|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 14, 2009 16:06:27 GMT
you post a picture of a vietnamese child being burned by napalm because the viet cong and north vietnamese refused to act like humans, and try to blame the u.s. t In what way did this child and those deformed by agent orange suffer because of the North Vietnamese and the so called viet cong? This strike on innocent civilians was carried out by an American trained pilot, in an American plane using American chemical weapons. Not the North Vietnamese, nor the viet cong. This young girl was scorched thanks to American foreign policy and its need to destroy human life for little more than sport. Then you have the audacity of accusing the Viet cong of failing to act as humans! Tell us where the humanity is the US forces who co-ordinated that attack? if the viet cong and north vietnamese had been minding their own business, that kid, nor anyone else, would have ever seen napalm in vietnam. GASP! You have to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If the American had been mind their own business and kept their troops within their own borders, none of this shamefull debacle at the cost of tens of thousands of deaths would have happened.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 14, 2009 20:39:04 GMT
you post a picture of a vietnamese child being burned by napalm because the viet cong and north vietnamese refused to act like humans, and try to blame the u.s. t In what way did this child and those deformed by agent orange suffer because of the North Vietnamese and the so called viet cong? This strike on innocent civilians was carried out by an American trained pilot, in an American plane using American chemical weapons. Not the North Vietnamese, nor the viet cong. This young girl was scorched thanks to American foreign policy and its need to destroy human life for little more than sport. Then you have the audacity of accusing the Viet cong of failing to act as humans! Tell us where the humanity is the US forces who co-ordinated that attack? if the viet cong and north vietnamese had been minding their own business, that kid, nor anyone else, would have ever seen napalm in vietnam. GASP! You have to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If the American had been mind their own business and kept their troops within their own borders, none of this shamefull debacle at the cost of tens of thousands of deaths would have happened. damm you're daft. obviously, i would have preferred that we never be in vietnam, but, the north vietnamese and vietcong insisted that we be there. actually, of course, the predominant fault lies in the north vietnamese. the south vietnamese government could have wasted the vietcong had the north minded their own business. a remedial history course is obviously in order for you. a course in rational thinking would also be beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 14, 2009 22:09:46 GMT
National Defence Headquarters MGen George R. Pearkes Bldg, 15 NT 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa , ON K1A 0K2 Canada
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities.
Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinions were heard loud and clear here in Ottawa.
You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself; we are creating a new department here at the Department of National Defence, to be called 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers' program, or L.A.R.K. for short.
In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to divert one terrorist and place him in your personal care.
Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday.
Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint.
It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers.. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommend in your letter.
Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his 'attitudinal problem' will help him overcome these character flaws.
Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences.
We understand that you plan to offer counselling and home schooling.
Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers.
We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group.
He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.
Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property.
This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire.
I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of 'respecting his culture and religious beliefs' as described in your letter.
Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man.
You take good care of Ahmed and remember we'll be watching.
Good luck and God bless you.
Cordially,
Gordon O'Connor
Minister of National Defence
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 14, 2009 22:09:54 GMT
but, the north vietnamese and vietcong insisted that we be there. Eh? Can you explain that? They 'INSISTED' that you be there? How? Surely, given the fact that Vietnam is thousands of miles away, you could have let them sort themselves out? Given that North Vietnam and South Vietnam are actually the same Country and America is not on the same continent, don't you think you have a bit of a cheek expecting the North Vietnamise to mind their own business? Surely the people who should have minded their own business was the Country that was forced to crawl out there with their tails between thir legs and airlifted of their embassy?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 14, 2009 22:12:27 GMT
OK, as someone who wasn't even born when all this was going on, I hope people don't mind if I put in my two penniesworth.
As I understand it the North Vietnamese were trying to invade and conquer the south and the south called in the Americans - first as advisers and later as troops - to protect them. Not that long after US troops left, the Vietcong overran and conquered the whole country.
As far as I know there's never been a democratic election in the united Vietnam.
