US Gulag in Afghanistan, Bagram concentration camp, now twice thesize of Guantanamo 08 Jan 2008

[Lobby Dosser]

" krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
> news:1u0no350828081e4nenuc8l17petr6s2u2@4ax.com...
>
>>>> The Viet Cong, a peasant army, kicked America's arse so badly that
>>>> you had
>>>> to throw your helicopters into the sea in your panic to run away.
>
>>>Sorry weenie they never won even ONE engagement.
>
>> Not Quite true. There were numerous occasions when VC/NVA roops
>> pretty much overran Murken positions around the RVN from time to
>> time.
>
> Not really. They took a HILL for what turned out to be LESS THAN
> AN HOUR
> as U.S. forces pulled back to allow the Air Force to incinerate the
> NVA and Cong troops. An hour later the U.S. had its base back. I don't
> know what YOU think winning an engagement OR a war is, but by the
> standards YOU are suggesting here, the U.S. should have surrendered on
> December7, 1941 or at least the Phillipines in 1942. We should have
> just handed over the keys to the White House to Tojo.
>
>>>EXCEPT in the U.S. Congress.
>
>> Well, no -- not that either. If you are seeking the place where the
>> Murkens pretty much abandoned the field, you'd want to take a longer
>> look at the Paris Peace Talks, headed by H Kissinger et al.
>
> Kissinger, with Nixon in the **** HOUSE over Watergate at that
> point,
> and CONGRESS being YELLOW had no choice but to SURRENDER and RUN
> because Congress would no longer fund the war. Hard to win a war with
> no bullets only BARELY enough money for gas to RUN LIKE HELL!

That's Homuth alright. Yellow through and through.

 

[krp]

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:19lpo3t818m9kli1p2nvd8kohn3jn9h3vd@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>>>> We ARE better. Better shots and better at war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Viet Cong have lots of rusty helicopters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go live in one you scumbag.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the poor little Merkin all upset at the truth?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Viet Cong, a peasant army, kicked America's arse so badly that you
>>>>> had
>>>>> to throw your helicopters into the sea in your panic to run away.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry weenie they never won even ONE engagement.
>>>>EXCEPT in the U.S. Congress.
>>>
>>> ......and in US public opinion. Ever hear of losing the battle and
>>> winning the war? Ever hear of wars of attrition? Ever hear anything
>>> besides the sound of your own voice? Thought not.
>>
>> Actually majority PUBLIC opinion persisted. However there was
>>significant opposition and a president being HAMMERED relentlessly over
>>Watergate. Richard Nixon shared TOTAL INCOMPETENCE with George W.
>>Bush.However militarily we kicked their ass Congress was YELLOW.
>
> Where do you get your info - the Fantasy Times? As soon as Walter came
> out against the war, public opinion followed. By 1968 the majority of
> Americans were AGAINST the war. Look it up. As for yellow. Yup - it's
> takes real bravery to bomb a bunch of pajama-clad farmers.

I don't have to "LOOK IT UP" clown - I LIVED IT!

 

[krp]

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:l51qo39mdpf0ac93dtaqpj4rgujnh55uc0@4ax.com...
>>> >>>>>>> We ARE better. Better shots and better at war.
>>>
>>> >>>>>> The Viet Cong have lots of rusty helicopters
>>>
>>> >>>>> Go live in one you scumbag.
>>>
>>> >>>> Is the poor little Merkin all upset at the truth?
>>>
>>> >>>> The Viet Cong, a peasant army, kicked America's arse so badly that
>>> >>>> you
>>> >>>> had
>>> >>>> to throw your helicopters into the sea in your panic to run away.
>>>
>>> >>>Sorry weenie they never won even ONE engagement.
>>> >>>EXCEPT in the U.S. Congress.
>>>
>>> >> ......and in US public opinion. Ever hear of losing the battle and
>>> >> winning the war? Ever hear of wars of attrition? Ever hear anything
>>> >> besides the sound of your own voice? Thought not.
>>>
>>> > Actually majority PUBLIC opinion persisted. However there was
>>> >significant opposition and a president being HAMMERED relentlessly over
>>> >Watergate. Richard Nixon shared TOTAL INCOMPETENCE with George W.
>>> >Bush.However militarily we kicked their ass Congress was YELLOW.
>>>
>>> Where do you get your info - the Fantasy Times? As soon as Walter came
>>> out against the war, public opinion followed. By 1968 the majority of
>>> Americans were AGAINST the war. Look it up. As for yellow. Yup - it's
>>> takes real bravery to bomb a bunch of pajama-clad farmers.
>>>
>>> WB Yeats
>>
>>I don't suppose you remember why we went to war originally? The war
>>was terribly mis-managed by the president & his chief-of-staff.
>>Remember who that was? Sound familiar?
>
> Ummm......... Eisenhower and Dulles under the Domino Theory and the
> Dulles Doctrine. Prior to that Truman supported the puppet government
> with money and maybe a few advisors. They were both following the
> failed French policy in Indochina and propping up a puppet government.
> Dulles was Sect'y of State - not chief of staff.

