A General Worthy Of The Title And Respect

One Of The Best In History

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/vietnam.giap/index.html
from JoeUser Forums
Vo Nguyen Giap was a man dedicated to his country's liberty. He whooped the French, he then whooped the Americans, then the Chinese, then he sat back and grew old in a united Vietnam.
international
13,471 views 23 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
fuck no. Just admiring the tenacity of a man who lived in jungles for most of his adult life all with one goal in mind. You're so used to admiring perfumed princes who fight from 30,000 feet. Here's a man who fought for what he believed in, and went through hardships to achieve it. That's worthy of respect. Where the fuck did vile communism come into the picture? Only in YOUR mind dear boy.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's why I respect Hitler. He made Germany prosperous, powerful, and united once again. Truly dedicated to his country's liberty. If only the world didn't betray him.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
lol. I know what you're saying and I hear you, but in this case you're being wrong. It funny how, if the US hadn't lost in Vietnam, you'd all likely saying nice things about his military qualities.. I'm not talking about his feelings or thoughts, only his actions. And they were entirely correct with no hope of backing up from. He knew the cost and the price that went with it. But it's true what you say about Hitler and his sweeping changes he made to make Germany more prosperous. Some things you can't take away from people no matter what.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
if the US hadn't lost in Vietnam
End of quote


Contrary to popular belief, the US never "lost" Vietnam, at least not militarily. We never tried to take it. We weren't conquering the country (or more specifically the north), we were helping the South Vietnamese protect their country, which THEY ended up losing. The South Vietnamese LOST the vietnam war. I will agree that our mediocre assistance didn't help. Our failure wasn't the war, it was our foreign policy. It was never in our interest to be there in the first place. Plus, when the military is restricted by politicians due to the intellectual sabotage of the public opinion of the war, the military does not have a chance to win. You can't lose something you never had a chance to win or that was never yours in the first place. It was never fought like a war.

VES
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The South Vietnamese LOST the vietnam war"
I must have misunderstood then. Lol. I always thought the US turned tail and evacuated their embassy. Those pesky South Vietnamese. Lmao.
"It was never in our interest to be there in the first place"
One thing: INDONESIAN OIL DEPOSITS<---coincidentally ended up in the US's hands somehow someway.
"It was never fought like a war."
Hmmm. Troops, guns, tanks, heli gunships, enemies to kill, sounds like a war to me.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're so used to admiring perfumed princes who fight from 30,000 feet


lol. Good one. Made me laugh all day...
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
lmao. I'll take Hack's account before your pathetic comments Corio?!? Lmao.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
One thing: INDONESIAN OIL DEPOSITS<---coincidentally ended up in the US's hands somehow someway.


So are you saying that was our interest in the war? If so, we must have won (by your criteria) if we got it in the end. I think not.

The goal of our involvement was to help the South Vietnamese keep their country free of communism. That goal was not in our interest. The South Vietnamese goal was to keep their country, but with lukewarm committment. The lost their country, thus they lost the war. Our foreign policy "lost" just because we went over there. Our military did what it sought to do, help the South Vietnamese. Only it did it with considerable political restraint, not the way a war should be fought.

Hmmm. Troops, guns, tanks, heli gunships, enemies to kill, sounds like a war to me.


Yes, looked like and sounded likeit, but it wasn't. Your missing some semantics here. I didn't say it wasn't a war, I said, "it wasn't fought like a war".

When you "unleash the hounds or war" you have to unleash them. In the case of Vietnam, we fought with our "hounds" leashed.

VES
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
hounds leashed? I guess you missed the 101st Airborne's Tiger Force. Why don't you do some reading about what you pretend to understand? leashed. Wholesale slaughter of women and children are the actions of leased US personnel? Lmao. You're such a killer supporter.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Miki: Sorry if you misread me, I wasn't being sarcastic there - really loved that phrase!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
yeah right and I'm a GI who's fighting for the Iraqi people's freedom. Hahahaha.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
So your one example indicates that the whole war was fought without restraint? Perhaps instead of just reading, you should learn to understand context, concepts, and the idea of totality. When your foreign policy leads you to a place where you can't justify to the men on the battlefield your purpose for being there, that in itself results in restraint. When politicians become involved in directing war efforts because of "popular opinion", that introduces more restraint. When you are told to take land one day, and give it back the next, that is restraint.

You're such a killer supporter.


Really? Is that why I said it was never in our interests to go over there in the first place? Hence, a statement of not supporting that particular war.

You are right though, only in the wrong context, again. I'm a killer support when the context and purpose for war is appropriate. That is the sticking point on which many disagree.

You may notice that since I take this conversation seriously, I avoid all the "hahahaa's" and "lmao's", which are really inappropriate given the subject matter.

VES
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"You may notice that since I take this conversation seriously, I avoid all the "hahahaa's" and "lmao's", which are really inappropriate given the subject matter."
You may also notice, foolish one, that to say that you're merely trying to pat yourself on the back and are trying to make sure others don't miss that bullshit. Well good for you for not degrading yourself by saying hahahaha although you will post on my link and type the words hahahahaha. Double standards. Awesome.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
This may raise some ire here, but the US would have been farther better allying themselves with Ho Chi Minh and the North than the South. Why? Because the people respected Ho Chi Minh, and no one respected the government of the South. For my first college degree I wrote my thesis on this topic, let me tell you, I got a lot of interesting reactions from people in the late seventies for writing that.

Cheers
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
but the north was the communist enemy....how cuold they have aligned themselves with the communist north. For fighting abilities, I see what you mean..
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
yeah right and I'm a GI who's fighting for the Iraqi people's freedom. Hahahaha


??? I must be getting slow, care to explain the joke?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
you understand it. Why are you pretending not to understand it?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
You may also notice, foolish one, that to say that you're merely trying to pat yourself on the back and are trying to make sure others don't miss that bullshit. Well good for you for not degrading yourself by saying hahahaha although you will post on my link and type the words hahahahaha. Double standards. Awesome.


You are quite adept at name calling, but that doesn't help support your position. Since this is a laughing matter to you, and you continue to resort to name calling i.e. "killer supporter", "foolish one", I don't think any continued rational effort on my behalf will be worth the time spent. You and your thoughts have no value to me at this point.

VES
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Miki, it's not a question of fighting ability. Never in the course of human history has an outside force managed to keep an unpopular government over a repressed people, at least not for very long. The communists won the war because they actually listened to the people, and becuase they didn't seem as bad as the Southern government.

Sure they repressed and killed afterwards, but they won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people.

Cheers
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, I DON'T understand. Feels like I've been placed among the opposition here, and I haven't even commented in the issue. All I did was commenting on a nicely put phrase. I honestly wasn't trying to ridicule you, so I don't understand the animosity. Oh well.

Ok, I'll stop trolling now and go away. Feel free to delete my comments, as they're kinda out of place.
And I hope you have a nice day (again, no sarcasm). Peace.


Man, this has got to be one of the weirdest arguments I've had at JoeUser....
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
no prob corio. I don't think you're trolling. I let others think I'M trolling. And jet they won the war because they had something precious to fight for. Independence. That's why the US lost and will lose again in Iraq.