The Ugly Truths the Democrat and Republican Establishment Seek to Conceal From Us

[longknife]

Okay, so it's a blog AND an opinion piece about Trump revealing truths they don't want us to know. But the part about the Vietnam Tet Offensive hits the nail on the head. For those of you who have only received the revisionist version, here's the truth:

The Viet Cong and North Vietnam Army put some 70,000 troops in a coordinated attack on more than 100 targets in the south. All to foment a rebellions by the south's population.

It was a total flop. In the Battle of Hue alone, 500 US Marines and South Vietnamese (the majority) were killed – but over 5,000 VC & NVA died. It happened everywhere across the country.

What did the American media report:?

Our media, however, reported that we lost. They were present and they lied, including Walter Cronkite. Cronkite reported in February of 1968 that the war "was a stalemate and probably unwinnable" despite knowing that the NVA had virtually been rendered soldierless in the Tet offensive as their casualty rate ran ten times the South's.

In total opposite of media reports, WE DID NOT LOSE in South Vietnam. Just like we did not lose in Iraq. In Korea, the Leftists and Progs forced us into a stalemate. Now they want the same in the War Against Terror.

The point of this? That The Establishment, its minions the media, and other political figures either mislead or outright lie to gain and retain their power. Trump already has his and doesn't need to do anything but speak the truth.

That's what they're afraid of.

Read more with lots of links @ Doug Ross @ Journal: TRUMP: The Ugly Truths the Democrat and Republican Establishment Seek to Conceal From Us

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Excellent!

 

[Freemason9]

You quite obviously was not in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. The number of enemy casualties was extremely inflated, and they captured a lot of territory. It was a severe setback for U.S. efforts. After the offensive, the U.S. did intensify bombing and sent more troops. It became quite clear that there was no chance for any long term "win" there, though, and that it would ultimately push U.S. spending to the breaking point.

No, there was no chance of "winning" the war.

 

[Hossfly]

You quite obviously was not in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. The number of enemy casualties was extremely inflated, and they captured a lot of territory. It was a severe setback for U.S. efforts. After the offensive, the U.S. did intensify bombing and sent more troops. It became quite clear that there was no chance for any long term "win" there, though, and that it would ultimately push U.S. spending to the breaking point.

No, there was no chance of "winning" the war.

Poppycock! At the Paris Peace Talks the North was on the verge of capitulating when we jumped the gun and surprised the world by caving in. The same thing happened to the British in Singapore when the Japanese sent a delegation to surrender and the British surrendered instead. True stories.

 

[jwoodie]

You quite obviously was not in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. The number of enemy casualties was extremely inflated, and they captured a lot of territory. It was a severe setback for U.S. efforts. After the offensive, the U.S. did intensify bombing and sent more troops. It became quite clear that there was no chance for any long term "win" there, though, and that it would ultimately push U.S. spending to the breaking point.

No, there was no chance of "winning" the war.

 

[jwoodie]

Liberals believe that winning wars is inherently evil (although "sanitary" bombing is OK). Their determination to lose the war in Iraq is exactly the same as was their determination to lose the war in Viet Nam.

Hopefully, the public is waking up to the fact that the MSM is little more than a propaganda outlet for these views.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Terrible how we left Vietnam and let Russia conquer the world as a result and now we are all communists ruled by the USSR. Such a tragedy. If only we'd stayed in Vietnam another 10 or 20 or 30 or 40+ years.

 

[jwoodie]

Terrible how we left Vietnam and let Russia conquer the world as a result and now we are all communists ruled by the USSR. Such a tragedy. If only we'd stayed in Vietnam another 10 or 20 or 30 or 40+ years.

Who, exactly, was advocating that? Your boys, LBJ and McNamara?

P.S. Should we also have evacuated from Europe after WW2?

 

[longknife]

You quite obviously was not in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. The number of enemy casualties was extremely inflated, and they captured a lot of territory. It was a severe setback for U.S. efforts. After the offensive, the U.S. did intensify bombing and sent more troops. It became quite clear that there was no chance for any long term "win" there, though, and that it would ultimately push U.S. spending to the breaking point.

No, there was no chance of "winning" the war.

No, I was NOT in 'Nam during Tet. My aircraft took off from Tahn Sa Nhut as the first mortar rounds were hitting the runway. First we heard anything about it was when we landed in Clark, the Philippines.