You are in the ballpark but wrong. Neither Eisenhower not Kennedy placed
troops in Viet Nam. Eisenhower was seriously considering aiding Ho and not
the south.

 

[krp]

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:rumqo3983d8slpc4epfh8osa9dberred5t@4ax.com...
:
>>
>>>Johnson (knee-deep in the Big Muddy),
>>http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/lbj.htm
>>While reassuring the public that victory in Vietnam was right around
>>the corner, Johnson, in his recorded private telephone conversations,
>>stated over and over that he knew that defeat was inevitable.
>>
>>In conversations with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Sen.
>>Richard Russell, D-Ga., chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
>>Johnson confirmed that Vietnam boxed him in.
>>
>>As early as February 1965, Johnson, in reference to his "Rolling
>>Thunder" air attacks on North Vietnam, said, "Now we're off to bombing
>>these people. We're over that hurdle. I don't think anything is going
>>to be as bad as losing and I don't see any way of winning."
>>
>>Lady Bird Johnson, whose tape-recorded diaries Bescholoss also gives
>>us access to, wrote on March 7, 1965, "In talking about Vietnam,
>>Lyndon summed it up quite simply-I can't get out and I can't finish it
>>with what I got. And I don't know what the hell to do."
>>
>>In 1964, Russell gave Johnson two excellent ways out. Accurately
>>predicting that Vietnam was "just one of those places where you can't
>>win" and that Vietnam would be "Korea on a much bigger scale, the most
>>expensive venture this country ever went into," Russell recommended
>>that Johnson install a Vietnamese president with instructions to tell
>>us to get out.
>>
>>And later Russell suggested that Johnson simply declare victory in
>>Vietnam-without explanation-and leave. But Johnson's failure to take
>>either suggestion seriously shows that he underestimated the challenge
>>in Vietnam while giving too much emphasis to earlier commitments to
>>South Vietnam made by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.
>
> Beep - wrong answer. LBJ didn't start the war - he took over for the
> failed policies of both Kennedy and Eisenhower(who originally sent the
> advisors).

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZztttttttttttttt WRONG!

 

[krp]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
news:17rpo3tjf0d94rkd1j2q39troiv3ckk6lp@4ax.com...

>>>>> The Viet Cong, a peasant army, kicked America's arse so badly that you
>>>>> had to throw your helicopters into the sea in your panic to run away.

>>>>Sorry weenie they never won even ONE engagement.

>>> Not Quite true. There were numerous occasions when VC/NVA roops
>>> pretty much overran Murken positions around the RVN from time to time.
>
>> Not really. They took a HILL for what turned out to be LESS THAN AN
>> HOUR
>>as U.S. forces pulled back to allow the Air Force to incinerate the NVA
>>and
>>Cong troops. An hour later the U.S. had its base back.

> That was pretty much the pattern at the time. We'd blast something,
> then leave. They'd overrun something, then leave.

HORSESHIT Don. When the overran the ONE HILL during 1968 Tet they did
NOT leave!!! They became FERTILZER! Not much left after napalm Donny,
nothing to "withdraw" back to base.

> If you concept of "winning" is to capture and hold only, save for the
> major bases around Viet Nam, it was seldom done.

The U.S. held ALL the based until CONGRESS voted to pull out. The VC
and NVA never held ANY base for more than a few hours. And THEN only so our
troops could fall back to a safe distance while the Air Force turned the
enemy into SMOKED HAMBURGER! Then when the ground coooled sufficiently we
came back. Maybe you should read some Viet Namese documents where THEY ADMIT
they wer beaten and ONLY the rampant COWARDICE of American politicians saved
the day for them. They were ready to sue for peace on OUR terms. But they
KNEW that Congress had caved.

