Defeatocrats acknowledge surge is working, but...

Are you kidding? If anyone is blindly following a party, it's you! You can't admit that the weapons found in Iraq posed no threat to the US...

I'm thankful the majority of American's are smart enough to accept the truth...

 

Make me laugh! Dream on!!!! I'll be back with substance with regard to claims you made

In the meantime, I'm convinced that the paragraph citing General Giap is a hoax.

I can't find any reference to a book by General Giap written in 1985. If there is such a book find it. If there is an English interpretation of those so-called phrases by General Giap from that book find them.

Additionally, sentence by sentence (from that paragraph) neither make sense, don't connect with history, are a total misrepresentation, and then it fingers Kerry.

I'm not even an expert, and it only took part of a day or two to research history to reveal what a hoax that paragraph is.

It is a crude effort to turn someone into a villain. In fact it seems slanderous, imho.

To quote the governator...."I'll be back!"

 

Personally, I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time citing credible sources; if you start to prove them wrong, they'll just resort to fallacies, misconceptions, and slander...

Then if you call them out on it, they'll either change the topic, call you "anti-American", or repeat some catch phrase like "defeat" (when they still can't cite a source that used that term)...

 

Don't trust my quick effort at a review of history?

Check out what this guy discovered:

Looks like I'm not the only one who discovered that the paragraph...and the imaginary book from 1985 are bull sheet.....

 

Looks like you'll buy into anything.

Here is the book in question.

Not only does it exist, but in it, Giap actually notes that anti-war groups (like VVAW that Kerry ran) were instrumental in their victory.

 

Is it what he wrote just his "personal opinion"?
Oh wait,silly me! When someone say-write something that fits into your picture of new world order than it's a fact and when someone say-write-post something that doesn't fit into that picture it's just "personal opinion".
Probably that's why your post so much in P&R forum, there's no way for you to lose in discusions....

ps I don't give a shit about that Kerry dude at all but if you label him as traitor he must be at least decent guy

Even Gtech believes that a their former enemy, vietnamese leader ,100% communist, is more trustworthy than GWB!

 

when the top military leader tells about his strategy that helped him win, is it opinion or is it fact since he actually used that strategy?

 

Do you even know what strategy means? It is interesting that they won the war against French before defeating USA, are you going to claim that Kerry helped them with that too?

 

Exactly, that's one of his defensive debate tactics...

Example:
He posted a link to a Washington post article: here
I posted a link to the same article, by the same author: here
Then, in response to my post, GTech said:

 

So he can say that lizard people helped him and than that would be a fact?

 

shutup. we lizard people were very helpful during the war, check your facts buddy. if a book said it, it's true (books are always right).

 

To begin lets look at this paragraph that GTech has posted and referenced many times;

1. There is no such book. Period. Here is what GTech referenced as being sold at Amazon;

http://www.amazon.com/How-Won-War-N...e=UTF8&n=507846&s=books&qid=1088912262&sr=8-2

Look into the description of the book and you will see the following description;

While GTech keeps referencing this paragraph and stated that the book exists this is what he references....

This book was published in 1976. There is no 1985 memoir by General Giap.


Break down the paragraph. Here is the first part that is a description of this hoax book by some writer.....

The first part of the paragraph cites Giap as the North Vietnamese general that defeated South Vietnam in 1975. It then pointedly fingers Kerry and the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) as helping them win the war.

More pointedly it suggests that Hanoi would have surrendered to the US because of organizations like the VVAW

These two parts of the paragraph clearly show that the writer of this article wanted to blame Kerry for enabling the North Vietnamese to win the war in Vietnam. It implies that Kerry and the VVAW were responsable for causing the Americans to lose. It takes the entire period of American involvement in Vietnam and blames it on Kerry and the VVAW

Then it cites this so called quote......

(my bolding)

I had written about US bombing campaigns in Vietnam earlier.... I cited this article as a time line history of US involvement in Vietnam...http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...nam/index.html

I cited 2 of the 3 major bombing campaigns conducted by the US during the war, one lasting from 1965-1968 and the 2nd taking place in 1970.

Of interest.....both of those massive campaigns Made a point of NOT BOMBING HANOI

Hmmm....that seems suspicious.....why would someone cite the bombing of Hanoi possibly bringing the US close to victory....WHEN THE US PURPOSELY AVOIDED BOMBING HANOI.

okay....I didn't mention the last large bombing effort which occurred in December 1972. Why didn't I mention this. During this period the US bombed the hell out of HANOI

I didn't even cite it...because I knew how incredibly stupid the bombing quote was and how it totally lied about history

But don't take my word for it...scroll through these excerpts from the historyplace.....and see if bombing Hanoi had anything to do with getting the North Vietnamese to surrender.


