Home » Military, Military Support & Patriotism » Telling It Like it Is » Traitors » True Heroes » Vietnam » War on Terror » Currently Reading:

“The Liberal Threat to the Truth of War”

August 25, 2006 Military, Military Support & Patriotism, Telling It Like it Is, Traitors, True Heroes, Vietnam, War on Terror View Comments

This is a piece a friend of mine wrote. His name is Tom, and he’s a Vietnam vet. All of his work is brilliant, and I’m going to post some more of his missives.

The truth of Vietnam is finally coming out and how dangerous the Liberals truly are to the freedom of this country.

According to the left, America lost the Vietnam War… most Americans believe that, and a lot of colleges teach that.

Why?

Here is the short version:

POLITICALLY

2.3 million Americans served in Vietnam

16 million avoided the draft like Bill Clinton.

When you add in family and supporters the number of people who avoided service and their supporters exceeds 50 million easily.

16 million cowards who refused to go into harm’s way. Not unusual. What is unusual is that to avoid the disgrace of cowardice, they had to demean and vilify the war. They are doing the exact same thing today in Iraq.

Where their anti-war argument goes dreadfully wrong is here.

They flew the flags of the enemy at demonstrations.

People like John Kerry and Jane Fonda met with the enemy and actually gave them support and encouragement. Walter Cronkite simply lied and knew it.

Sadly, 2 million votes cannot stand up to 50 million votes. The politicians simply courted the highest bidder…the left-wing draft dodgers.

Here is the undisputed fact…The US troops pulled out of Vietnam by Congressional Order in 1972. The war continued without the US until 1975.

In 1972 Nixon, in order to gain reelection, offered the Communists a deal they could not refuse. In exchange for an immediate cease fire and bombing halt, the US would promise that no US planes, ships or troops would ever land, fly, sail off the coast, or provide any support whatsoever to South Vietnam. This is down to a single bullet or can of gasoline.

The agreement was voted into law called the Chase-Church Act.

Congress ordered…ORDERED…all US troops to come home immediately. The war ended for the US with a whimper.

The Communists were leery of Nixon and his fondness for B-52 strikes and just waited, making no really aggressive moves that might trigger a response from someone they feared not very stable.

Nixon’s resignation in Aug. 1974 and the appointment of Gerald (candy-ass) Ford was all the assurance the Communists needed.

The Communists had spent the time massing troops’ tanks and equipment along the Laos and Cambodian border. When they were sure Nixon was gone they attacked with 9 divisions in Dec. 1974.

The South Vietnamese had no longer been receiving supplies from the US while North Vietnam was building up with help from Russia and China. The South had 352 tanks but no spare parts and little fuel. The Communist had over 700 Russian tanks and all the support they could carry.

On 17 Mar 75 the NVA Sixth and Seventh Divisions attacked Xuan Loc but were repulsed by the ARVN 18th. On 9 Apr 75 the NVA 341st Division joined the attack. After a four-thousand round artillery bombardment, these three divisions massed, and, spearheaded by Soviet tanks, assaulted Xuan Loc; but again the ARVN 18th held its ground. The NVA reinforced with their 325th Division and began moving their 10th and 304th Divisions into position. Eventually, in a classic example of the military art of “Mass and Maneuver” the NVA massed 40,000 men and overran Xuan Loc.

During this fight, the ARVN 18th had 5,000 soldiers at Xuan Loc. These men managed to virtually destroy 3 NVA Divisions, but on 17 Apr 75 they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers and the weight of the “Mass.” Before overrunning Xuan Loc the NVA had committed six full divisions, plus a host of various support troops.

There were no AMERICAN COMBAT TROOPS in Vietnam. The 5,000 men of the 18th ARVN of the South Vietnamese Army nearly destroyed 3 NVA Divisions by themselves. They had no US support whatsoever, but they couldn’t last.

How could American troops lose the war when they weren’t even there?

At the peak of involvement US troops only had a maximum of 43,000 actual combat troops in the field on any given day. Only one, ONE out of 10 men who served in Vietnam was ACTUALLY a “combat soldier” who, by design, is one who hunts and kills the enemy as his only job in the service.

While the US had a maximum average of around 40,000 troops in the field on any given day, the enemy had 500,000 troops with 370,000 Red Chinese troops in North Vietnamese uniforms. When the US troops found the enemy, the battles were fast and furious as depicted in Mel Gibsonâ€™s â€œWe Were Soldiers.”

27,000 US troops died in combat.

300,000 were wounded.

