VIETNAM: The PBS Series
#61
(09-22-2017, 05:25 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 04:21 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 01:28 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-21-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-21-2017, 04:24 PM)tvguy Wrote:  
What are you talking about?


Toward this end, Nixon and his advisors—including Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird—developed a new strategy they called Vietnamization. The Vietnamization plan provided for a gradual, phased withdrawal of American combat forces, combined with an expanded effort to train and equip South Vietnam to take over military responsibility for its own defense.

The president announced his Vietnamization strategy to the American people in a nationally televised speech on November 3, 1969. 








At the same time that the Vietnamization plan was put in place, however, the Nixon administration also escalated U.S. military activity in other parts of Southeast Asia. In April 1970, for example, the president secretly authorized bombing campaigns and a ground invasion of Cambodia, a neutral country.

When his expansion of the war came to public attention,
Nixon asserted that the incursion into Cambodia was necessary to keep pressure on the enemy until the Vietnamization strategy took root. The president’s actions nonetheless came under harsh criticism and prompted massive anti-war demonstrations across America

Jesus, quit shouting for christ's sake!

From VS post (#12) .."Does it mention Vice President Nixon got us involved back in the late 50's?"

Notice VICE PRESIDENT? Ya see, Nixon was not president during the 50's.  Laughing Laughing Laughing 

He was in involved in some underhanded dealings with the French (who, as you know, remained in Vietnam until 1954.) He was "tricky" even then and as a result the U.S. committed LOTS of money to the French war effort in Vietnam. (But you knew that  Razz )
 

 I said.....Nixon promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.

And you responded saying.... Not when he was VICE PRESIDENT.(See the PBS Series, ep.1)


What the fuck did that have to do with my comment? The answer is NOTHING so sue me if I was somehow supposed to see your point.

Chucks said: Does it mention Vice President Nixon got us involved back in the late 50's?"

I replied: Yes. However was not ONLY Nixon who opened that door.

You posted: No he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.

I posted:Not when he was VICE PRESIDENT. (See the PBS Series, ep.1)

You posted: What are you talking about? 
Toward this end, Nixon and his advisors—including Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird—developed a new strategy they called Vietnamization. The Vietnamization plan provided for a gradual, phased withdrawal of American combat forces, combined with an expanded effort to train and equip South Vietnam to take over military responsibility for its own defense.

The president announced his Vietnamization strategy to the American people in a nationally televised speech on November 3, 1969.  


Now. See the problem? Chuck and I were discussing the PBS series and what was stated there. Nixon was vice president in the 50's and as we know lost to JFK and it was YEARS later he directed all the awful things you described above...all true of course but not at all connected to the comment Chuck made or my response to him.

Really! Try to follow along.  Razz

Your cheese is definitely slipping of it's cracker.

My cheese? Hell, at least I knew it was not VICE president Nixon who ordered those things.  Razz
Reply
#62
Ah, but the strawberries. Big Grin
Reply
#63
(09-22-2017, 05:32 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 05:25 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 04:21 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 01:28 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-21-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Jesus, quit shouting for christ's sake!

From VS post (#12) .."Does it mention Vice President Nixon got us involved back in the late 50's?"

Notice VICE PRESIDENT? Ya see, Nixon was not president during the 50's.  Laughing Laughing Laughing 

He was in involved in some underhanded dealings with the French (who, as you know, remained in Vietnam until 1954.) He was "tricky" even then and as a result the U.S. committed LOTS of money to the French war effort in Vietnam. (But you knew that  Razz )
 

 I said.....Nixon promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.

And you responded saying.... Not when he was VICE PRESIDENT.(See the PBS Series, ep.1)


What the fuck did that have to do with my comment? The answer is NOTHING so sue me if I was somehow supposed to see your point.

Chucks said: Does it mention Vice President Nixon got us involved back in the late 50's?"

I replied: Yes. However was not ONLY Nixon who opened that door.

You posted: No he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.