Scroll through the time line of the war in Vietnam provided by historyplace.

I've extracted some data to review

End of 1964 -- 23,000 American military advisors in Vietnam
July 1965--125,000 American soldiers in Vietnam
End of 1965--184,300 American soldiers in Vietnam
End of 1966-- 389,000 American soldiers in Vietnam /5008 American soldiers had died there
End of 1967--463,000 American soldiers in Vietnam/16,000 American soldiers had died there
Early 1968 - Tet Offensive
August 1968 Nixon, running for the Presidency promises "an honerable end to the war in Vietnam"
End of 1968-- 495,000 American troops in Vietnam/with 30,000 American soldiers having died there
April 1969--American troop involvement peaks at 543,000/ 33,641 American soldiers have died there....More American dead than in the Korean War
June 1969--Nixon announces reduction of 25,000 American troops in Vietnam
End of 1969 --Nixon has removed 115,000 troops from Vietnam
End of 1970--280,000 American troops in Vietnam
Jan, 1971--Nixon announces "the end is in sight"
End of 1971--156,000 American troops in Vietnam
April 30, 1972--69,000 troops in Vietnam
Nov 30, 16,000 American troops in Vietnam

Now we get to the period when the US bombed Hanoi--12/18-12/29/1972. This was called Operation Linebacker II. It was started because the North Vietnamese had pulled out of the years long peace negotiatons. Peace negotiations were very close to being finalized.

Nixon had the US military bomb the hell out of Hanoi and Haiphong harbour during this period (subject to a cessation at Christmas). This was after 7 years of avoiding bombing Hanoi or Haiphong

The purpose of the bombing was to "GET THE NORTH VIETNAMESE BACK TO THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAD ALMOST REACHED AGREEMENT"

How close? I quote from the Historyplace timeline...

Bombing Hanoi had NOTHING to do with trying to achieve an American victory in Vietnam. We were negotiating an end to the war and had already withdrawn well over 97% of our soldiers by the time this bombing had occured.

We had stopped trying to "win" years earlier....and were negotiating an end to the war and an end to our involvement.

So this part of the phrase ....

....is a LIE, a misrepresentation...and a clear effort to try and twist history.

It just wasn't a fact.

Now I couldn't remember why Kerry was SO HATED by the extreme right. A lot of time has passed since the war in Vietnam. Earlier I had cited that Kerry was a bit player involved in the anti war movement. He didn't reach the public eye until 1971 when he testified in Congress, in uniform, against the war.

Underneath is a timeline of protests against the war ; (it is long--don't bother w/the facts...just look at the length

By the time Kerry surfaced as an anti-Vietnam personality we were well engaged in trying to negotiate a peace.

Nixon and the RIGHT WING hated Kerry. He was the FIRST US vet to speak out against the War in Vietnam before Congress. He did it in Uniform

If anything Nixon and the Right Wing FELT he was traiterous. Of all anti-war protesters he was the one they hated the most.

In fact in 1972, Kerry ran for Congress and he was the one Democrat Nixon targeted for loss. (Kerry lost, btw).

So 30 years later when Kerry became the Democratic nominee for President, although that hatred boiled over into incredible FALSIFIED ATTACKS on his character and involvement in the War in Vietnam.

The whole thing is a crazy invention of whacko highly PARTISAN RIGHT WING politicos that cared more about winning an election than about being honest.

Its a political disgrace.

If anything, this little research I did taught me how dangerous the attacks of the Partisan Right Wing can be. They invent lies. They propagate them all over the place...and they will say anything to try and convince voters that the other side, the candidate of the other party is one of the worst humans to walk the face of the earth.

AND YET ITS ALL A PACK OF LIES

 

depends...tell you what, you answer my question (Which you think you so cleverly dodged) and I will answer yours....to give you another example: If Patton were to write a book detailing all the strategies he used to win all the wars he did, would it be fact, or opinion?

 

It would be a miracle since Patton is dead.

But if he did, it would still be an opinion. Isn't possible that he (or some other general) try to take credit for winning the war while the victory could have been the result of better tanks or superiority in the number of his soldiers? Any book or opinions has to be checked against all the known facts in order to be judged trust worthy.

Castro claims that he winning the war in Cuba was the result of Socialism superiority over capitalism as an ideology, do you agree?

 

Great post TK. Pretty funny that GTech linked to the wrong book. I was going to ask him if he had read it.

 

So there is a possibility that lizard people exists?
I'll pass on answering any question you have for me,now and in the future. It would be just waste of my time.