We killed approximately 1.5 million of the enemy.

To justify their cowardice, those who ran from their country’s call had to vilify the noble sacrifice of those in whose shadow they will forever stand. Today we see the same traitors in Cindy Sheehan, who never raised her son, has never been to Iraq, but spits on the grave of her son and his courage and sacrifice. She takes the insurance money from his death and promotes her communist agenda, but won’t take the time to pick up the headstone provided by the US Army for free to mark her son’s grave.

The morals of Vietnam are debatable. The facts are not.

The sacrifice and courage exhibited by US troops and the humiliation and insult heaped upon them by the traitors of this country will forever be a stain on this country’s character.

AND TODAY THEY ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING AGAIN. YOU CANNOT PROTEST THE WAR AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS. THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED.

TRAITORS GAVE US THE CHASE-CHURCH ACT.

TRAITORS GAVE US UNREASONABLE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

TRAITORS ALWAYS FIND FAULT WITH THE BEHAVIOR OF THE AMERICAN TROOPS WHILE GIVING A PASS TO THE BARBARIANS.

TRAITORS KEEP OUR BORDERS OPEN IN A TIME OF WAR.

TRAITORS LIE TO THE AMERICA PEOPLE.

TRAITORS HOLD OUR TROOPS BACK FROM VICTORY FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

TRAITORS ALLOWED ALMOST 20 MILLION MUSLIMS TO SET UP SANCTURIES IN OUR COUNTRY.

TRAITORS PERMIT ANTI-AMERICA PROTESTS IN THE CITY OF DEARBORN AND CALL IT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

TRAITORS ALLOW KNOWN TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS TO COME TO AMERICA AND TEACH IN OUR COLLEGES.

IT’S TIME WE CALL IT WHAT IT IS….TREASON.

AND TREASON HAS ONLY ONE PUNISHMENT…DEATH.

Now, who does the “cease-fire” and “as soon as Nixon took office” remind you of? The liberals and the left-wing media are wholly responsible for the “loss” in Vietnam, and if us Conservatives let them get away with it, the peace-at-any-price crowd will be the demise of the current war in Iraq. Any comments, Mr. Murtha? Mother Sheehan?

Choose Options to Share This Post

Bob

"Here is the undisputed fact…The US troops pulled out of Vietnam by Congressional Order in 1972. The war continued without the US until 1975."

That would be the fact. The rest of it? That would be the bullshit.

Here's the thing, right? In the United States, ever since the beginning, we've had freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, because they knew how easy it is for dissidents to be marginalized and ruined for disagreeing with what "everybody knows." For example, "everybody knows" that if it weren't for John Kerry and Jane Fonda, the American people would have supported what we were doing in Vietnam, we'd have been able to use whatever tactics we pleased, and that would be it.

But "everybody" apparently doesn't know crap about the war in Vietnam.

"Hanoi Jane" didn't even visit Vietnam until we were about to withdraw. That was nine years AFTER Thich Quang Duc burned himself to death to protest Diem, our chosen ruler of South Vietnam. It was three years AFTER the My Lai Massacre was finally investigated and publicly revealed. It was five years AFTER the Phoenix Program (easily our stupidest move in our stupidest war) started. It was a year AFTER the Vietnam Veterans Against the War held the Winter Soldier Investigation. It was four years AFTER Mayor Daley told police to shoot to kill in Chicago, and Abbie Hoffman and Huey Newton were put on trial for opposing him and Johnson.

It was the year that Phan Thị Kim Phúc's village, Trang Bang, was famously photographed being napalmed by our forces, under the assumption that terrorizing the Vietnamese would turn them away from the Viet Cong. That alone would have killed the war if it weren't already dead - from a failure from the top down to understand asymmetrical warfare and respond to it without attempts to overwhelm it with force.

You can call for death to all liberals all you like, you ignorant bastards, but that doesn't make you good people.

antivigilante

Look you hacks on both sides, wake the hell up!

Clinton didn't go to war in Vietnam because his mentor was Carroll Quigley. Vietnam was like Churchill's Galipoli a campaign of absolutely no significance other than to make the world beg for a League of Nations or in Vietnam's case the strengthening of the UN.

Kerry didn't pull a Fonda, but you wouldn't be able to admit that because you're too busy painting broad strokes. As for Fonda, she's a floozy like Cheryl "One Square" Crow and Carmen Diaz. Putting her in jail is like putting Libby in jail. Peanuts while the coconuts get away scott free.

