpedoing the fight against Communist expansion while JFK was still alive.

[Robert] Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin:
What if it did?

[Robert] Kennedy:
Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

[Robert} Kennedy:
No.

Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?​

There is a great deal of misinformation about JFK's intentions for Vietnam, promoted by the State. I do not believe he intended to escalate or even continue our involvement there, when he was in secret talks with Khrushchev to end the Cold War and also in secret talks with Castro to improve relations with Cuba. Then add to this the assholes in the JOC who were constantly confronting and disrespecting him, over his willingness for peace. His speech at American University surely should help to influence your opinion, as he spoke extensively for peace and the warmongers of his day were quick to condemn him. He knew full well the CIA and Pentagon were liars thanks to their actions in the Bay of Pigs. It is most unlikely he bought into their BS about communism taking over the world and the so called domino theory.

IMO JFK was one of a very small number of recent presidents, who was not controlled by the oligarchy and the warmongers. Because of this, he was murdered.

 

[Picaro]

Communism had not problem dying on it's own, there was really no need for Americans to die to prove that point..

The Soviet Union didn't die on it's own, it was driven into bankruptcy and defeat by the U.S.'s Cold War and containment. The Viet Nam police action played a key role in the bankruptcy, and so did the Israeli wars in '67 and '73, and U.S. efforts in Africa as well.The Brezhnev Doctrine collapsed in 1973, as did the Soviet economy. The oil crisis and global food shortage finished off what was left; the USSR had to import both food and refined petroleum products from the U.S. and Europe, and never recovered. Their proxy states around the world fell right along with them.

It's oh so fashionable to claim the VN war was a 'defeat', but it was a major blow against the Soviets, not us. We left because we no longer needed to be there, and as already pointed out the South fell in '75 because of scumbags in Congress, and a UN who stood by and ignored the North Vietnamese and Chinese decades long violations of Laos and Cambodia while the U.S. mainly abided by the international laws, until Nixon, anyway. If the U.S. had abandoned SEATO and pulled out, it would have been open season on every SE Asian country by both the Soviets and Red China, which was not an option either.

Re JFK, he wasn't going to pull out of Nam, and in fact escalated U.S. presence there just weeks before his assassination. He couldn't leave after having approved the killing of Diem, which removed withdrawal as an option. The Camelot Myth is just that, a myth created by the Kennedy family's extensive PR machine.

 

[Moonglow]

Communism had not problem dying on it's own, there was really no need for Americans to die to prove that point..

The Soviet Union didn't die on it's own, it was driven into bankruptcy and defeat by the U.S.'s Cold War and containment. The Viet Nam police action played a key role in the bankruptcy, and so did the Israeli wars in '67 and '73, and U.S. efforts in Africa as well.The Brezhnev Doctrine collapsed in 1973, as did the Soviet economy. The oil crisis and global food shortage finished off what was left; the USSR had to import both food and refined petroleum products from the U.S. and Europe, and never recovered. Their proxy states around the world fell right along with them.

It's oh so fashionable to claim the VN war was a 'defeat', but it was a major blow against the Soviets, not us. We left because we no longer needed to be there, and as already pointed out the South fell in '75 because of scumbags in Congress, and a UN who stood by and ignored the North Vietnamese and Chinese decades long violations of Laos and Cambodia while the U.S. mainly abided by the international laws, until Nixon, anyway. If the U.S. had abandoned SEATO and pulled out, it would have been open season on every SE Asian country by both the Soviets and Red China, which was not an option either.

Re JFK, he wasn't going to pull out of Nam, and in fact escalated U.S. presence there just weeks before his assassination. He couldn't leave after having approved the killing of Diem, which removed withdrawal as an option. The Camelot Myth is just that, a myth created by the Kennedy family's extensive PR machine.

Perestroika managed to defeat the USSR..

 

[Picaro]

Communism had not problem dying on it's own, there was really no need for Americans to die to prove that point..

The Soviet Union didn't die on it's own, it was driven into bankruptcy and defeat by the U.S.'s Cold War and containment. The Viet Nam police action played a key role in the bankruptcy, and so did the Israeli wars in '67 and '73, and U.S. efforts in Africa as well.The Brezhnev Doctrine collapsed in 1973, as did the Soviet economy. The oil crisis and global food shortage finished off what was left; the USSR had to import both food and refined petroleum products from the U.S. and Europe, and never recovered. Their proxy states around the world fell right along with them.