I posted:Not when he was VICE PRESIDENT. (See the PBS Series, ep.1)

You posted: What are you talking about? 
Toward this end, Nixon and his advisors—including Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird—developed a new strategy they called Vietnamization. The Vietnamization plan provided for a gradual, phased withdrawal of American combat forces, combined with an expanded effort to train and equip South Vietnam to take over military responsibility for its own defense.

The president announced his Vietnamization strategy to the American people in a nationally televised speech on November 3, 1969.  


Now. See the problem? Chuck and I were discussing the PBS series and what was stated there. Nixon was vice president in the 50's and as we know lost to JFK and it was YEARS later he directed all the awful things you described above...all true of course but not at all connected to the comment Chuck made or my response to him.

Really! Try to follow along.  Razz

Your cheese is definitely slipping of it's cracker.

My cheese? Hell, at least I knew it was not VICE president Nixon who ordered those things.  Razz

It looked to me like you didn't even know who you were talking too. It still does. I never said anything about Vice president Nixon.
I just spoke of what he did when he was president . You STILL don't get where you went off track.
Reply
#64
(09-23-2017, 12:01 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 05:32 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 05:25 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 04:21 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 01:28 PM)tvguy Wrote:  

 I said.....Nixon promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.

And you responded saying.... Not when he was VICE PRESIDENT.(See the PBS Series, ep.1)


What the fuck did that have to do with my comment? The answer is NOTHING so sue me if I was somehow supposed to see your point.

Chucks said: Does it mention Vice President Nixon got us involved back in the late 50's?"

I replied: Yes. However was not ONLY Nixon who opened that door.

You posted: No he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.

I posted:Not when he was VICE PRESIDENT. (See the PBS Series, ep.1)

You posted: What are you talking about? 
Toward this end, Nixon and his advisors—including Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird—developed a new strategy they called Vietnamization. The Vietnamization plan provided for a gradual, phased withdrawal of American combat forces, combined with an expanded effort to train and equip South Vietnam to take over military responsibility for its own defense.

The president announced his Vietnamization strategy to the American people in a nationally televised speech on November 3, 1969.  


Now. See the problem? Chuck and I were discussing the PBS series and what was stated there. Nixon was vice president in the 50's and as we know lost to JFK and it was YEARS later he directed all the awful things you described above...all true of course but not at all connected to the comment Chuck made or my response to him.

Really! Try to follow along.  Razz

Your cheese is definitely slipping of it's cracker.

My cheese? Hell, at least I knew it was not VICE president Nixon who ordered those things.  Razz

It looked to me like you didn't even know who you were talking too. It still does. I never said anything about Vice president Nixon.
I just spoke of what he did when he was president . You STILL don't get where you went off track.

One more time:

Chucks said: Does it mention Vice President Nixon got us involved back in the late 50's?"

I replied: Yes. However was not ONLY Nixon who opened that door.

You posted: No he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.

I posted:Not when he was VICE PRESIDENT. (See the PBS Series, ep.1)

You posted: What are you talking about? 

                             *****************************

We all know the actions PRESIDENT Nixon took when he was PRESIDENT. 

Now, follow along with the flow of the conversation started by Chuck. His point was that even as vice president in the 50's, Nixon had a hand in pumping money to the French for the war in Indochina. YOUR comments were what happened years later when he was president. THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Reply
#65
Whatever Wonky, the topic was Vietnam and then went to Nixon. So I said

he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.
 

And for some odd strange reason you brought up that that it was not when he was vice president. And directed me to part of your article???
So Freaking what? What did that have to do with what I said?
So I thought maybe you thought you were talking to someone else.
Reply
#66
Ghosts
Reply
#67
(09-23-2017, 04:08 PM)tvguy Wrote: Whatever Wonky, the topic was Vietnam and then went to Nixon. So I said

he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.
 

And for some odd strange reason you brought up that that it was not when he was vice president. And directed me to part of your article???
So Freaking what? What did that have to do with what I said?
So I thought maybe you thought you were talking to someone else.