People have one choice - Communist or abstaining.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 15, 2009 0:12:55 GMT
OK, as someone who wasn't even born when all this was going on, I hope people don't mind if I put in my two penniesworth. As I understand it the North Vietnamese were trying to invade and conquer the south and the south called in the Americans - first as advisers and later as troops - to protect them. Not that long after US troops left, the Vietcong overran and conquered the whole country. As far as I know there's never been a democratic election in the united Vietnam. People have one choice - Communist or abstaining. The Un split the Country in two after the Indochina war. The North tried to unite the Country with the help of the USSR and China. The Americans fearing a Communist take over got into a proxy war in order to keep the two Countries apart. After a war that last 10 years, cost millions of lives, saw chemical weapons and agent orange sprayed over much of the land (vietnam was/is a farming society) in order to kill of the vegatation, the Americans left vietnam and the Country was united under a Communist state exactly as would have happened in the Nineteen fifties. Of course by that time, Vietnam had been reduced to rubble, and millions dead, not mention thousands of children were born with shocking birth defects (google images: agent orange). Classic American intervention ending up destroying what they were supposed to be protecting. The fact of the matter being they had no interest in protecting Vietnam, per se, they were there to fight as proxy war with the Communists. The Americans were invited as liberators but their aggresive and destructive troops turned many South Vietnamese to against their own Government and the American troops and into sympathisers of the Communist forces. American aggression had lost the Hearts and minds of the people they had went in to save. The American troops had acted as, if not more brutual than the Communists they had meant to stop. They had stopped being there to free people and were purely fighting for the sake of fighting. The tactics became more brutal, turning yet more of the population into Communists supporters which the Americans repiad by bombing villages and shootings etc. You can see obvious comparisons between the above and Northen Ireland. Yet the starkest parallal is with Iraq. The semi intention of that invasion (other than killing innocent Muslims for revenge) was to topple Sadam. However, the same brutal tactics employed in Vietnam which turned civilians drove people into the arms of the insurgents. The attacks that demolished Iraqs cities and population has left the Country totally destabled. Worse, given that the War on Iraq was badly thought out and had 'legitimate' goals bolted onto to meant that the Americans have no clear exist strategy. The halfwit Bush simply has no clue about international relations. He went in to Iraq purely as revenge and had no idea what removing Saddam's power would do. Whatever you say about Saddam, he did keep the Country functioning and kept it from exploding. Iraq has went from a secular, stable albeit brutal State into a seething mass of competing factions and endless cycle of death. Bush has went to one of the biggest dictatorships in the World and made the Country even worse! To make mistakes in Vietnam for the right reasons is rather shamefull, but understandable given what happen. To repeat the same folly 30 years later smacks of idiocy. The fact that people are still defending the entire F*ck ups makes me weep for the stupity of such people.
|
|
|
Post by Ho ho ho Chi Minh on Dec 15, 2009 2:18:15 GMT
Vietnam was supposed to be re-united with national elections in 1956. Many Vietnamese who preferred the Japanese Resistance leader Ho Chi Minh to the collaborator Bao Dai whom the West had put up as puppet Emperor fled north waiting for this election and their chance to return under a popular government. The North held the election, the South with American backing did not. It was not a perfect election: one-fifth of seats were Communist only. But an imperfect election is better than no election at all. Thereafter, Ho Chi Minh's legitimately elected government sought to gain control and supporters to return to their homes. The USA called this invasion and infiltration and supported a gruesome succession of similar dictators and gangsters coming to power by coup d'état as was its policy at the time and right up to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden until they had no use for them. The issue is not really that the USA did dirty deals with dirty people just like any state one cares to name: it is that it presents a holier than thou image pretending to act from moral superiority in support of some of the vilest thugs and psychopaths ever to abuse their people (Papa Doc Duvalier, Pinochet, Noriega, Pol Pot, Saddam - Hitler even before they were reluctantly tricked into fighting him) in the name of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. It is a wonder Bush wasn't denouncing Aung Song Suu Kyi as a terrorist and sending arms and 'advisors' to the Burmese SLORC If the US had the honesty to admit, like most other countries that in the Real World they play Realpolitik like everybody else and in that real world they have something to teach some but plenty to learn from others, nobody would hate them as much as we do. It is the sheer hypocrisy, the echo of the British Empire's self-satisfied pre-1940 smug certainty that whatever it does and whomever it supports it can do no wrong because it is what it is, that riles. The sheer arrogance that because the USA says so, it must be true and to question is to be an enemy follows the same pattern as all totalitarianisms where The System is The State. The American peculiarity is that their totalitarianism is so profound that a lot of the time it can't accept its own elected government either!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 15, 2009 11:42:27 GMT