It's oh so fashionable to claim the VN war was a 'defeat', but it was a major blow against the Soviets, not us. We left because we no longer needed to be there, and as already pointed out the South fell in '75 because of scumbags in Congress, and a UN who stood by and ignored the North Vietnamese and Chinese decades long violations of Laos and Cambodia while the U.S. mainly abided by the international laws, until Nixon, anyway. If the U.S. had abandoned SEATO and pulled out, it would have been open season on every SE Asian country by both the Soviets and Red China, which was not an option either.

Re JFK, he wasn't going to pull out of Nam, and in fact escalated U.S. presence there just weeks before his assassination. He couldn't leave after having approved the killing of Diem, which removed withdrawal as an option. The Camelot Myth is just that, a myth created by the Kennedy family's extensive PR machine.

Perestroika managed to defeat the USSR..

Notice how bankruptcy and defeat made 'perestroika' an option by weakening the CP hardliners and allowed the rise of Gorbie's wing? The Soviet Army commanders didn't turn against the state, and allowed the Party to sort it all out; that's why there was no 'big revolution'.

 

[Moonglow]

Communism had not problem dying on it's own, there was really no need for Americans to die to prove that point..

The Soviet Union didn't die on it's own, it was driven into bankruptcy and defeat by the U.S.'s Cold War and containment. The Viet Nam police action played a key role in the bankruptcy, and so did the Israeli wars in '67 and '73, and U.S. efforts in Africa as well.The Brezhnev Doctrine collapsed in 1973, as did the Soviet economy. The oil crisis and global food shortage finished off what was left; the USSR had to import both food and refined petroleum products from the U.S. and Europe, and never recovered. Their proxy states around the world fell right along with them.

It's oh so fashionable to claim the VN war was a 'defeat', but it was a major blow against the Soviets, not us. We left because we no longer needed to be there, and as already pointed out the South fell in '75 because of scumbags in Congress, and a UN who stood by and ignored the North Vietnamese and Chinese decades long violations of Laos and Cambodia while the U.S. mainly abided by the international laws, until Nixon, anyway. If the U.S. had abandoned SEATO and pulled out, it would have been open season on every SE Asian country by both the Soviets and Red China, which was not an option either.

Re JFK, he wasn't going to pull out of Nam, and in fact escalated U.S. presence there just weeks before his assassination. He couldn't leave after having approved the killing of Diem, which removed withdrawal as an option. The Camelot Myth is just that, a myth created by the Kennedy family's extensive PR machine.

Perestroika managed to defeat the USSR..

Notice how bankruptcy and defeat made 'perestroika' an option by weakening the CP hardliners and allowed the rise of Gorbie's wing?

The USSR was not bankrupt, it was a moral issue that afflicted the USSR..
, Another member of Gorbachev’s very small original coterie of liberalizers, Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, was just as pained by ubiquitous lawlessness and corruption. He recalls telling Gorbachev in the winter of 1984-1985: "Everything is rotten. It has to be changed."
Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong

 

[gtopa1]

Communism had not problem dying on it's own, there was really no need for Americans to die to prove that point..

ALLIES died that Millions might live in freedom; we lost and MILLIONS died. You speak as if disaster is a friend!!

Greg

 

[Flanders]

To Picaro: Your reply is basically fact with a few instances of misdirection:

The Viet Nam police action

“. . . police Action . . .” implies United Nations approval à la the Korean War. The UN did not approve of stopping Communism in Vietnam or Korea:

Truman jumped on the Soviet Union’s failure to attend a Security Council meeting; so he took the opportunity to stop Communist expansion by manipulating the UN; hence, a UN Police Action rather than a declared war. Had the Soviets attended the one and only Security Council meeting they ever missed, they would have vetoed Truman’s military opposition to North Korea’s aggression.

Incidentally, President Truman was right in stopping Communism, but he was wrong in getting the UN’s approval.
​

Selective Memories

In short: Americans got no support from the United Nations in Vietnam.

Incidentally, our loyal allies, the British, did not fight with us in Vietnam.

It's oh so fashionable to claim the VN war was a 'defeat', but it was a major blow against the Soviets, not us.

It was a defeat for us. Put it in perspective this way: The Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan was, and still is, referred to as their Vietnam.