Exactly. You "went" to Nixon. Thing is, up to that point we had been discussing Nixon's actions when he was vice president and helped shift a lot of our money to the French. 
When you "went" to Nixon you made a pivot completely out of context. And THAT was the only point I was making, because it was a giant leap from the mid 50's to 1968 when he became president. 

Still, not worth having a gun fight in the street. Pivot at will. Just give us a heads up.
Reply
#68
(09-23-2017, 07:06 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 04:08 PM)tvguy Wrote: Whatever Wonky, the topic was Vietnam and then went to Nixon. So I said

he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.
 

And for some odd strange reason you brought up that that it was not when he was vice president. And directed me to part of your article???
So Freaking what? What did that have to do with what I said?
So I thought maybe you thought you were talking to someone else.

Exactly. You "went" to Nixon. Thing is, up to that point we had been discussing Nixon's actions when he was vice president and helped shift a lot of our money to the French. 
When you "went" to Nixon you made a pivot completely out of context. And THAT was the only point I was making, because it was a giant leap from the mid 50's to 1968 when he became president. 

Still, not worth having a gun fight in the street. Pivot at will. Just give us a heads up.

Wonky....."When you "went" to Nixon you made a pivot completely out of context."

 


 

I said Nixon escalated the Vietnam War on a thread about the Vietnam war right after both You and chuck mentioned Nixon's name.

And that was "completely out of context" ?



You are completely out of your fucking mind.
Reply
#69
(09-23-2017, 07:38 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 07:06 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 04:08 PM)tvguy Wrote: Whatever Wonky, the topic was Vietnam and then went to Nixon. So I said

he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.
 

And for some odd strange reason you brought up that that it was not when he was vice president. And directed me to part of your article???
So Freaking what? What did that have to do with what I said?
So I thought maybe you thought you were talking to someone else.

Exactly. You "went" to Nixon. Thing is, up to that point we had been discussing Nixon's actions when he was vice president and helped shift a lot of our money to the French. 
When you "went" to Nixon you made a pivot completely out of context. And THAT was the only point I was making, because it was a giant leap from the mid 50's to 1968 when he became president. 

Still, not worth having a gun fight in the street. Pivot at will. Just give us a heads up.

Wonky....."When you "went" to Nixon you made a pivot completely out of context."

 


 

I said Nixon escalated the Vietnam War on a thread about the Vietnam war right after both You and chuck mentioned Nixon's name.

And that was "completely out of context" ?



You are completely out of your fucking mind.

Maybe. But at least I can follow a train of thought and not ignore the obvious. 
Simply go back and review the sequence of the conversations I cut and pasted in for you.
Ever heard of a segue?
You could have just as easily posted any number of things Nixon said and did about Vietnam while president. 
Thing is, that was not the point. The discussion in this episode of VIETMAN that Chuck made reference to, and what I replied to, was what he did while VICE PRESIDENT in the 50's, not as president in the 70's. 
But you are the king of "the pivot" (watch any politician answering a direct question: They don't: they "pivot" and change the subject).
Continuity matters, even here. At least it should. 
But hey, go ahead with "free association" anytime you feel the need.
Reply
#70
I've watched episode 1. Hope it stays on online long enough for me to catch up.
Reply
#71
(09-23-2017, 10:35 PM)Juniper Wrote: I've watched episode 1. Hope it stays on online long enough for me to catch up.

I don't see how any of the episodes of this can compete with Wonky's absurdist soliloquies on this thread. 
Captain Queeg and his strawberries beckon.
Reply
#72
I guess i Should not have mentioned VP Nixon. Most people forgot he was a VP, when we sent 'advisors' to VN.
Reply
#73
[Image: 14440695_872488116221303_358643627748800...e=5A42C243]


Vietnam "era" Veterans.
Reply
#74
(09-24-2017, 08:26 AM)Scrapper Wrote: [Image: 14440695_872488116221303_358643627748800...e=5A42C243]


Vietnam "era" Veterans.
You simply can't hold a thought more than 3 seconds.
Of course we honor veterans. Many of us here at the RFV are veterans. 
In an earlier post I remarked that there is a distinction unique to COMBAT veterans. I went to some length to explain why I felt that way and why the military also make a distinction by awarding the COMBAT RIBBON. 

