[DoctorQuquriramba]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If Che can honour a general skilled at battle for his tactics and strategy, then he should do the same for Lee and Jackson. It's only logical.

I think Che is only too happy to see Americans die in battle. I've not seen him once root for the Americans in any war. Ah. Clearly then you worship Jesus because millions have died for and/or because of the Xian faith.

[hoconnor6605]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If Che can honour a general skilled at battle for his tactics and strategy, then he should do the same for Lee and Jackson. It's only logical. I do. Both Lee and Jackson were great generals (Lee is probably among the greatest generals in history). Sometimes good people fight for the wrong side, as was the case with Lee. I don't think anyone could seriously doubt his character. Rommel is another example.

I have a dog in this fight, since I'm named after Lee.

[GtmFeqJJ]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Lee Harvey Oswald?

No. Tommy Lee.

[Z2sc8gEz]

That's what we thought after the war. About ten years ago China revealed that it had every intention of intervening in the North if the U.S. expanded their invasion of Indochina to North Vietnam. The Soviets were also not going to sit idly by, but I don't think they'd have sent ground troops.

You forget, in the 1960s, Mao was still alive, and he was an internationalist. The Cultural Revolution was in full swing, and they wouldn't have allowed the government to watch a fellow Socialist state to be attacked by the imperialists an do nothing. Vietnam and China's troubles recently only began after the death of Mao and the seizure of power by the Dengist clique.

[creewespock]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Wellll... if you can cheer the US winning in X country, why can't che cheer the Vietnamese defeating the US? Something to do with the all those murdered after they took over. The first few year of peace in SE Asia was deadlier than the previous twenty years of war.

[Paiblyelaxy]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Something to do with the all those murdered after they took over. The first few year of peace in SE Asia was deadlier than the previous twenty years of war.

[aspinswramymn]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You're disgusting.

Dude, can the US do anything that you would find immoral?

[Narkeere]

Come on now, that was funny.

-Arrian

[StanWatts]

I don't know much concerning the details of the communist takeover of the South after our withdrawl. And the Vietnamese (the ones left) want it that way.

[Janny2006]

Originally posted by Arrian


Are you not laughing because you found it unfunny, or because you didn't understand the joke. If I take your last post literally, I'd say you didn't understand it.

-Arrian Not funny, incorrect, and not clever.

[Roneyslelry]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Cite? Can't, it's been years since it came out, and it's not like it's something I read every day.

[viagsjicguara]

Something to do with the all those murdered after they took over. The first few year of peace in SE Asia was deadlier than the previous twenty years of war.

Could that be because the destablization of Cambodia led to the Khymer Rouge taking power (which, btw, subsequently was deposed by the Vietnamese government)?

[Illisezek]

I wonder what those who, with a straight face, maintain that teh US was somehow fighting "teh good fight" against teh North Vietnamese communists, think about teh morality of teh US support to teh Khmer Rouge.

[GoveMoony]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I wonder what those who, with a straight face, maintain that teh US was somehow fighting "teh good fight" against teh North Vietnamese communists, think about teh morality of teh US support to teh Khmer Rouge. It was okay, see, cuz the Pol Potists renounced communism. Ieng Sary (the number two guy) said that they anti-communist.

[EmpokemyMok]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I wonder what those who, with a straight face, maintain that teh US was somehow fighting "teh good fight" against teh North Vietnamese communists, think about teh morality of teh US support to teh Khmer Rouge. It really is obvious, isn't it?

This is why Bush's speech a while back comparing the consequences of withdrawl from Iraq to [paraphrase coming] all that bad stuff that happened because we left Vietnam was utterly hilarious (in a really dark, cynical way).

-Arrian

[Hedkffiz]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Dude, it's almost incontrovertible - IF the US invaded the North, and IF China didn't intervene, then of course the US would have won. From a conventional military standpoint, the US won pretty much every major battle, including and especially Tet. The problem was the US home front - left wingers sympathizing with the Vietnamese regime, Walter Cronkite (a clear military expert ) declaring the war unwinnable, etc., were what caused the US to pull out. Now, I don't think we should have been there in the first place, but my view is the same as on the Iraq war - IF we go in, then we go in to win it. Funny thing, this thing called Democracy - in the end, decisions of war and peace are left to the whole polity. If a government fails to explain to the governed what they gain from their sacrifice, well, then they have failed in a way that no number of battlefield victories can overcome.

If the "American people" had trully supported the war in Vietnam, no number of "left wingers"" declaring the war unwinnable" would have actually led to the Congress (in which 578 out of 645 face re-election every two years) to remove the support for the war as it did.

It amazes me that a "Liberterian" like yourself has such an Authoritarian view on what the behavior of a Democratic polity should be in a time of war. Heck, obviously Giap understood these basic political facts better than, well, you do, even with 30 years hindsight.

[hansen384cbh]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Dude, can the US do anything that you would find immoral? QFT