I was then stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco with nothing but the most liberal media in the world screaming how we'd lost the war and our military had been decimated by Charlie and his northern buddies.

It was bullshit then and all of who served knew it! We saw the DOD figures and were in contact with our friends still there.

We wiped their butts. Even their most senior general has admitted what a failure it was. He knew it would be and only did it because of those telling him he could lose in the field but win in the media.

 

[Freemason9]

You quite obviously was not in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. The number of enemy casualties was extremely inflated, and they captured a lot of territory. It was a severe setback for U.S. efforts. After the offensive, the U.S. did intensify bombing and sent more troops. It became quite clear that there was no chance for any long term "win" there, though, and that it would ultimately push U.S. spending to the breaking point.

No, there was no chance of "winning" the war.

No, I was NOT in 'Nam during Tet. My aircraft took off from Tahn Sa Nhut as the first mortar rounds were hitting the runway. First we heard anything about it was when we landed in Clark, the Philippines.

I was then stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco with nothing but the most liberal media in the world screaming how we'd lost the war and our military had been decimated by Charlie and his northern buddies.

It was bullshit then and all of who served knew it! We saw the DOD figures and were in contact with our friends still there.

We wiped their butts. Even their most senior general has admitted what a failure it was. He knew it would be and only did it because of those telling him he could lose in the field but win in the media.

Unfortunately for you, this isn't an exercise in chest-pounding. The point is that no matter how much blood and treasury we poured into Vietnam, it wasn't ours to take. And even if we "won," they would have never accepted the U.S. as occupiers. Vietnam has a long history of fighting for independence from occupation.

 

[jwoodie]

The point is that no matter how much blood and treasury we poured into Vietnam, it wasn't ours to take. And even if we "won," they would have never accepted the U.S. as occupiers. Vietnam has a long history of fighting for independence from occupation.

False premise: Who said it was ours to take or occupy? Our only legitimate action over there would have been to secure their borders from foreign invasion or resupply to insurgents. We had no business interfering with their internal affairs.

 

[Freemason9]

The point is that no matter how much blood and treasury we poured into Vietnam, it wasn't ours to take. And even if we "won," they would have never accepted the U.S. as occupiers. Vietnam has a long history of fighting for independence from occupation.

False premise: Who said it was ours to take or occupy? Our only legitimate action over there would have been to secure their borders from foreign invasion or resupply to insurgents. We had no business interfering with their internal affairs.

You are using a false premise. We WERE the invaders. This was a civil war within Vietnam, and we were trying to create a puppet state. That was destined to fail. You can't patch failed policy with military overkill. That's not the "victory" you yearn for.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Vietnamese should have been granted independence after WWII. No reason to return then to French colonial rule. None.

 

[jwoodie]

The point is that no matter how much blood and treasury we poured into Vietnam, it wasn't ours to take. And even if we "won," they would have never accepted the U.S. as occupiers. Vietnam has a long history of fighting for independence from occupation.

False premise: Who said it was ours to take or occupy? Our only legitimate action over there would have been to secure their borders from foreign invasion or resupply to insurgents. We had no business interfering with their internal affairs.

You are using a false premise. We WERE the invaders. This was a civil war within Vietnam, and we were trying to create a puppet state. That was destined to fail. You can't patch failed policy with military overkill. That's not the "victory" you yearn for.

Try rereading my post.

1. Your false premise was that Viet Nam was ours to take and occupy.

2. Our only legitimate action over there would have been to secure their borders.

3. We had no business interfering with their internal affairs (i.e., civil war).

As to your post:

1. What false premise are you referring to?

2. Our assistance was requested by the government of South Viet Nam.

3. I agree that JFK/LBJ tried to create a puppet state in order to fight a proxy war against Communism.

 

[BlindBoo]

The point is that no matter how much blood and treasury we poured into Vietnam, it wasn't ours to take. And even if we "won," they would have never accepted the U.S. as occupiers. Vietnam has a long history of fighting for independence from occupation.

False premise: Who said it was ours to take or occupy? Our only legitimate action over there would have been to secure their borders from foreign invasion or resupply to insurgents. We had no business interfering with their internal affairs.