Think about it. Or not: I don't really care.
Reply
#75
Draftees, signing that blank check.
[Image: mandatory-mediation-300x300.jpg]
Reply
#76
(09-24-2017, 08:11 AM)chuck white Wrote: I guess i Should not have mentioned VP Nixon. Most people forgot he was a VP, when we sent 'advisors' to VN.

No Chuck, your comment was timely and interesting. How many of us knew that as VP Nixon had a great deal to do with seeing that the US funneled tons of money to the French in their fight in Indochina? I didn't know about it until I saw that episode on PBS. 
It could have kicked off a discussion about how our involvement in Vietnam started much before many of us were aware. That background proved very important and interesting. 
But it didn't. I't quickly jumped past the subject of those interesting prewar years and to the escalation Nixon caused, ignoring the fact that it was first Johnson who ramped up the war effort. 

So, your comment was appropriate and on point. Too bad it didn't stir interest in more discussion.
Reply
#77
Sorry, we were distracted by a bat shit crazy Crazy old fuckwad yelling at the trees about something only important to, in fact only discernible to, said cranky senile pile of doodoo.
Reply
#78
(09-24-2017, 11:01 AM)bbqboy Wrote: Sorry, we were distracted by  a bat shit crazy Crazy old fuckwad yelling at the trees about something only important to, in fact only discernible to, said cranky senile pile of doodoo.

Is this your way of saying you don't need me to defend you? Okie dokie.....
Reply
#79
Smiling
Nothing to defend. At least among rational folks.
Reply
#80
(09-23-2017, 10:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 07:38 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 07:06 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 04:08 PM)tvguy Wrote: Whatever Wonky, the topic was Vietnam and then went to Nixon. So I said

he just promised to end the war to get elected and then actually increased the fighting.
 

And for some odd strange reason you brought up that that it was not when he was vice president. And directed me to part of your article???
So Freaking what? What did that have to do with what I said?
So I thought maybe you thought you were talking to someone else.

Exactly. You "went" to Nixon. Thing is, up to that point we had been discussing Nixon's actions when he was vice president and helped shift a lot of our money to the French. 
When you "went" to Nixon you made a pivot completely out of context. And THAT was the only point I was making, because it was a giant leap from the mid 50's to 1968 when he became president. 

Still, not worth having a gun fight in the street. Pivot at will. Just give us a heads up.

Wonky....."When you "went" to Nixon you made a pivot completely out of context."

 


 

I said Nixon escalated the Vietnam War on a thread about the Vietnam war right after both You and chuck mentioned Nixon's name.

And that was "completely out of context" ?



You are completely out of your fucking mind.

Maybe. But at least I can follow a train of thought and not ignore the obvious. 
Simply go back and review the sequence of the conversations I cut and pasted in for you.
Ever heard of a segue?
You could have just as easily posted any number of things Nixon said and did about Vietnam while president. 
Thing is, that was not the point. The discussion in this episode of VIETMAN that Chuck made reference to, and what I replied to, was what he did while VICE PRESIDENT in the 50's, not as president in the 70's. 
But you are the king of "the pivot" (watch any politician answering a direct question: They don't: they "pivot" and change the subject).
Continuity matters, even here. At least it should. 
But hey, go ahead with "free association" anytime you feel the need.

Yep. The fact that you STILL can't see that my comment about Nixon was not off topic proves
You are completely out of your fucking mind.

I REPEAT!.... I said Nixon escalated the Vietnam War on a thread about the Vietnam war right after both You and chuck mentioned Nixon's name.

And that was "completely out of context" ? Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)