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.

 

[Robert W]

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.



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.

I know this about JoeB131, when any of us post facts, he dreams up stories that make the opposite seem excellent. Such as his view that North Vietnam was right, that South Vietnam was wrong, that Ho Chi Minh was a right leader. That we tucked tail and ran when the truth is we met the Vietnamese leaders and together agreed that they would not attack South Vietnam and we then sent troops home. For 2 years the North stuck to the deal then they pulled a treacherous stunt and tore up the Paris peace agreement and ruined the South for many years. He is a pure contrarian.

 

[JoeB131]

That does not explain your extreme bias.

History isn't a bias.

The Pentagon and the CIA told the elected leaders that going into Vietnam would be a mistake, because Ho Chi Mihn was vastly more popular than anyone we supported.

But both sides blundered in because they didn't want to get blungeoned with "Who Lost Vietnam?" the way Democrats were with "Who Lost China?"

So in we went, with no plan, making the lives of these people absolutely miserable for a decade.

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,

So why do you think that Germans went along with every awful thing Hitler wanted to do them?

Go ahead, we'll wait.

that life in Mao's murderous Red China was better than life in Free China,

Um, according to most Chinese, um, yeah.

That's why even Taiwan is "canceling" Peanut, but Mao is still revered by a billion Chinese today.

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,

I don't think that's one I actually said. I don't think they should be in Palestine to start with.

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.

Um, okay, you see here's the thing. YOU wouldn't be happy under Shariah law, not because you aren't a religious fanatic, but it isn't YOUR religion.

The people of Gaza are perfectly fine with THEIR version of religious fanaticism. I'm sorry you don't get that.

I'm going to break this to you. MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD ISN'T AMERICAN, AND THEY DON'T THINK LIKE AMERICANS!!!

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.

Um, yeah, guy, your disturbed stuff like the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor disqualifies you from much of anything.

that the mentally disturbed Iris Chang was being stalked and harassed by U.S. intelligence,

So let me get this straight. In Mikey World, the CIA brainwashing Sirhan Sirhan to kill RFK is perfectly rational, but George W. Bush spying on a critic, that's just crazy talk, man! Even though Bush was caught evesdropping on civilians many times.

President Bush and Domestic Spying by NSA

www.americanprogress.org

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.

Common sense. Nobody "accidentally" attacks the same ship three times.

 

[JoeB131]

I know this about JoeB131, when any of us post facts, he dreams up stories that make the opposite seem excellent. Such as his view that North Vietnam was right, that South Vietnam was wrong, that Ho Chi Minh was a right leader. That we tucked tail and ran when the truth is we met the Vietnamese leaders and together agreed that they would not attack South Vietnam and we then sent troops home. For 2 years the North stuck to the deal then they pulled a treacherous stunt and tore up the Paris peace agreement and ruined the South for many years. He is a pure contrarian.

You should probably read up on the Paris Accords..

Nixon sold Saigon out.

Decent interval - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Historian Ken Hughes wrote, "The proof that Nixon and Kissinger timed military withdrawal to the 1972 election and negotiated a "decent interval" comes from extraordinarily rich and undeniable sources—the Nixon tapes and the near-verbatim transcripts that NSC aides made of negotiations with foreign leaders."

The first sign of the strategy appears in the Nixon tapes on 18 February 1971, Kissinger stated that after a peace agreement was concluded, "What we can then tell the South Vietnamese—they've got a year without war to build up." According to Hughes, the statement indicates that Kissinger already realized that peace would not last.< On 19 March, Kissinger stated that "We can't have it knocked over—brutally—to put it brutally—before the election", justifying timing the withdrawal of troops to the 1972 American presidential election. Nixon was also privately skeptical of the Vietnamization program, which he officially stated was "a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom".<a

In his first secret meeting with Zhou Enlai in 1971, Kissinger explained that the United States wanted a full withdrawal, the return of all POWs, and a ceasefire for "18 months or some period." Kissinger noted that "If the government is as unpopular as you seem to think, then the quicker our forces are withdrawn, the quicker it will be overthrown. And if it is overthrown after we withdraw, we will not intervene." In later meetings, Kissinger used the words "reasonable interval", a "sufficient interval", and a "time interval" to refer to the time that would have to pass after United States withdrawal before the aggression against South Vietnam would not result in a forceful reaction from the United States.

