If I Had Been President of the Confederacy. . . .

[JoeB131]

Oh, blah, blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about, and you're immune to persuasion anyway. Even when you're caught in bald-faced, hilarious gaffes, you won't admit you're wrong.

Says the guy who thinks that OJ was innocent and the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor?

Why don't you start a thread to defend your i

Clear sign that Mike has lost the argument, when he wants to bring up other stuff I've talked about.

 

[Robert W]

I used to know a Vietnamese gal who worked at a company I was at. She left because her dad was ARVN.

The point remains, though, that the ARVN's fought because we paid them to fight. The VC fought because they were committed to freeing their country from foreign occupation.


I'm recognizing that the North were heroes to the Vietnamese people, and the people we propped up in the South were corrupt Quislings who stole the money we gave them. All those ARVN generals who fled after the war lived pretty good lives in the US.



Getting harder to tell the difference these days. A very dear friend of mine is from the Philippines. (Yes, I seem to have a a lot of Asian women in my life, for some reason). Even though she's married to an American, her son was born here. She became a citizen 8 years ago. She feels the need to carry copies of her naturalization papers and her US Passport with her in case she is hassled by the ICEstapo.

(She also thought my calling Trump "Cheeto Hitler" was hilarious.)




Um, yeah, we really did. The thing about the Paris Accords is that they were signed with the full knowledge we were selling the South out. Nixon merely asked for a "decent interval" before they resumed hostilities. There are tapes of Nixon and Kissinger admitting as much, and how they planned to blame the whole fiasco on the Democrats.


I expected what Bush told us. That we were going to establish a pro-western democracy that was going to throw flowers at our feet.

Instead, we got a hostile people who welcomed the president of Iran as a hero, while Bush had to sneak in and hope nobody threw their shoes at him.

Posters, the bias above is as thick as molasses.

 

[JoeB131]

Posters, the bias above is as thick as molasses.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

If we had learned from Vietnam, Iraq would have never happened.

If we learned from Iraq, we wouldn't be doing this fools errand in Iran

 

[Robert W]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

If we had learned from Vietnam, Iraq would have never happened.

If we learned from Iraq, we wouldn't be doing this fools errand in Iran

That does not explain your extreme bias.

 

[Robert W]

Well, I am being honest also.

They don't listen anyway....have you noticed? But that's fine. Continue doing your part.

Quantrill

I believe a lot of people read posts here and choose not to reply. When we tell the truth about the civil war, their attacks paint them as radicals so when they are not agreeing, I really reach those who do care, as you do.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Says the guy who thinks that OJ was innocent and the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor?

There's no comparison between those minority views, which have been defended by reputable scholars for decades, and your obscene claim that "Hitler wasn't the problem," your dogged defense of the Nazi/neo-Nazi/Jihadist lie that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI, your sick claim that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating the Jews, your bizarre claim that there's a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, your specious claim that the Israelis knowingly attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, your baseless claim that powerful Jews somehow rigged the Navy Court of Inquiry into the USS Liberty incident, etc., etc.

Clear sign that Mike has lost the argument, when he wants to bring up other stuff I've talked about.

LOL! Oh, yeah! That pesky "other stuff" that you've "talked about." Uh-huh. Like claiming that Hitler wasn't the problem, that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating the Jews, that Stalin and Mao were good leaders all things considered, that there'd be no wars in the Middle East if those vermin Jews didn't have a tiny country in the region, that you "guess" the Holocaust was "bad" (when I asked you point-blank about the Holocaust, you replied "Was the Holocaust bad? I guess"), that the mentally disturbed Iris Chang was being stalked and harassed by U.S. intelligence, that life in Mao's murderous Red China was better than life in Free China, that the 1,200 Israeli civilians who were butchered by Hamas on October 7 should have known better than to live or hold a concert so close to Gaza, that life under Hamas rule in Gaza is better than life under Jewish rule in Israel (after all, what's not to like about Hamas's imposition of Shariah Law and their suppression of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, women's rights, and gay rights?), etc., etc., etc.

That obscene, fringe "other stuff" disqualifies you from serious discussion. When people learn that you have expressed these views, most of them dismiss you as fringe, disturbed, and unserious.