On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:09:39 -0600, Charlie Wolf
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:53:57 GMT, thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:02:46 GMT, Richard Rongstad
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"unknown" the lumpenproletariat tool of the politburo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>.
>>>> Meanwhile Kerry was pissing on his Vietnam buddies while fawning over
>>>> his hero JFK who started the Vietnam War.
>>
>>Nope, big lie just like WOMD. Ike and Nixon started the Viet Nam War
>>in the 50's. I suggest you check your bible and see how naughty you
>>are for lieing.
>Speaking of lying - you need to re-check your facts. JFK escalated
>the involvement in Vietnam from a few hundred advisors,

so you admit that Ike and Nixon had already started things!!! By the
way in your dicourse of dishonesty you forgot to mention the thousands
of other types we had in there ranging from the CIA to the US Public
Health Service....including some relitives of mine. You also forgot
to mention that we were already up to our ears in the Loas/Pathet Loa
thing too. You also forgot to mention that we had bases (in the 50's)
in Thailand (6 of them I believe).

>to tens of
>thousands of troops. I'd call that starting a war.

I call refusing to hold elections and forcing the north to start a
conflict "Starting a war". If the elections had been held, 3000000
more Viets would be alive and 58,000 more americans would be alive
that are not today. And Ho would have been elected president which is
why they did it, to proect their puppet Diem. And of course this
happened in October 1955, when Ngo Dinh Diem proclaimed the Republic
of Viet Nam with himself as PREZ in violation of the agreements on
Viet Nam.

>And one other
>thing - I don't necessarily disagree with JFK on this. Had the
>anti-war folks - guys like Kerry and Jane Fonda - kept their nose out
>of it, we would have won it quickly.

Excuse me but your totally wrong. Wrong. NO ONE could have won that
war. Those people had been fighting for 300 years!!! There was even
a small civil war of sorts beween the Nguyen Emperors of Hue and the
parts of North Viet Nam controlled by the Chinese war lords.

You also have a serious problem with your time lines. Jane Fonda (may
she burn in hell and be fored to watch "Barbarella" for eternity)
didn't got to Viet Nam till July 1972! We Vets were totally pissed
off way before that time. Hell even the Australians said enough of
this dishonest crap and started to pull out in 1970.
>
>Ho Chi Minh said that the Vietnam war would not be won in the jungles
>of Vietnam, it would be won in the streets of Los Angeles, Chicago and
>Washington DC. He was exactly right. And Kerry helped him win.
>Regards,

Kerry was one of the founders of the VNVAW and it was entitled to do
so. I'm a decorated Viet Nam vet and gladly fought for the freedoms
the right wing is happy to deny us today.

Hind-sight is always 20-20 and we now know that Kerry was right in
what he did (and the traitor slut Fonda was wrong in what she did). I
joined another movement who feared that Viet nam would lead to an
exchange between the super powers.

Vietnam was WRONG and the very fact that cowards during that time are
so quick to jump on Kerry (who like me was there and people like Bush,
Clinton, Quayle, Cheney, Wolfowitz. Rummy etc etc were NOT) is
disgusting. I will agree that the man took a step down on the
evolutionary chain by becoming a politician but that's another
thread.)

Viet Nam was never a threat to the USA, there was no domino effect and
it was a terrible waste. Kerry had the balls to fight in VIET NAM and
march in the streets while Bush couldn't even show up for drills.

This is what this contest is about. A real man (with his faults like
the rest of us) vs a coward. Now if you PUGS will get some spine and
put Mc Cain and Lighthorse-Campbell against a tick of Richard Lamm and
either Kerry or Clark then you'll get my atention. Until then I'm
voting third party.

THOM

PS: Esso Oil leases in the south china sea...all gone!