>> I don't know what YOU
>>think winning an engagement OR a war is, but by the standards YOU are
>>suggesting here, the U.S. should have surrendered on December7, 1941 or at
>>least the Phillipines in 1942. We should have just handed over the keys to
>>the White House to Tojo.

> What utter drivel! WW2 was a setpiece war, in which capturing and
> holding were the order of the day. Viet Nam was not.

Did we hold the Phillipines? Wake Island? Or did we MUCH LATER take them
back? Drivel?

>>>>EXCEPT in the U.S. Congress.

>>> Well, no -- not that either. If you are seeking the place where the
>>> Murkens pretty much abandoned the field, you'd want to take a longer
>>> look at the Paris Peace Talks, headed by H Kissinger et al.
>>
>> Kissinger, with Nixon in the **** HOUSE over Watergate at that point,
>>and CONGRESS being YELLOW had no choice but to SURRENDER and RUN
>>because Congress would no longer fund the war. Hard to win a war with no
>>bullets only BARELY enough money for gas to RUN LIKE HELL!

> Apparently you simply don't recall how the Paris Peace Talks went at
> the time. When RMN ran for Prez in 1968, he campaigned on his plan to
> End the war in Viet Nam. He, like others, seems to have come to
> realize that it was always Their war to win or lose -- not ours.
> RMN's plan discussion preceded Watergate by several years, if you
> recall clearly.

Yeah in 1968 did Nixon say HOW he was going to end it? Or did he simply
say he has a "SECRET PLAN" to end it?

> Which is why Vietnamization was the watchword of his entire Plan, and
> moving responsibility for the conduct of the war to the RVN was the
> central tenet of it.

> In the end, there was no "nation" of RVN worth bothering with. Just a
> group of kleptocrats who weren't worthy of even One Murken Casualty.

> Which is why we eventually left.

We left because we had chosen the WRONG SIDE thanks to LBJ. We screwed
the pooch.Viet Nam was a war waged by the STATE DEPARTMENT who has had a 200
year history of getting everything EXACTLY bass ackwards. Remember in 1940
State was GUSHING at how wonderful Hitler was! They haven't gotten a
friggign thing RIGHT in 200 years. Look at their GREAT work in Latin
America. WHAT have those assholes EVER gotten right? Nixon went to China
with the State Department in cardiac arrest. Throwing childish **** fits.
Look at the GREAT GREAT job they have done with Cuba and Venezuela. is there
ANY country in Latin American they have NOT pissed off? Or main problem is
that we have a MORON in the White House today that goes along with their
****.

 

[krp]

"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8Lhjj.5922$ib7.5339@trndny04...

>" krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>> news:1u0no350828081e4nenuc8l17petr6s2u2@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> The Viet Cong, a peasant army, kicked America's arse so badly that
>>>>> you had
>>>>> to throw your helicopters into the sea in your panic to run away.
>>
>>>>Sorry weenie they never won even ONE engagement.
>>
>>> Not Quite true. There were numerous occasions when VC/NVA roops
>>> pretty much overran Murken positions around the RVN from time to
>>> time.
>>
>> Not really. They took a HILL for what turned out to be LESS THAN
>> AN HOUR
>> as U.S. forces pulled back to allow the Air Force to incinerate the
>> NVA and Cong troops. An hour later the U.S. had its base back. I don't
>> know what YOU think winning an engagement OR a war is, but by the
>> standards YOU are suggesting here, the U.S. should have surrendered on
>> December7, 1941 or at least the Phillipines in 1942. We should have
>> just handed over the keys to the White House to Tojo.
>>
>>>>EXCEPT in the U.S. Congress.
>>
>>> Well, no -- not that either. If you are seeking the place where the
>>> Murkens pretty much abandoned the field, you'd want to take a longer
>>> look at the Paris Peace Talks, headed by H Kissinger et al.

>> Kissinger, with Nixon in the **** HOUSE over Watergate at that point,
>> and CONGRESS being YELLOW had no choice but to SURRENDER and RUN
>> because Congress would no longer fund the war. Hard to win a war with
>> no bullets only BARELY enough money for gas to RUN LIKE HELL!

