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

[Guest Don Homuth]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:32:24 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>news:87g2p3hm5oh6n47juikdoru6gui0fgk8g0@4ax.com...

>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:22:32 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Don were we told the TRUTH about ANYTHING dealing with Viet Nam by

>>>ANYBODY????

>>

>> Yes.

>

>WHO? ...

 

Those who opposed the war.

[Guest Don Homuth]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:32:24 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>The LIES started with the Gulf of Tonkin.

 

Well, no - as you yourself admit just below.

> The LIES started before that

>when Ho Chi Minh came to the U.S. BEGGING for our help in the early 50's,

 

Ho didn't lie at that time. But JF Dulles certainly overestimated the

CAPD that Ho was supposed to embody.

>The American people were fed a line of BULLSHIT by EVERYBODY involved.

 

Starting with DDE and JF Dulles, and working outward from there.

Problem was then, as you have seen relatively recently, those who were

most insistent that we had a Duty to interfere with the Vietnamese

right of self-determination asserted that We had to do so for National

Security Reasons, else the Dominoes Would Fall.

 

They may well have believed that at the time -- but that was mostly

because they so desperately Wanted to believe that at the time.

 

Ho was no danger to the US or to US interests.

>EVERYONE was LYING about it.

 

Everyone was not lying about it. In order to be lying, first they'd

have had to know the Truth, and deliberately and knowingly contravene

it. It overstates the case to assert they were Lying. They made a

judgement call -- and it turned out to be a bad one. They made that

judgement call out of a combination of Fear and Ignorance of the folks

involved.

 

But you don't have to go back nearly 45 years to see something like

that. We have a Much more recent example.

>We were clearly on the WRONG SIDE.

 

No doubt in my mind, that's the case. But we had this Strange

dichotomy -- that whatever side the Gawdless Atheistic Cawmnists were

on, we just Had to be on the other side, which we would thereafter

define as the Good Side, for our own purposes.

 

Which is how we ended up dying to protect a bunch of kleptocrats ftmp.

What made the initial bad judgement worse is that even After we knew

they were nothing much more than kleptocrats, we Continued to support

them out of Fear and Ignorance. Bad combination!

>Unfortunately that would not be the last time we were sold a basket of

>bullshit by the French!

 

The French sold us nothing at all. Our support of the French as

recent allies ended with Dien Bien Phu -- as well it ought to have.

As of that moment, we owed them precisely Nothing, and further they

didn't try to sell us anything. They didn't ask us to protect the

Michelin investment in rubber plantations, they didn't demand

reparations for the tin mines or anything else. They were essentially

Out Of There entirely.

 

No -- we picked up where the French left off quite voluntarily, all in

the name of anti-Cawmnism. We started under DDE, continued under JFK,

and got All carried away over what was really a relativly minor

incident under LBJ. We got So het up with War Fever that we cashed in

the NSF check that JFK wrote about bearing Any price and shouldering

Any burden in the Glorious Cause of Freedom.

 

We were never actually going to do that, and it was a stupid thing for

him to say. Some prices just aren't Worth paying, and that was one.

And trying to use the term Freedom wrt the "government" of the RVN is

oxymoronic on its face.

 

Had we Truly kept our commitment to Freedom, we'd have allowed the

reunification elections to proceed when DDE was president, OR we'd

have held them early on after JFK took office. But we didn't. I

suspect it might have something to do with the hard and fast

observation then in vogue that supposedly said "No communist

government ever took office in a Free Election anywhere."

 

Arguably Viet Nam might have changed that piece of Conventional

Wisdom. But our Leaders truly did believe that the US Military Might

was so huge -- and it was huge -- that with just a Little bit of

effort, we could Win a war in which we had nothing at all at stake.

 

But clearly enough, the RVN gubmint had no particular commitment to

Freedom either. Yet we ended up supporting it, even as we managed to

depose several iterations of it, hoping we'd get it right. We never

did.

 

Unpleasant as it might be to consider, the entire question always was

whether the Vietnamese generally would have preferred to be One nation

and not divided. Within the populace, that seems to have been the

case. In the RVN, had there been an actual Election at pretty much

any time, they would have elected Ho, and not those that our CIA and

gubmint picked. Xin Loi -- which is to say, Sorry About That.

 

There was that minority in the RVN that might have preferred someone

other than Ho -- but it always was a minority.

 

That, child, is a brief but on point summary of what went down and

why. You are correct in your observation that we always were on the

Wrong Side. The inability of those in power in the US -- from DDE and

JFK through LBJ to RMN -- to see that clearly cost us dearly.

 

Meanwhile, I have two shirts in my closet that were made in Viet Nam.

Not North Viet Nam or South Viet Nam -- just Viet Nam. They always

did want it to be like that.

 

Funny how things work out, idnit?