In short, Tricky Dick and Kissenger sold out Saigon, because they thought those guys were useless.

 

[Zincwarrior]

This thread definitely meandered off course.

 

[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.

Yes, we reach those who are interested, and read. We don't reach those who are arguing against us. Their mind is made up. We are not going to change it. We have to just keep showing that they are full of shit.

Our truths about the War Between The States, are verifiable. Theirs are not. Which is why they must constantly present bullshit, and cannot support it.

My purpose in reaching any....is to encourage them to go to the history books. Do your research. History doesn't lie. If you want to just believe bullshit, there is no hope for you. If you want to know the truth, go to the history.

If you can't answer questions concerning the history...then you are full of shit and a liar. And your goal is not to know the truth, but to put forth your version of the lie.

Quantrill

 

[Robert W]

Yes, we reach those who are interested, and read. We don't reach those who are arguing against us. Their mind is made up. We are not going to change it. We have to just keep showing that they are full of shit.

Our truths about the War Between The States, are verifiable. Theirs are not. Which is why they must constantly present bullshit, and cannot support it.

My purpose in reaching any....is to encourage them to go to the history books. Do your research. History doesn't lie. If you want to just believe bullshit, there is no hope for you. If you want to know the truth, go to the history.

If you can't answer questions concerning the history...then you are full of shit and a liar. And your goal is not to know the truth, but to put forth your version of the lie.

Quantrill

First, they have to be willing to learn. And when others post phony history, and they believe it, they simply have not yet learned.

For a good example is the book Lincoln by David Herbert Donald which as I study this is the classic.

He discusses the actual way Lincoln saw slaves and details how Abe wanted to ship them all out to other countries and use a government bond to pay the owners at the time. Democrats ignore that about Lincoln.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Considering the blood bath the CSA did over their right to rape, murder, and torture an entire group, sounds appropriate.

mikegriffith1:

Incidents of rape, murder, and torture of slaves were rare.

We can verify this fact by examining the accounts of the slaves themselves. We have the WPA slave narratives, which consist of transcripts of interviews with over 2,000 former slaves in the 1930s. We also have other accounts from ex-slaves that were recorded in earlier interviews during and shortly after the war.

Reading those accounts will be quite shocking for woke liberals who've been raised on the Hollywood portrayal of slavery as a never-ending routine of whipping, rape, torture, and humiliation. To be sure, those things did happen, but they were the exception, not the rule, as the slave accounts prove. The vast majority of slaves were never tortured. Such extreme cruelty toward slaves was rare and was strongly frowned upon by other slaveholders. Most slaves were treated humanely.

I discuss this issue at some length (46 pages) in Northern Realities, Southern Secession, and Slavery (pp. 13-59). Among other sources, in addition to ex-slave accounts, I cite the research of such scholars as Philip Morgan, Mark Smith, Robert Fogel, Stanley Engerman, J. G. Randall, James and Lois Horton, Leslie Howard Owens, Herbert Gutman, and Patrick Rael, whom no one would accuse of being pro-Confederate or pro-slavery.

Of course, it should go without saying that this does justify or exonerate slavery as an institution. Slavery was inherently immoral because it is wrong to hold humans in bondage for no valid reason. No matter how humanely slavery was usually administered, it was still morally unacceptable. It was in no sense a "positive good" as an institution.

Neo-Radical scholars, like their Radical ancestors, have vastly exaggerated the frequency and severity of slave mistreatment in order to justify the North's inhumane total war tactics in the Civil War and the abuses and crimes of Radical Reconstruction.

 

[JoeB131]

We can verify this fact by examining the accounts of the slaves themselves. We have the WPA slave narratives, which consist of transcripts of interviews with over 2,000 former slaves in the 1930s. We also have other accounts from ex-slaves that were recorded in earlier interviews during and shortly after the war.