but, the north vietnamese and vietcong insisted that we be there. Eh? Can you explain that? They 'INSISTED' that you be there? How? Surely, given the fact that Vietnam is thousands of miles away, you could have let them sort themselves out? Given that North Vietnam and South Vietnam are actually the same Country and America is not on the same continent, don't you think you have a bit of a cheek expecting the North Vietnamise to mind their own business? Surely the people who should have minded their own business was the Country that was forced to crawl out there with their tails between thir legs and airlifted of their embassy? i've already said that we shouldn't have been there. the fact is that that was a war that had been going on for 1500 years. the french had just finished getting their azzes kicked when the u.s. decided to follow them. however, the FACT remains that, if the north vietnamese STAYED in the north and minded their own business, the french, u.s., nor anyone else would have ever been there. there is also the FACT that, had china and russia minded THEIR own business, the domino theory justification for the u.s. going to vietnam would have been moot. obviously, the domino theory was ALWAYS nothing more than a hallucination by lunatics, but, it was foisted on the western world, and the majority were dumb enough to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 15, 2009 11:43:47 GMT
OK, as someone who wasn't even born when all this was going on, I hope people don't mind if I put in my two penniesworth. As I understand it the North Vietnamese were trying to invade and conquer the south and the south called in the Americans - first as advisers and later as troops - to protect them. Not that long after US troops left, the Vietcong overran and conquered the whole country. As far as I know there's never been a democratic election in the united Vietnam. People have one choice - Communist or abstaining. you are correct hon
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 15, 2009 11:47:29 GMT
OK, as someone who wasn't even born when all this was going on, I hope people don't mind if I put in my two penniesworth. As I understand it the North Vietnamese were trying to invade and conquer the south and the south called in the Americans - first as advisers and later as troops - to protect them. Not that long after US troops left, the Vietcong overran and conquered the whole country. As far as I know there's never been a democratic election in the united Vietnam. People have one choice - Communist or abstaining. The Un split the Country in two after the Indochina war. The North tried to unite the Country with the help of the USSR and China. The Americans fearing a Communist take over got into a proxy war in order to keep the two Countries apart. After a war that last 10 years, cost millions of lives, saw chemical weapons and agent orange sprayed over much of the land (vietnam was/is a farming society) in order to kill of the vegatation, the Americans left vietnam and the Country was united under a Communist state exactly as would have happened in the Nineteen fifties. Of course by that time, Vietnam had been reduced to rubble, and millions dead, not mention thousands of children were born with shocking birth defects (google images: agent orange). Classic American intervention ending up destroying what they were supposed to be protecting. The fact of the matter being they had no interest in protecting Vietnam, per se, they were there to fight as proxy war with the Communists. The Americans were invited as liberators but their aggresive and destructive troops turned many South Vietnamese to against their own Government and the American troops and into sympathisers of the Communist forces. American aggression had lost the Hearts and minds of the people they had went in to save. The American troops had acted as, if not more brutual than the Communists they had meant to stop. They had stopped being there to free people and were purely fighting for the sake of fighting. The tactics became more brutal, turning yet more of the population into Communists supporters which the Americans repiad by bombing villages and shootings etc. You can see obvious comparisons between the above and Northen Ireland. Yet the starkest parallal is with Iraq. The semi intention of that invasion (other than killing innocent Muslims for revenge) was to topple Sadam. However, the same brutal tactics employed in Vietnam which turned civilians drove people into the arms of the insurgents. The attacks that demolished Iraqs cities and population has left the Country totally destabled. Worse, given that the War on Iraq was badly thought out and had 'legitimate' goals bolted onto to meant that the Americans have no clear exist strategy. The halfwit Bush simply has no clue about international relations. He went in to Iraq purely as revenge and had no idea what removing Saddam's power would do. Whatever you say about Saddam, he did keep the Country functioning and kept it from exploding. Iraq has went from a secular, stable albeit brutal State into a seething mass of competing factions and endless cycle of death. Bush has went to one of the biggest dictatorships in the World and made the Country even worse! To make mistakes in Vietnam for the right reasons is rather shamefull, but understandable given what happen. To repeat the same folly 30 years later smacks of idiocy. The fact that people are still defending the entire F*ck ups makes me weep for the stupity of such people. your stated adoration of pol pot and ho chi minh's massacres of millions of people is abominable lad
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 15, 2009 12:52:01 GMT
your stated adoration of pol pot and ho chi minh's massacres of millions of people is abominable lad Where have I stated anything of the sort? Everyone condemns massacres from any quarter. But you seem to be suggesting Pol Pot's regime mass murder was somehow worse than the deaths your own Country's carpet bombing of villages and towns all over Vietnam? What makes that better? Why is it that a section of America always see everything in such stark terms? Why is it that you people appear to think any actions taken by America is justified whereas similar action by anyone else is somehow evil. Surely a chemical attack is a chemical attack no matter who has done it. Why is a village being sacked, burned and women raped by Pol Pots men any different to the same village suffering the same fate via American conscripits?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 16, 2009 12:35:39 GMT