[Guest krp]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

news:cp64p3h17g9cbv02898jqg2gof9nqa9n3l@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:32:24 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>>news:87g2p3hm5oh6n47juikdoru6gui0fgk8g0@4ax.com...

>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:22:32 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>Don were we told the TRUTH about ANYTHING dealing with Viet Nam by

>>>>ANYBODY????

>>>

>>> Yes.

>>

>>WHO? ...

>

> Those who opposed the war.

 

Donny the people opposed to the war, Jane Fonda etc, had the brains of

gnats. And not SMART gnats either.

[Guest krp]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

news:2c94p3hfh4e6fq94f4mctn1gaiu2bm5pfl@4ax.com...

>>The LIES started with the Gulf of Tonkin.

> Well, no - as you yourself admit just below.

 

No Donny the things that passed before weren't lies. They were stupid

errors. There's a difference. Nobody ever told the public about Ho Chi Minh

coming to the U.S. begging for help.

>> The LIES started before that when Ho Chi Minh came to the U.S. BEGGING

>> for our help in the early 50's,

> Ho didn't lie at that time. But JF Dulles certainly overestimated the

> CAPD that Ho was supposed to embody.

 

Ho didn't lie, Dulles was an IDIOT. Like all at the State Department,

you didn't have to be an IDIOT to work there, but it sure helped you fit in

the crowd.

>>The American people were fed a line of BULLSHIT by EVERYBODY involved.

> Starting with DDE and JF Dulles, and working outward from there.

> Problem was then, as you have seen relatively recently, those who were

> most insistent that we had a Duty to interfere with the Vietnamese

> right of self-determination asserted that We had to do so for National

> Security Reasons, else the Dominoes Would Fall.

 

Eisenhower didn't say much of anything about viet Nam. Dulles did, but

he was an IDIOT.

> They may well have believed that at the time -- but that was mostly

> because they so desperately Wanted to believe that at the time.

 

Dulles and the whole crew at State were IDIOTS.

> Ho was no danger to the US or to US interests.

 

As a matter of fact he wanted desperately to be our ALLY.

>>EVERYONE was LYING about it.

> Everyone was not lying about it. In order to be lying, first they'd

> have had to know the Truth, and deliberately and knowingly contravene

> it. It overstates the case to assert they were Lying. They made a

> judgement call -- and it turned out to be a bad one. They made that

> judgement call out of a combination of Fear and Ignorance of the folks

> involved.

 

By the time Lyndon Baines Johnson was in office it became a pack of

LIES. ALL OF IT! Everything the American people were fed from then on, both

FOR the war and against it was 100% BULLSHIT!

[Guest Don Homuth]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:59:00 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>news:cp64p3h17g9cbv02898jqg2gof9nqa9n3l@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:32:24 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>>>news:87g2p3hm5oh6n47juikdoru6gui0fgk8g0@4ax.com...

>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:22:32 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>Don were we told the TRUTH about ANYTHING dealing with Viet Nam by

>>>>>ANYBODY????

>>>>

>>>> Yes.

>>>

>>>WHO? ...

>>

>> Those who opposed the war.

>

>Donny the people opposed to the war, Jane Fonda etc,

 

I'm thinking more of folks like Wayne Morse -- the OR US Senator -- as

an example. There were others.

>... had the brains of gnats.

 

History has vindicated their side of the story, however.

> And not SMART gnats either.

 

And you find folks like The Idiot Westmoreland to be smarter?

 

Pfeh!

[Guest jbohren]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

news:lnk4p31d7a3ft33qggs8f239glj6oah4r9@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:59:00 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>>news:cp64p3h17g9cbv02898jqg2gof9nqa9n3l@4ax.com...

>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:32:24 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>>>>news:87g2p3hm5oh6n47juikdoru6gui0fgk8g0@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:22:32 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>Don were we told the TRUTH about ANYTHING dealing with Viet Nam by

>>>>>>ANYBODY????

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes.

>>>>

>>>>WHO? ...

>>>

>>> Those who opposed the war.

>>

>>Donny the people opposed to the war, Jane Fonda etc,

>

> I'm thinking more of folks like Wayne Morse -- the OR US Senator -- as

> an example. There were others.

 

Like Hatfield- the other Oregon Senator....

[Guest Bill Shatzer]

krp wrote:

> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:yKKdnTaQBsCe2QzanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@comcast.com...

>

>> krp wrote:

>>

>>>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>>>news:pcj1p3t1d75ekpa3pp74n6377ovqbtk5o5@4ax.com...

>>

>>>>Yes -- the NVA units did take tremendous losses, but not Nearly enough

>>>>to take them entirely off the field later.

>>

>>> Just enough taken out to make them no serious threat to the U.S.

>>>Army.

>>

>>'Cept, of course, post-Tet the US military suffered almost 13,000 KIAs in

>>Viet Nam. For 1969, the total was almost 9,500.

>>

>>Any force which can inflict 22,000 KIAs is a "serious threat".