Btw earlpearl, GREAT post!

 

EP makes some superb posts.

EarlPearl, TK and telsa all run rings around the crazy gang in this DP P&R forum.

 

Earl,

I can't thank you enough for doing my work for me in your last comment. That was exception and I applaud you for finally posting the truth!

Here's what I got out of your post:

1) Giap did indeed thank groups like Kerry's

2) bombings did take place

3) from what I can tell, you only seem to take issue with the dates...1976 vs 1985

4) Kerry did in fact sell out his country by testifying before the Senate and making up complete lies. In essence, kerry was either a war criminal or a liar. Over the last 30 years, we discovered he was a blatant liar.

5) Kerry met with the enemy at a time when he was still an officer in the Naval reserves. This is treason. He did this behind the backs and without authorization from his government.

6) Upon arriving in country, Kerry...over a short course of a few months, falsified reports and put himself in personally for purple hearts for wounds in which he either didn't receive, or required nothing more than a bandaid according to the medical officer there. As such, kerry invoked a rarely ever used option available for those with three purple hearts, to leave Vietnam. He left his fellow brothers "hanging."

7) We learned that kerry was honored by the Vietnamese Communist government in the Hanoi museum for his contributions.

8) We learned that Kerry also received many deferments, not unlike others at the time. On his last deferment request, it was denied and he quickly signed up for the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army.

9) We learned that Kerry's Naval commitment was from 1966 - 1972, but mysteriously his discharge is dated 1978. Why, you ask? I'm glad you asked that question! It appears that kerry was originally given a dishonorable discharge. We know for sure, he did not serve up to 1978. However, we also know that one of the first things President carter did after moving into office, was to re-issue honorable discharges for those dishonorably discharged during the Vietnam war. Imagine that...a President who sold out his country and received a dishonorable discharge. No wonder he wasn't fit for command.

10) We also learned that kerry made up a huge lie of a story about being in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968. Why? Because at the time, US Forces were not supposed to be in Cambodia. In essence, kerry made up this whopper of a lie to sell his country out. He made this story up to discredit his country and over the years, including on the floor of the Senate, he oft repeated this story as truth. This is treason. He made this story up to discredit his country in his anti-war quest. Not unlike some here, he sold his country out. Facts don't matter, only the message matters.

Most importantly, what I have learned in this thread, is that some will literally sell their country out and defend a man that has blatantly committed treason against his country. They have no morals, they have no values. Apparently, being anti-war has no separation from being anti-American and as clearly demonstrated by quite a few, facts don't matter. Only the message matters.

I believe these same people have more than made my point for me. Selling your country out, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, willfully lying to bring discredit upon one's country seem to be admirable traits among those opposed to the war. Perhaps what they don't realize in their vehement support of such, is they are admitting of themselves that these same traits they find admirable in others are a reflection of what they themselves stand for.

What a disappointment. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised....at all.

 

I think you're referring to the first purple heart, when he requested he be put in for the medal after the wound to the arm... Yes, he asked to be put in for it; commanders are often busy with far more important things then award write-ups, so if his commander forgot, why not remind him?

And, if you're going to try and take the honor from his medals, why not try to say that his silver star wasn't deserved? (even though Frederic Short said there is "no doubt that Kerry saved the boat and crew")...

If we don't pick on Cheney for deferring (who didn't serve in vietnam), why are you picking on Kerry (who did serve in vietnam)?

Since over 50% of Americans don't approve of the current conflict, and would like to see some form of withdrawal, you're saying most Americans are anti-American? What about those of us that have served in that conflict? How can you, having not served there, call someone like me, that has served there multiple times, anti-American?

By needlessly allowing our troops to die in a conflict where we stand to gain nothing, war supporters should be viewed as the anti-troop movement...

It's easy to support a war when you're not risking anything...

 

Covered here.

One of very few. In fact, most said the exact opposite. See link above.

That was my point. Not sure who your "we" is...well, actually, I am, but this has been a previous contention here for which I've argued. Just highlighting past hypocrisies.

No. This is you twisting words and hiding behind Americans to justify what you do. Remember though, I take no issue with your actual service. Even despite your teaming up with one of the forums biggest anti-Americans to do so with mine. Just another illustrative example of what I was talking about.

Anyone can make up numbers/percentages. As for your service in the conflict, I take no issue there, nor have I ever. Remember, you are tool for some right now. If you turn their back on them, they will attack your service.

I've not called you anti-America. Perhaps your guilty conscience is speaking to you?

I'm sure the traitor you are defending...John Kerry...would approve. Depending on which way the polls were going today. Have you tried some of these techniques?