Vietnamese refugees, 1981. Sorry, distance was too great for my flash, and I wasn't allowed in the well deck.
Posted on 05/01/2005 10:34:32 AM PDT by aculeus
Regards,
TS
Vietnam is the Dems best effort at fighting a war. That is why they don't make war time candidates... dems don't have the cojones to make necessary sacrifices. they cut tail and run singing "we are the world " holding hands together.
The quote I've heard is 1.8 million.
read later
Vietnamese refugees, 1981. Sorry, distance was too great for my flash, and I wasn't allowed in the well deck.
"And the one responsible for maligning our nation's Vietnam War Vets was nominated by his party last year to be its presidential nominee. That's what keeps haunting American society and political life to this day."
Not only that, over 48% of the people of this country voted for that SOB! THAT'S what haunts American society to this day.
BTTT!!!!!!!
The SOB's started the war and cut off aid under a Republican President.This was a Kennedy/Johnson war started to make money for an elite few and to weed out the US population just like Korea. The Democrat Party is the most dangerous organization on the face of the earth. A bunch of self centered egotistical elite thinking scum that exploits the minorities in America.!
You mean like they are doing with this war ???
For all these, and other reasons, I actually hope the Democrats run Hillary for President. That would probably mean four or eight more years of wandering in the wilderness for their party. No Democrat worth his or her salt would believe this, which is why I don't mind posting it. The problem Democrats have is they don't have many options, and Hillary rules their roost. Democrats can hate America and say they're patriotic, they hate religion and claim they are religious, they want to kill babies and say they are pro-choice, they hate business and say they are pro-business, and they hate conservatives in general. It takes a very dedicated leftist Democrat to vote for Hillary, and most of American won't do that as long as we provide a good alternative.
Yes, you are right,
The gun control madness began immediately.
Who back then gave a second thought to ordering guns by mail? But because Oswald got a gun by mail order, well no American would ever be permitted to do that again! Works every time something bad happens, it seems.
BJ, et al. tried to connect talk radio to the OKC bombing and other bad things. They're still trying to stop conservative opinion with lies.
And you more than most realize that targets were carefully controlled by LBJ and McNamara. Those two buzzards tied our hands and prevented professional military men from prosecuting the war as it should have been.
You bet we did. And, I hate them or their memories for what happened to thousands of American soldiers. They wouldn't let us win. May they burn in Hell!
"Until 1975, Moscow was not only impressed by American military power and political will, it also clearly had no desire to go to war with the United States over Vietnam. But after 1975, Soviet fear of the United States dissipated."
UNTIL 1975?? I can't imagine why the Soviets were impressed by American military power between Jan. 1973 (when the US pulled out of Vietnam) and April 1975 (when the South was finally overrun). In 1973 the draft had been ended by Nixon, the active duty Army was down to 16 divisions, and its ranks were sullen and demoralized. The US Navy was undergoing a huge drawdown; large numbers of warships built during WW2 were becoming decrepit (and there were not enough sailors to man all of them anyways) and were decommissioned en masse. New vessels were not being built in anything like the numbers to replace them, since so much money had been thrown down the "money pit" that was Vietnam. As for the USAF; world-beating aircraft such as the F-15, F-16 and (the Navy F-14, F/A-18) were years away from reaching active inventories--US tactical air power was composed of aging types like F-4 phantoms, F-105 thunderchiefs etc. Even on the strategic nuclear level, we were at best at parity at the USSR at that time, and even that was evaporating. IIRC the main battle tank inventory for the US Army was barely 10,000 (maybe less) and much of that were old M-48s. The Soviets--after 1970--were undergoing a huge build up. Again IIRC the Soviets had 190 active divisions to our 19 (if you count the 3 USMC divisions), maybe 4 times as many tanks. True this situation improved, but not until the late 1970s (when new equipment reached active inventories) and of course the 1980s with the support of Reagan. All I am saying is that the Sovs had no reason to be impressed by American military power in the years 1973-1974; unless their intelligence was really bad. As for ARVN forces ultimately defeating the NVA, the thrust of Moore's article is that it was possible-WITH AMERICAN AIR SUPPORT. Reading between the lines, it is obvious that withouth US air support (and US advisors commanding them as at An Loc), ARVN was screwed. Funny that the NVA did not need Russian air support. Wonder if that is ultimately the reason the US "cut and ran" from South Vietnam, but still supports Israel; unlike the former South Vietnamese, the Israelis never needed US air support and certainly did not need US "advisors"; with the proper tools, Israel has proven itself capable of defending itself, by itself. South Vietnam was never able to take off the training wheels.
I remember the Gun Control Act of 1968 well. It was actually a very draconian law although some of it's restrictions have been loosened since. The most disgusting thing about it is many of the gun manufacturers supported it because it banned the importation of so many military surplus guns. I also recall some gun writers who were lukewarm on it too.
bump
James "Scotty" Reston revealed this story in a column in 1966, I believe. Reston had the power to worry Washington's most powerful that he would walk out on them if he sensed that they were trying to BS him.
The hapless Kennedy was savaged by Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961, especially over being chicken at the Bay of Pigs. So badly did JFK represent his Country that he asked for one more chance, a personal meeting with Khrushchev with only the two of them and two interpreters. JFK agreed to meet with Reston first after the meeting. This account is from, "Scotty," by John F. Stacks.
"How was it?" Reston asked casually.
"Worst thing in my life. He savaged me," Kennedy responded. The president seemed to Reston to be almost in shock, repeating himself and speaking with astonishing candor to the journalist. "Not the usual bullshit," Reston wrote in his notepad. "There is a look a man has when he has to tell the truth." Kennedy went on to say that to counter the battering by Khrushchev, which he attributed to the Soviet leader's underestimation of Kennedy's resolve, the United States would have to stand more firmly against the Soviets' demands in Berlin and against the mounting Communist insurgency in South Vietnam. Reston wrote later that he was "speechless" when Kennedy mentioned Vietnam, since that troubled country was at that point nowhere near the heart of the Cold War conflict and, in Reston's estimation, did not carry much weight in the superpower tug-of-war. Ever afterward, Kennedy's remark to Reston was seen by historians and by Reston himself as the moment marking the beginning of America's long slide into the tragedy of Vietnam. [End excerpt]
Yes sir, the JFK people took tens of thousands of Americans into war with the same "resolve" as they had at the Bay of Pigs.
Then LBJ took over caring more about his "Great Society" plans than any thing else including war -- fight the war but it must not in any way hinder getting his "Great Society." Lie, lie, lie whatever it takes. (see McMaster's. "Dereliction of Duty")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.