(Bush was AWOL 19 documents - the dog - show this, Dan Rather was the wag - incidentally Monica was the wag, the war in Kosovo with the help of Bush-Clinton partner Osama was the dog)

micah

And a little background for you. Ho Chi Minh, the leader of Vietnamese independence, was educated in the west and studied all the major western revolutions, including the American Revolution, as well as documents of state like the Constitution. He approached Eisenhower to ask his support as the French left Indochina. Dwight blew him off and began taking up France's colonial reins.
Ho Chi Minh was Vietnam's George Washington but, due to capitalist greed, he could not be allowed to set a "bad" example for others in the third world who also wanted control over their own lives.
And it all came down to control

micah

I think our withdrawal from the Vietnam War had more to do with the fact that we dropped more bombs on South Vietnam, which we were supposedly protecting, than we did in the European theater of WWII. We dropped more bombs on the south than we did our ostensible enemies in the north.
As to whether we won or lost, the case is we unambiguously won. The major war objective was not to block communism from coming to Vietnam. It was already there in mass, just as our military intelligence guys knew. The major objective was to punish Vietnam's independence movement and make an example of them, so that other country's would think twice before crossing that line again. We were 100% successful in the mission of making Vietnam hell on earth.

Why

Here is why we lost the war.
The stated objective was to prevent North Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam. While grossly over simplifying the matter, it's what the stated objective was and was ultimately not achieved in any sense of the word. There is one Vietnam, it is Communist.

The real argument here should be, why did we lose and why are we losing in Iraq? It's not the fault of our soldiers. It's the dumbass politicians that we keep voting for, Republican and Democrat. Vietnam was fought under Republican and Democratic administrations. If you think Fred Thompson is going to have the cure by carpet bombing Baghdad, wrong but if Barak Obama is going to have the political ability to pull every troop out of nook and cranny from Al Anbar to Mosul, you're wrong too.

The answer here people isn't about blaming each other. It's about blaming the salesmen we were suckered into voting for. We should not have voted for them but we didn't know better. All we can do now is learn from the past.

To you soldiers: You didn't lose the war. Every politician who put you there did. But ask yourself, was it worth your brothers life to be there?

ltcpmax

Mr Csaszar:

your seriously confused on several points, obviously underinformed and your conclusions are flawed. You have posted to a dormant thread, actually originally written by a "boots in the mud" expert. Your wild assertion that HoChi Mihn would have won a landslide election is really rather amazing, given that most of the RVN troops and people enthusiastically resisted the communist aggression of the North. And to somehow feel you need to close your wacky post with obscenity serves to illustrate how ill conceived your arguments and opinions truly are. Please stay on topic, and behave in civil manner, you are a guest on the blog.

Max (actual), Out.

M Csaszar

I'm with Murtha on some points, America did not win the Vietnam war. Though most people say there was no objective there truly was. And the objective was NUMBER 1: Protect the south Vietnamese government. Or as JFK said, "To protect the government of the people of Vietnam" (Which is a complete lie since if an election were to take place Ho Chi Minh would have won by a landslide). and NUMBER 2: To eliminate the communist insurgent threat that could pose as an enemy to America. As at the time any and all communists were thought of as being a direct threat to America and the rest of the world.

HOWEVER, Since America under Nixon signed a peace treaty in 1972 that said America wouldn't intervene anymore; whilst Nixon also said they would continue to help South Vietnam - 3 years later North Vietnamese tanks were rolling down Highway One after claiming the presidential palace in Saigon, SV.

If one is to say that America won the war because we killed more communist NVs than they killed of us, one might also be condemned to say that the Nazis won World War II with a crushing victory. And I think if you were to say that I might be justified to call you a "fucking retard".

jason

Mr Murtha
I doubt you ever wore the uniform of our country in combat. Fact if you were old enough to serve then, the boy next door did your fighting for you or was it you father?

Thorn11acr

North Vietnamese commanding general Giap later said in an interview that his troops were so badly mauled by US troops during the TET Offensive of 1968 that he was going to offer a "conditional surrender" to the Americans.

It was only by the assurance/encouragent of the anti-war leaders (Fonda, Southerland, Chronkite, and the like)that the US people would tire of the war and demand their troops be called home that he eleted to stay in the fight.

He said his losses was almost unimaginable and in the area of 65,000 VC troops dead alone. He also said the number claimed by the US military of communist troops killed by US troops was almost the "exact" number of his soldiers who didn't come home ....