your stated adoration of pol pot and ho chi minh's massacres of millions of people is abominable lad Where have I stated anything of the sort? Everyone condemns massacres from any quarter. But you seem to be suggesting Pol Pot's regime mass murder was somehow worse than the deaths your own Country's carpet bombing of villages and towns all over Vietnam? What makes that better? Why is it that a section of America always see everything in such stark terms? Why is it that you people appear to think any actions taken by America is justified whereas similar action by anyone else is somehow evil. Surely a chemical attack is a chemical attack no matter who has done it. Why is a village being sacked, burned and women raped by Pol Pots men any different to the same village suffering the same fate via American conscripits? since the number of such instances was so miniscule, it's irrelevant. you are saying that you believe that pol pot and ho should have been allowed to murder the millions of innocent people without any attempt being made to stop them. that's prima facie ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 16, 2009 14:07:24 GMT
since the number of such instances was so miniscule, it's irrelevant. What do you mean 'irrelevant' so your family are raped and murdered by an invading army and you would deem that, 'not relevant'? Christ, what is it with you Americans? Can you justify any war crime done by your side? What kind of amoral statement is that? been allowed to murder the millions of innocent people without any attempt being made to stop them. that's prima facie ridiculous What is ridiculous is the rather feeble attempt to stop the murder of millions of people, by murdering millions of others. Can you explain what was the point of spraying the people you attempting to defend with chemical weapons, leaving thousands of children with deformities? Way to stop genocide sparky!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 16, 2009 17:25:39 GMT
since the number of such instances was so miniscule, it's irrelevant. What do you mean 'irrelevant' so your family are raped and murdered by an invading army and you would deem that, 'not relevant'? Christ, what is it with you Americans? Can you justify any war crime done by your side? What kind of amoral statement is that? been allowed to murder the millions of innocent people without any attempt being made to stop them. that's prima facie ridiculous What is ridiculous is the rather feeble attempt to stop the murder of millions of people, by murdering millions of others. Can you explain what was the point of spraying the people you attempting to defend with chemical weapons, leaving thousands of children with deformities? Way to stop genocide sparky! your choice to labor under the delusion that it would have been better for a million americans to die invading japan than to have dropped the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki totally destroys whatever shred of credibility you may have had
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 16, 2009 18:49:28 GMT
your choice to labor under the delusion that it would have been better for a million americans to die invading japan than to have dropped the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki totally destroys whatever shred of credibility you may have had What? Where have I said anything of the sort? Why do you insist in making up things that I have not said and putting the straw men?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 16, 2009 20:44:56 GMT
your choice to labor under the delusion that it would have been better for a million americans to die invading japan than to have dropped the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki totally destroys whatever shred of credibility you may have had What? Where have I said anything of the sort? Why do you insist in making up things that I have not said and putting the straw men? hell lad, in just your last post, you tried to say that a miniscule number of abherrant behavior by americans in vietnam was as bad as pol pot murdering millions of people. it's the very same mindset. REALITY lad. it is unfortunate, but in war, there is going to be collateral damage. the fact is that the blame for ALL collateral damage lies SOLELY on those responsible for the war. it is very simple, nothing difficult to understand at all. NO ONE is to blame for women and children dying from american bombs in afghanistan except the taliban and al queda. NO intelligent person would try to claim that the u.s. has an iota of responsibility for those deaths
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 19, 2009 4:23:33 GMT
Why not go ahead and take Tehran while we're in the neighborhood. It would be a cakewalk for the US Marines. Just like the Iraq military, the Iranian soldiers would run and hide. Put the Mullahs out of office. Bulldoze their nuclear bomb making factories. Rid Planet Earth of one more crazy regime.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 19, 2009 11:17:26 GMT
Why not go ahead and take Tehran while we're in the neighborhood. It would be a cakewalk for the US Marines. Just like the Iraq military, the Iranian soldiers would run and hide. Put the Mullahs out of office. Bulldoze their nuclear bomb making factories. Rid Planet Earth of one more crazy regime. that would be the MORRALLY right thing to do. of course, you know damm well why we won't do it. the reason i didn't vote for carter the second time was because he didn't drop 10,000 marines on tehran when the trash first invaded us. the embassy is u.s. soil regardless of what country it is in. there was NO rational reason for not exterminting the garbage at the very beginning, and the world would have been a better place the last few decades
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Dec 19, 2009 13:43:14 GMT
"exterminate the garbage". Says it all, really! Sad person!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 19, 2009 15:22:49 GMT
"exterminate the garbage". Says it all, really! Sad person! i definitely agree that you are, indeed, a very sad person. most people prefer to not leave their trash sitting inside gathering roaches. i'm sorry that you do.
|
|