> That's Homuth alright. Yellow through and through.

Don seems UNABLE to distinguish 1968 from 1976.

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:20:59 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:


>>>I don't suppose you remember why we went to war originally? The war
>>>was terribly mis-managed by the president & his chief-of-staff.
>>>Remember who that was? Sound familiar?
>>
>> Ummm......... Eisenhower and Dulles under the Domino Theory and the
>> Dulles Doctrine. Prior to that Truman supported the puppet government
>> with money and maybe a few advisors. They were both following the
>> failed French policy in Indochina and propping up a puppet government.
>> Dulles was Sect'y of State - not chief of staff.
>
>You are in the ballpark but wrong. Neither Eisenhower not Kennedy placed
>troops in Viet Nam. Eisenhower was seriously considering aiding Ho and not
>the south.

The I guess that my Dad's TOD in Nam as a member of MAAG in the 50's
was a figment of his imagination? And yes they shot at the enemy.
You're so wrong that you're not only out of the ballpark but somewhere
out in the ether. Keep trying to rewrite history - the ignorant might
believe it but it's still crap.

WB Yeats

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:18:48 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>
><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>news:19lpo3t818m9kli1p2nvd8kohn3jn9h3vd@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>>> We ARE better. Better shots and better at war.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Viet Cong have lots of rusty helicopters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go live in one you scumbag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the poor little Merkin all upset at the truth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Viet Cong, a peasant army, kicked America's arse so badly that you
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> to throw your helicopters into the sea in your panic to run away.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry weenie they never won even ONE engagement.
>>>>>EXCEPT in the U.S. Congress.
>>>>
>>>> ......and in US public opinion. Ever hear of losing the battle and
>>>> winning the war? Ever hear of wars of attrition? Ever hear anything
>>>> besides the sound of your own voice? Thought not.
>>>
>>> Actually majority PUBLIC opinion persisted. However there was
>>>significant opposition and a president being HAMMERED relentlessly over
>>>Watergate. Richard Nixon shared TOTAL INCOMPETENCE with George W.
>>>Bush.However militarily we kicked their ass Congress was YELLOW.
>>
>> Where do you get your info - the Fantasy Times? As soon as Walter came
>> out against the war, public opinion followed. By 1968 the majority of
>> Americans were AGAINST the war. Look it up. As for yellow. Yup - it's
>> takes real bravery to bomb a bunch of pajama-clad farmers.
>
>I don't have to "LOOK IT UP" clown - I LIVED IT!

Well congratulations - it's too bad that your memory is wrong. After
Tet public opinion was over 50% anti-war with an even higher
percentage feeling the war was a big mistake. Sorry, goober.

WB Yeats

 

[Don Homuth]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:33:11 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>news:17rpo3tjf0d94rkd1j2q39troiv3ckk6lp@4ax.com...
>
>>We'd blast something,
>> then leave. They'd overrun something, then leave.
>
> HORSESHIT Don. When the overran the ONE HILL during 1968 Tet they did
>NOT leave!!! They became FERTILZER! Not much left after napalm Donny,
>nothing to "withdraw" back to base.

Tet was an anomaly -- a huge tactical defeat for the VC. I remain
convinced that in large part the Tet Offensive derived from a policy
decision by COSVN to put the indigenous VC into a position where they
would be pretty much eliminated as a local political force, leaving
the conduct of the war thereafter to COSVN instead.

I am speaking here from a framework of twenty months in RVN, starting
in 1/67 and working past Tet to 8/68. Each side, repeatedly, would
"capture" some landmark, then leave. It's just the way the stupid war
went.

>> If you concept of "winning" is to capture and hold only, save for the
>> major bases around Viet Nam, it was seldom done.
>
> The U.S. held ALL the based until CONGRESS voted to pull out.

No -- it held the Major bases. There were plenty of fire bases that
were held temporarily, then we'd pull out and they'd come back and
hold it for a while, then we'd attack again and they'd pull out, and
we'd hold it for a while.

It was more like a game of musical chairs than anything else.