I have a little insight to the war as having served over 500 days in combat in two tours. I was wounded 5 times, and not the John Kerry type wounds either. Of the 500+ days I spent in combat only 11 of those days were spent in base camp, which happened to be "Xuan Loc" where the final battle of Vietnam was fought. I fought in the TET Offensive of 1968 and can say without reservation, When they finally stood up and fought us, we slaughtered the bastards en mass.

Cowards will always find a way to justify their lack of character and loyalty. Its usually to vilify those greater than themselves. Skillful excuses will never cover a yellow streak.

The only thing worse than the coward is the "liberal"...

He has neither the calm courage of the warrior, nor the obsession to survive at any cost of the coward... he is just a traitor.

TOM

ltcpmax

Great well written TOM, as Misunderestimated pointed out. Great to see THOSE INFAMOUS pictures published again....
Hanoi Jane can waffle, explain, tap dance all she wants..THAT PICTURE IS UNEQUIVABLE EVIDENCE that she was there providing direct and willing aid and comfort to the enemy.

VETERAN that has come to HATE ingorant liberal knuckleheads.

MsUnderestimated

JM, what in the hell are you talking about? Who's trying to convert yellow and brown people to democracy and Christian fundamentalism at a gun? You are delusional.

John Murtha

"...our military men and women won the war over there."

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

That's rich, man. You're the wingnuttiest!

And please don't act like you care about the various yellow and brown people whom you'd like to see converted to American democracy and christian fundamentalism at the end of a gun. Spare me.

MsUnderestimated

Mr. Murtha, you forgot to mention that our Marines "murdered innocent civilians in cold blood." Man, you're slacking these days.

And I rescind my comment above. We did NOT lose the Vietnam war - the peace-at-any-price idiots and liberal media lost it for us, but our military men and women won the war over there.

Don't believe we did? Read the statements of the VC leaders who realized our media was winning the war for them, so they just cooled their heels until the Administration caved in to public pressure to withdraw. Then they slaughtered millions of innocent people. Kinda like what would happen in Iraq right now if we were to cut-n-run like you want us to.

Can't you retire already? You're getting almost as senile as Ayatollah Jimmie Carter.

John Murtha

That's funny.

We lost the war because of the failures of men in power--both democrat and republican--philisophically, strategically and militarily.

Unfortunately, we are losing in Iraq (unless you believe Ann "the war is going swimmingly" Coulter) because of the same kinds of failures. But this time, the failures rest squarely (though not exclusively) on the shoulders of Republicans.

But god forbid you should ever have to admit that your country has been wrong and done wrong...unless it's Clinton or the "liberal" media.

MsUnderestimated

We might not have won the Viet Nam war, but if we lost it, it was because of the anti-war protestors and the liberal bed-wetting media here in the U.S. Study your history, and I mean other than reading sKerry's "The New Soldier."

John Murtha

"Oh and what makes you think I’m a “conservative sourpuss?” Give me one example, and explain why it makes me such."

Uh...you apparently seem to think we "won" the Vietnam War...or at the very least didn't "lose" it. Sorry to burst your hyper-nationalist/xenophobic/americansarethechosenones bubble, but we lost the Vietnam War. You either have to be incredibly myopic and entirely ignorant of history...or you claim history is a "lie", which makes you a big 'ol sourpuss. Which one is it?

MsUnderestimated

Excuse me, Mr. Murtha, but "We Were Soldiers" is not fiction. It's based on a true story. Either get your crap together, or don't come back here.

Oh and what makes you think I'm a "conservative sourpuss?" Give me one example, and explain why it makes me such.

John Murtha

"When the US troops found the enemy, the battles were fast and furious as depicted in Mel Gibson’s “We Were Soldiers.”"

I love it when conservative sourpuss losers base their arguments on fictional movies. That's freakin' hilarious!

J. Murtha

Ivor Frazier

Thank you, a vietnam vet who can't stand liberals.

MsUnderestimated

Home » Military, Military Support & Patriotism » Telling It Like it Is » Traitors » True Heroes » Vietnam » War on Terror » Currently Reading:

“The Liberal Threat to the Truth of War”

Search This Site:

Content Tags:

Premium Blogads

Proud Member of “The 9/12 Project”

Who’s Here Now?

And My Thanks Go To…

Schtuff

Login

Comment on this Article:

Related Articles:

CODE RED – MELT THE PHONES!

Welcome To All

RESOURCES

Support This Site

My Visitors

Islam Is Peace?

TTLB & Technorati

Recent Comments

Copyright 2010 MsUnderestimated - All Rights Reserved