"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda nuked
'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.



While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the Vietnamese
threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us why you
believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit to
being aligned with the NV.


The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold 3
presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda
nuked 'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.

Who was contemplating dropping a nuke on Vietnam?

While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the
Vietnamese threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us
why you believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit to
being aligned with the NV.

Because they had accomplished their objective getting the US to turn tail
and leave Vietnam. They did this by good use of the media. They sure as hell
couldn't win on an unrestrained battle field.

The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold 3
presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda
nuked 'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.

Who was contemplating dropping a nuke on Vietnam?

Don't you read? Nixon contemplated it repeatedly. Kissinger and other
advisors kept him caged. I'd provide the names of some books for you, but
I'm 100% sure you'd concoct some reason for not reading them.



While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the
Vietnamese threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us
why you believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit
to being aligned with the NV.

Because they had accomplished their objective getting the US to turn tail
and leave Vietnam. They did this by good use of the media. They sure as
hell couldn't win on an unrestrained battle field.

Your time line is mangled. 2-3 years before we left, the Soviets (first) and
the Chinese (second) were already telling our government that it was no
longer in their best interests to continue backing the NV. Remember that at
this time, China was still dangled by the Russians, so they often did what
they were told.

Don't read much, eh? You mentioned history in an earlier message. What are
some of your sources for the history of that period? They are incomplete.




The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold
3 presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

Give me a break. First of all, our presence in Vietnam had nothing to do
with those places in a strategic sense. And second, all the places you
mentioned are culturally different from one another, and from Vietnam
(obviously). If you don't think the local culture has any effect on the
likelihood of a new political system being established, this conversation is
over.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

Yeah. Conquistadors like Armand Hammer, among others.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard
of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

Yeah. Conquistadors like Armand Hammer, among others.

Hammer was a guilty entrepuenurer.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard
of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above
conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

Yeah. Conquistadors like Armand Hammer, among others.

Hammer was a guilty entrepuenurer.



A guilty WHAT?

Doesn't matter. Colonialism doesn't exist because of government officials.
There's always someone behind them, pushing.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

And, an argument can be made that communist expansionism was just another
form of colonialism. Communism can't exist within the confines of a single
country. Unless you control all of the economy communism "can't fully be
realized."

There is another belief system that is working its way throught the world
and its goal is that it is not fully realized until the whole world is
subjugated and believes. This is the fight we in now.