You've been reading Way too much right-wing PR drivel.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:46:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

>" krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>> news:1u0no350828081e4nenuc8l17petr6s2u2@4ax.com...
>>
>> If you are seeking the place where the
>>> Murkens pretty much abandoned the field, you'd want to take a longer
>>> look at the Paris Peace Talks, headed by H Kissinger et al.
>>
>> Kissinger, with Nixon in the **** HOUSE over Watergate at that
>> point,
>> and CONGRESS being YELLOW had no choice but to SURRENDER and RUN
>> because Congress would no longer fund the war. Hard to win a war with
>> no bullets only BARELY enough money for gas to RUN LIKE HELL!
>
>That's Homuth alright. Yellow through and through.

Sometimes, when the circumstances called for it, I cowered in a
bunker. And sometimes, when the circumstances called for it, I
didn't.

Most everyone followed that same routine.

You, who were never actually there, wouldn't know how it worked.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:34:46 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:


> Don seems UNABLE to distinguish 1968 from 1976.

Au contraire -- I was in the RVN for most of 1968. I got back in time
to hear RMN campaigning on his intent to end the war in the 1968
election.

If you bother to check, the Watergate problem didn't begin until After
the 1972 election.

 

[blues@steel.yard]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:45:22 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:

>Sometimes, when the circumstances called for it, I cowered in a
>bunker.


And lied to get a 4f...

 

[krp]

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:v67so3le5u5mf4d09f6qd2c6c9o6alq47i@4ax.com...

>>>>I don't suppose you remember why we went to war originally? The war
>>>>was terribly mis-managed by the president & his chief-of-staff.
>>>>Remember who that was? Sound familiar?
>>>
>>> Ummm......... Eisenhower and Dulles under the Domino Theory and the
>>> Dulles Doctrine. Prior to that Truman supported the puppet government
>>> with money and maybe a few advisors. They were both following the
>>> failed French policy in Indochina and propping up a puppet government.
>>> Dulles was Sect'y of State - not chief of staff.
>>
>>You are in the ballpark but wrong. Neither Eisenhower not Kennedy placed
>>troops in Viet Nam. Eisenhower was seriously considering aiding Ho and not
>>the south.
>
> The I guess that my Dad's TOD in Nam as a member of MAAG in the 50's
> was a figment of his imagination?

Pretty much, YEAH!

 

[krp]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
news:brcso3ti64b220su3lel0diaco9ce2rt7v@4ax.com...

>>>We'd blast something,
>>> then leave. They'd overrun something, then leave.
>>
>> HORSESHIT Don. When the overran the ONE HILL during 1968 Tet they did
>>NOT leave!!! They became FERTILZER! Not much left after napalm Donny,
>>nothing to "withdraw" back to base.
>
> Tet was an anomaly -- a huge tactical defeat for the VC. I remain
> convinced that in large part the Tet Offensive derived from a policy
> decision by COSVN to put the indigenous VC into a position where they
> would be pretty much eliminated as a local political force, leaving
> the conduct of the war thereafter to COSVN instead.

Huge defeat? They lost 75% of their army. I'd use a bigger superlative that
Huge."

> I am speaking here from a framework of twenty months in RVN, starting
> in 1/67 and working past Tet to 8/68. Each side, repeatedly, would
> "capture" some landmark, then leave. It's just the way the stupid war
> went.

I was referring to bases that were held not villages that needed to be
stroyed to save them.

 

[krp]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
news:95dso3tq0pa0qv6auun8n62l469sbagdtg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:34:46 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Don seems UNABLE to distinguish 1968 from 1976.
>
> Au contraire -- I was in the RVN for most of 1968. I got back in time
> to hear RMN campaigning on his intent to end the war in the 1968
> election.
>
> If you bother to check, the Watergate problem didn't begin until After
> the 1972 election.

And the pullout didn't begin till 76.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:28:56 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>news:brcso3ti64b220su3lel0diaco9ce2rt7v@4ax.com...
>
>>>>We'd blast something,
>>>> then leave. They'd overrun something, then leave.
>>>
>>> HORSESHIT Don. When the overran the ONE HILL during 1968 Tet they did
>>>NOT leave!!! They became FERTILZER! Not much left after napalm Donny,
>>>nothing to "withdraw" back to base.
>>
>> Tet was an anomaly -- a huge tactical defeat for the VC. I remain
>> convinced that in large part the Tet Offensive derived from a policy
>> decision by COSVN to put the indigenous VC into a position where they
>> would be pretty much eliminated as a local political force, leaving
>> the conduct of the war thereafter to COSVN instead.
>
>Huge defeat? They lost 75% of their army. I'd use a bigger superlative that
>Huge."