Right, the 1930's. When THIS Kind of shit was put in Children's cartoons, and everyone accepted it.

Of course, it should go without saying that this does justify or exonerate slavery as an institution.

Then why do you keep doing it?

(Waiting for Mike to start whining about Hitler again.)

Neo-Radical scholars, like their Radical ancestors, have vastly exaggerated the frequency and severity of slave mistreatment in order to justify the North's inhumane total war tactics in the Civil War and the abuses and crimes of Radical Reconstruction.

Actually, the North handled the South with kids' gloves during and after the war. Most countries would have purged the ever-loving shit out of the losing side after a Civil War.

What Mikey is trying to justify.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No, it was never legitimate because the South Vietnamese people didn't ask the French to create a quisling regime and impose it on them.

Robert W:

Have you ever discussed your points with any person's who lived in South Vietnam at the time we are talking about?

Folks, discussing the Vietnam War with JoeB131 is a waste of time. He knows next to nothing on the subject. He is literally repeating old Communist talking points. Also, be advised that he is a Maoist, i.e., a staunch apologist for mass murderer Mao Tse Tung, Red China's brutal dictator from 1949-1976.

South Vietnam was recognized as a sovereign nation by 88 countries. In contrast, North Vietnam was never recognized by more than 60 countries, and many of those countries only did so on a de facto basis because they were under Soviet or Red Chinese control and really had no choice.

The overwhelming majority of the people in South Vietnam certainly considered South Vietnam to be a legitimate country and wanted nothing to do with Communist rule.

When the people in North Vietnam had a 300-day window of opportunity to migrate to South Vietnam from July 1954 to May 1955, nearly 1 million did so, an astounding 6% of North Vietnam's population, and many more would have left but were prevented from doing so by the Hanoi regime, in violation of the 1954 Geneva Accords.

I recommend the following South Vietnamese sources:

Memory of South Vietnam

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

Amazon.com: Peace and Prisoners of War: A South Vietnamese Memoir of the Vietnam War: 9781682476147: Nhat Nam, Phan: Books

Amazon.com: Peace and Prisoners of War: A South Vietnamese Memoir of the Vietnam War: 9781682476147: Nhat Nam, Phan: Books

www.amazon.com

Amazon.com: The Tragedy of the Vietnam War: A South Vietnamese Officer's Analysis: 9780786432851: Duong, Van Nguyen: Books

Amazon.com: The Tragedy of the Vietnam War: A South Vietnamese Officer's Analysis: 9780786432851: Duong, Van Nguyen: Books

www.amazon.com

Amazon.com: The ARVN and the Fight for South Vietnam eBook : Vo, Nghia M.: Kindle Store

The ARVN and the Fight for South Vietnam - Kindle edition by Vo, Nghia M.. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading The ARVN and the Fight for South Vietnam.

www.amazon.com

Amazon.com: The unimagined community: Imperialism and culture in South Vietnam (Cultural History of Modern War): 9781526162502: Nguyen, Duy Lap: Books

Amazon.com: The unimagined community: Imperialism and culture in South Vietnam (Cultural History of Modern War): 9781526162502: Nguyen, Duy Lap: Books

www.amazon.com

I also recommend this book on South Vietnam by Dr. Keith W. Taylor of Cornell University, the world's foremost authority on South Vietnam:

Voices from the Second Republic of South Vietnam (1967–1975): Taylor, K. W.: 9780877277958: Amazon.com: Books

Voices from the Second Republic of South Vietnam (1967–1975) [Taylor, K. W.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Voices from the Second Republic of South Vietnam (1967–1975)

www.amazon.com

 

[Robert W]

Actually, the North handled the South with kids' gloves during and after the war. Most countries would have purged the ever-loving shit out of the losing side after a Civil War.

You justified the brutal 8 year long war commenced by George Washinton who incidentally was the king of slave owners. Not a slave was liberated by Washington. It was not a true civil war. The South did not seek to take over the states in the North though the North on its part did take over the people of the South.