You are using a false premise. We WERE the invaders. This was a civil war within Vietnam, and we were trying to create a puppet state. That was destined to fail. You can't patch failed policy with military overkill. That's not the "victory" you yearn for.

Try rereading my post.

1. Your false premise was that Viet Nam was ours to take and occupy.

2. Our only legitimate action over there would have been to secure their borders.

3. We had no business interfering with their internal affairs (i.e., civil war).

As to your post:

1. What false premise are you referring to?

2. Our assistance was requested by the government of South Viet Nam.

3. I agree that JFK/LBJ tried to create a puppet state in order to fight a proxy war against Communism.

Actually Ike was the one who wanted to continue the puppet state. It's where the domino theory came from.

Eisenhower 1954, Obama 2013 - The New Yorker

 

[jwoodie]

Actually Ike was the one who wanted to continue the puppet state. It's where the domino theory came from.

Eisenhower 1954, Obama 2013 - The New Yorker

Did you even read this (left wing) article? Even it absolves Ike from any responsibility for the Viet Nam War:

"He seemed resigned to doing nothing at all unless we could get the allies and the country to go along with whatever was suggested and he did not seem inclined to put much pressure on to get them to come along.

All of this succeeded in keeping the United States out of the French colonial war, though Eisenhower eventually favored giving financial support and military advice to South Vietnam, a relatively small commitment that, under three successors—Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon—turned into a seemingly unending national tragedy."

Of course, blaming Nixon for the war is ridiculous left-wing blather, but Kennedy's and Johnson's responsibility for using our troops for their political purposes is undeniable and unforgivable.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually Ike was the one who wanted to continue the puppet state. It's where the domino theory came from.

Eisenhower 1954, Obama 2013 - The New Yorker

Did you even read this (left wing) article? Even it absolves Ike from any responsibility for the Viet Nam War:

"He seemed resigned to doing nothing at all unless we could get the allies and the country to go along with whatever was suggested and he did not seem inclined to put much pressure on to get them to come along.

All of this succeeded in keeping the United States out of the French colonial war, though Eisenhower eventually favored giving financial support and military advice to South Vietnam, a relatively small commitment that, under three successors—Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon—turned into a seemingly unending national tragedy."

Of course, blaming Nixon for the war is ridiculous left-wing blather, but Kennedy's and Johnson's responsibility for using our troops for their political purposes is undeniable and unforgivable.

Yet it was Ike who continue the support for the final vestige of pre war French Indonesia even after the French were defeated.

It has been known for sometime now that Nixon sabotaged Johnson's peace plan, so he's guilty for much of the carnage too.

 

[easyt65]

Both parties have pulled off the scam / indoctrination of a lifetime by dividing the nation so partisanly that Americans sit around arguing with each other about whose politicians are LESS CORRUPT instead of holding them all to the same standard.

WHILE they have accomplished this they violated the Constitution by giving themselves the power to exempt themselves from all the laws they pass, have given themselves the ability to ensure they get an automatic pay raise - no matter how corrupt they are or how badly they F* Up, and have shed their 'cloaks' as 'Servants of the People' for the mantle of 'Overlords'.

...and people REFUSE to see it and continue to attack each other while defending the criminals in Washington...on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Despite how pathetic and tragic it is, I can't help but find it morbidly funny. It's a LITTLE like being a passenger of that cruise liner that ran aground because the Italian Captain F*ed Up -- while he is getting on the 1st available boat to go to shore, abandoning the passengers to their own fate, the passengers are standing around arguing yet not agreeing with who is really to blame.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals believe that winning wars is inherently evil (although "sanitary" bombing is OK). Their determination to lose the war in Iraq is exactly the same as was their determination to lose the war in Viet Nam.

Hopefully, the public is waking up to the fact that the MSM is little more than a propaganda outlet for these views.

More to the point, they believe EVERY WAR America has won was inherently evil. They try their best to take credit away from the victory over the nazis. They credit virtually all of that to one of their great idols, stalin.

They are losers. All of them.

 

[longknife]

The premise of the OP is that the Establishment, in coherence with the media, is doing its best to hide certain truths from the American people.

I totally agree.

It is why they are terrified of the internet. A lot of posters here get very snarky when someone refers to a blog as a source of a story. While most are certainly biased, at least they give us news and information we don't get elsewhere.