If you would, then do. I have no objection to that.

Note, however, that after the first set of Tet Offensives, there were
numerous smaller attacks later on in 1968 and again in 1969.

That's because the NVA pretty much became the bulk of the fielded
personnel, rather than the former VC.

>> I am speaking here from a framework of twenty months in RVN, starting
>> in 1/67 and working past Tet to 8/68. Each side, repeatedly, would
>> "capture" some landmark, then leave. It's just the way the stupid war
>> went.
>
> I was referring to bases that were held not villages that needed to be
>stroyed to save them.

I was referring to non-village bases as well.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:29:52 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>news:95dso3tq0pa0qv6auun8n62l469sbagdtg@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:34:46 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Don seems UNABLE to distinguish 1968 from 1976.
>>
>> Au contraire -- I was in the RVN for most of 1968. I got back in time
>> to hear RMN campaigning on his intent to end the war in the 1968
>> election.
>>
>> If you bother to check, the Watergate problem didn't begin until After
>> the 1972 election.
>
>And the pullout didn't begin till 76.

Wrong again. The pullout Began in late 1968.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

" krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:8Lhjj.5922$ib7.5339@trndny04...
>
>>" krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>>> news:1u0no350828081e4nenuc8l17petr6s2u2@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>> The Viet Cong, a peasant army, kicked America's arse so badly
>>>>>> that you had
>>>>>> to throw your helicopters into the sea in your panic to run away.
>>>
>>>>>Sorry weenie they never won even ONE engagement.
>>>
>>>> Not Quite true. There were numerous occasions when VC/NVA roops
>>>> pretty much overran Murken positions around the RVN from time to
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> Not really. They took a HILL for what turned out to be LESS THAN
>>> AN HOUR
>>> as U.S. forces pulled back to allow the Air Force to incinerate the
>>> NVA and Cong troops. An hour later the U.S. had its base back. I
>>> don't know what YOU think winning an engagement OR a war is, but by
>>> the standards YOU are suggesting here, the U.S. should have
>>> surrendered on December7, 1941 or at least the Phillipines in 1942.
>>> We should have just handed over the keys to the White House to Tojo.
>>>
>>>>>EXCEPT in the U.S. Congress.
>>>
>>>> Well, no -- not that either. If you are seeking the place where
>>>> the Murkens pretty much abandoned the field, you'd want to take a
>>>> longer look at the Paris Peace Talks, headed by H Kissinger et al.
>
>>> Kissinger, with Nixon in the **** HOUSE over Watergate at that
>>> point,
>>> and CONGRESS being YELLOW had no choice but to SURRENDER and RUN
>>> because Congress would no longer fund the war. Hard to win a war
>>> with no bullets only BARELY enough money for gas to RUN LIKE HELL!
>
>> That's Homuth alright. Yellow through and through.
>
> Don seems UNABLE to distinguish 1968 from 1976.

He seems unable to distinguish Anything from 1968.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

"blues@steel.yard" <Steelyard> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:45:22 -0800, Don Homuth
> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
>
>>Sometimes, when the circumstances called for it, I cowered in a
>>bunker.
>
>
> And lied to get a 4f...
>

And typed citations in the Btn HQ ...

Our very own Wes Cooley.

 

[Bill Shatzer]

Don Homuth wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:29:52 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>>news:95dso3tq0pa0qv6auun8n62l469sbagdtg@4ax.com...

>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:34:46 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>> Don seems UNABLE to distinguish 1968 from 1976.

>>>Au contraire -- I was in the RVN for most of 1968. I got back in time
>>>to hear RMN campaigning on his intent to end the war in the 1968
>>>election.

>>>If you bother to check, the Watergate problem didn't begin until After
>>>the 1972 election.

>>And the pullout didn't begin till 76.

> Wrong again. The pullout Began in late 1968.

Number US Military Personnel in RVN

Year
1959 760
1960 900
1961 3205
1962 11300
1963 16300
1964 23300
1965 184300
1966 385300
1967 485600
1968 536100
1969 475200
1970 334600
1971 156800
1972 24200
1973 50

You gotta wonder how these rightwads can be so consistently wrong.

It's like they work at it or something.

Peace and justice,