 

[JoeB131]

Folks, discussing the Vietnam War with JoeB131 is a waste of time. He knows next to nothing on the subject. He is literally repeating old Communist talking points. Also, be advised that he is a Maoist, i.e., a staunch apologist for mass murderer Mao Tse Tung, Red China's brutal dictator from 1949-1976.

Hey, Mikey, the 1950's called, they want their Bircher talking points back. Even Nixon made nice with Mao.

South Vietnam was recognized as a sovereign nation by 88 countries. In contrast, North Vietnam was never recognized by more than 60 countries, and many of those countries only did so on a de facto basis because they were under Soviet or Red Chinese control and really had no choice.

Why do you think that's relevant?

I try to avoid using AI, but I'm busy this afternoon and don't have time to hunt down every original document.

Yes, in 1954, US intelligence—including the CIA—assessed that Ho Chi Minh would have won a national election, potentially gaining 80% of the vote. Analysts acknowledged Ho as a popular national hero following his anti-French resistance, and that his movement was better organized than competitors in South Vietnam.

Key details:

• Assessment: The CIA acknowledged that the majority of people in Vietnam supported the Vietminh.
• Eisenhower’s Recognition: President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his 1963 memoir that he never talked with anyone knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that "possibly 80 percent" of the population would have voted for Ho.
• Outcome: As a result of this anticipated victory, the US-backed South Vietnamese government, under Ngo Dinh Diem, refused to hold the reunification elections planned for 1956 by the Geneva Accords.
• Political Impact: The decision not to hold elections led to a continued push by Communist forces to "redress their grievance" of being denied a victory that observers believed they had already won, according to CIA records.

The overwhelming majority of the people in South Vietnam certainly considered South Vietnam to be a legitimate country and wanted nothing to do with Communist rule.

55 Days. That's how long it took the North to take Saigon once Nixon's "Decent Interval" was up. Seems to me that if the Vietnamese loved their corrupt general so much, more of them would have fought to keep them in power.

When the people in North Vietnam had a 300-day window of opportunity to migrate to South Vietnam from July 1954 to May 1955, nearly 1 million did so, an astounding 6% of North Vietnam's population, and many more would have left but were prevented from doing so by the Hanoi regime, in violation of the 1954 Geneva Accords.

Actually, that's a mischaracterization. The people who moved South were Vietnamese CATHOLICS, because the priests told them God was going South.

I also recommend this book on South Vietnam by Dr. Keith W. Taylor of Cornell University, the world's foremost authority on South Vietnam:

Really? The foremost authority on South Vietnam IS A FREAKING WHITE DUDE!!! Whatever would the rest of the world do without WHITE PEOPLE to tell them how to run their lives?

 

[JoeB131]

You justified the brutal 8 year long war commenced by George Washinton who incidentally was the king of slave owners. Not a slave was liberated by Washington. It was not a true civil war. The South did not seek to take over the states in the North though the North on its part did take over the people of the South.

When did I do that?

I don't have much respect for the Founding Fathers. I frequently call them the Founding Slave Rapists.

I think the fundemental flaw of the founding of this country is that slavery was legal in a country built on the notion of all men being created equal.

If Washington had lost, we'd all be Canadians today.

The Horror. The Horror.

 

[Robert W]

When did I do that?

I don't have much respect for the Founding Fathers. I frequently call them the Founding Slave Rapists.

I think the fundemental flaw of the founding of this country is that slavery was legal in a country built on the notion of all men being created equal.

If Washington had lost, we'd all be Canadians today.

I am wrong about your concept of the founders. So you decided it was about slavery as well. What makes you a slave to slave discussions?

 

[JoeB131]

I am wrong about your concept of the founders. So you decided it was about slavery as well. What makes you a slave to slave discussions?

I'm sure you thought you had a point there.

To the Founders' credit, they probably thought slavery was something that would whither and die, once they sun-setted the slave trade from Africa.

They didn't count on slavery becoming ridiculously profitable with the invention of the cotton gin.