A General Worthy Of The Title And Respect

One Of The Best In History

Published on May 7, 2004 By mikimouse In International

Vo Nguyen Giap was a man dedicated to his country's liberty. He whooped the French, he then whooped the Americans, then the Chinese, then he sat back and grew old in a united Vietnam.

Comments (Page 1)

Sir Peter Maxwell

on May 07, 2004

Are you voicing your support of vile communism dear boy?

mikimouse

on May 07, 2004

fuck no. Just admiring the tenacity of a man who lived in jungles for most of his adult life all with one goal in mind. You're so used to admiring perfumed princes who fight from 30,000 feet. Here's a man who fought for what he believed in, and went through hardships to achieve it. That's worthy of respect. Where the fuck did vile communism come into the picture? Only in YOUR mind dear boy.

messybuu

on May 07, 2004

That's why I respect Hitler. He made Germany prosperous, powerful, and united once again. Truly dedicated to his country's liberty. If only the world didn't betray him.

mikimouse

on May 07, 2004

lol. I know what you're saying and I hear you, but in this case you're being wrong. It funny how, if the US hadn't lost in Vietnam, you'd all likely saying nice things about his military qualities.. I'm not talking about his feelings or thoughts, only his actions. And they were entirely correct with no hope of backing up from. He knew the cost and the price that went with it. But it's true what you say about Hitler and his sweeping changes he made to make Germany more prosperous. Some things you can't take away from people no matter what.

vernmeister2u

on May 07, 2004

if the US hadn't lost in Vietnam

Contrary to popular belief, the US never "lost" Vietnam, at least not militarily. We never tried to take it. We weren't conquering the country (or more specifically the north), we were helping the South Vietnamese protect their country, which THEY ended up losing. The South Vietnamese LOST the vietnam war. I will agree that our mediocre assistance didn't help. Our failure wasn't the war, it was our foreign policy. It was never in our interest to be there in the first place. Plus, when the military is restricted by politicians due to the intellectual sabotage of the public opinion of the war, the military does not have a chance to win. You can't lose something you never had a chance to win or that was never yours in the first place. It was never fought like a war.

VES

mikimouse

on May 08, 2004

"The South Vietnamese LOST the vietnam war"
I must have misunderstood then. Lol. I always thought the US turned tail and evacuated their embassy. Those pesky South Vietnamese. Lmao.
"It was never in our interest to be there in the first place"
One thing: INDONESIAN OIL DEPOSITS<---coincidentally ended up in the US's hands somehow someway.

"It was never fought like a war."
Hmmm. Troops, guns, tanks, heli gunships, enemies to kill, sounds like a war to me.

Corio

on May 10, 2004

You're so used to admiring perfumed princes who fight from 30,000 feet

lol. Good one. Made me laugh all day...

mikimouse

on May 10, 2004

lmao. I'll take Hack's account before your pathetic comments Corio?!? Lmao.

vernmeister2u

on May 10, 2004

One thing: INDONESIAN OIL DEPOSITS<---coincidentally ended up in the US's hands somehow someway.

So are you saying that was our interest in the war? If so, we must have won (by your criteria) if we got it in the end. I think not.

The goal of our involvement was to help the South Vietnamese keep their country free of communism. That goal was not in our interest. The South Vietnamese goal was to keep their country, but with lukewarm committment. The lost their country, thus they lost the war. Our foreign policy "lost" just because we went over there. Our military did what it sought to do, help the South Vietnamese. Only it did it with considerable political restraint, not the way a war should be fought.

Hmmm. Troops, guns, tanks, heli gunships, enemies to kill, sounds like a war to me.

Yes, looked like and sounded likeit, but it wasn't. Your missing some semantics here. I didn't say it wasn't a war, I said, "it wasn't fought like a war".

When you "unleash the hounds or war" you have to unleash them. In the case of Vietnam, we fought with our "hounds" leashed.

VES

mikimouse

on May 10, 2004

hounds leashed? I guess you missed the 101st Airborne's Tiger Force. Why don't you do some reading about what you pretend to understand? leashed. Wholesale slaughter of women and children are the actions of leased US personnel? Lmao. You're such a killer supporter.

Corio

on May 10, 2004

Miki: Sorry if you misread me, I wasn't being sarcastic there - really loved that phrase!

mikimouse

on May 10, 2004

yeah right and I'm a GI who's fighting for the Iraqi people's freedom. Hahahaha.

vernmeister2u

on May 10, 2004

So your one example indicates that the whole war was fought without restraint? Perhaps instead of just reading, you should learn to understand context, concepts, and the idea of totality. When your foreign policy leads you to a place where you can't justify to the men on the battlefield your purpose for being there, that in itself results in restraint. When politicians become involved in directing war efforts because of "popular opinion", that introduces more restraint. When you are told to take land one day, and give it back the next, that is restraint.

You're such a killer supporter.

Really? Is that why I said it was never in our interests to go over there in the first place? Hence, a statement of not supporting that particular war.

You are right though, only in the wrong context, again. I'm a killer support when the context and purpose for war is appropriate. That is the sticking point on which many disagree.

You may notice that since I take this conversation seriously, I avoid all the "hahahaa's" and "lmao's", which are really inappropriate given the subject matter.

VES

mikimouse

on May 10, 2004

"You may notice that since I take this conversation seriously, I avoid all the "hahahaa's" and "lmao's", which are really inappropriate given the subject matter."
You may also notice, foolish one, that to say that you're merely trying to pat yourself on the back and are trying to make sure others don't miss that bullshit. Well good for you for not degrading yourself by saying hahahaha although you will post on my link and type the words hahahahaha. Double standards. Awesome.

jeblackstar

on May 10, 2004

This may raise some ire here, but the US would have been farther better allying themselves with Ho Chi Minh and the North than the South. Why? Because the people respected Ho Chi Minh, and no one respected the government of the South. For my first college degree I wrote my thesis on this topic, let me tell you, I got a lot of interesting reactions from people in the late seventies for writing that.

Cheers

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!