>

>

> Bill one guy with a gun can kill lots of people.

 

But not twenty two thousand.

> That does NOT make HIM a

> serious military force.

 

Iffen he has enough friends with the ability to do the same thing it does.

 

The VC and the NVA had more than enough friends.

 

Peace and justice,

[Guest Will Penny]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:08:47 -0800, Bill Shatzer

<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:

>The VC and the NVA had more than enough friends.

>It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer

>another 9-11 every six or seven years.

>Peace and justice,

[Guest krp]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

news:lnk4p31d7a3ft33qggs8f239glj6oah4r9@4ax.com...

>>>>>>Don were we told the TRUTH about ANYTHING dealing with Viet Nam by

>>>>>>ANYBODY????

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes.

>>>>

>>>>WHO? ...

>>>

>>> Those who opposed the war.

>>

>>Donny the people opposed to the war, Jane Fonda etc,

>

> I'm thinking more of folks like Wayne Morse -- the OR US Senator -- as

> an example. There were others.

>

>>... had the brains of gnats.

>

> History has vindicated their side of the story, however.

 

Not really there is absoluley NO vindication for ANYONE in the Viet Nam

story. NONE.

>> And not SMART gnats either.

>

> And you find folks like The Idiot Westmoreland to be smarter?

 

 

Did you READ what I wrote? I said EVERYONE LIED.

[Guest krp]

"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:L9OdncouMsLcJg_anZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

>>>>>Yes -- the NVA units did take tremendous losses, but not Nearly enough

>>>>>to take them entirely off the field later.

>>>

>>>> Just enough taken out to make them no serious threat to the U.S.

>>>> Army.

>>>

>>>'Cept, of course, post-Tet the US military suffered almost 13,000 KIAs in

>>>Viet Nam. For 1969, the total was almost 9,500.

>>>

>>>Any force which can inflict 22,000 KIAs is a "serious threat".

>>

>>

>> Bill one guy with a gun can kill lots of people.

>

> But not twenty two thousand.

 

Bill you miss the point. Doesn't take a good ARMY that can face another

army on the battlefield to kill people. Look at Iraq.

[Guest Don Homuth]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:04:16 GMT, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message

>news:lnk4p31d7a3ft33qggs8f239glj6oah4r9@4ax.com...

>

>>>>>>>Don were we told the TRUTH about ANYTHING dealing with Viet Nam by

>>>>>>>ANYBODY????

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes.

>>>>>

>>>>>WHO? ...

>>>>

>>>> Those who opposed the war.

>>>

>>>Donny the people opposed to the war, Jane Fonda etc,

>>

>> I'm thinking more of folks like Wayne Morse -- the OR US Senator -- as

>> an example. There were others.

>>

>>>... had the brains of gnats.

>>

>> History has vindicated their side of the story, however.

>

> Not really there is absoluley NO vindication for ANYONE in the Viet Nam

>story. NONE.

>

>>> And not SMART gnats either.

>>

>> And you find folks like The Idiot Westmoreland to be smarter?

>

>Did you READ what I wrote? I said EVERYONE LIED.

 

Apparently all you have to share hereon is the fact that you are

Angry.

 

Sorry -- but that is neither particularly insightful nor important.

[Guest Bill Shatzer]

krp wrote:

> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:L9OdncouMsLcJg_anZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

>>>>>>Yes -- the NVA units did take tremendous losses, but not Nearly enough

>>>>>>to take them entirely off the field later.

>>>>

>>>>> Just enough taken out to make them no serious threat to the U.S.

>>>>>Army.

>>>>

>>>>'Cept, of course, post-Tet the US military suffered almost 13,000 KIAs in

>>>>Viet Nam. For 1969, the total was almost 9,500.

>>>>

>>>>Any force which can inflict 22,000 KIAs is a "serious threat".

>>>

>>>

>>>Bill one guy with a gun can kill lots of people.

>>

>>But not twenty two thousand.

> Bill you miss the point. Doesn't take a good ARMY that can face another

> army on the battlefield to kill people. Look at Iraq.

 

Your claim was not directed at just "an army" or any old army but rather

a specific army - the US Army.

 

The Iraqi army inflicted tens of thousands of casualties on the Iranian

army during the Iraq/Iran war. That was a serious threat to the Iranian

Army.

 

That same Iraqi army managed to inflict a couple hundred casualties on

the US Army during both Gulf War I and Gulf War II combined. That was

not a "serious threat" - though that was apparent only in hindsight.

 

The VC/NVA managed to exceed the Gulf War I/II numbers by a couple

orders of magnitude.

 

And that WAS a "serious threat".

 

Peace and justice

[Guest Will Penny]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:55:27 -0800, Bill Shatzer

<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:

 

>It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer

>another 9-11 every six or seven years.

>And that WAS a "serious threat".

>Peace and justice,