dustoyevsky@mac.com
12-31-1969, 08:00 PM
On Jun 27, 4:21?am, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
(I wrote):
>Tet cost too many American (all we Americans really worry about)
> >lives, too close together.
(Gunner answered)
> During the entire month of January in 1968..we lost a total of 1163.
> Actually down a bit from the previous months.
The exact "numbers" don't matter. The fact that Tet was a disaster for
the North didn't matter. The fact that a supposedly beaten enemy could
seemingly rise from all corners at once mattered.
Similarly, the VA hospital scandals during the Iraq "war' (undeclared,
end run around the Constitution), matter.
(I wrote):
Ho was right about what would happen with USA involvement.
(reply):
> Again you show your true colors..stupid.
Ho was right, I quoted him, and I'm stupid?
(more apparently willful misunderstanding):
> Blink blink..the military leadership doesnt have anything to do with the
> funding, you ****wit. They can only fight with what they are given.
No picking fights according to what you have to fight with?
That was a little unfair. I understand a big part of the reason for
the humiliating defeat in Vietnam was the militar's being forced to
fight a "war of dipomacy", where, as in the previous humiliating
defeat, the Korean "war" (undeclared, end run around the
Constitution), the enemy was chased into safe hiding (one example);
Hanoi was not bombed until well after they had set up AA defences,
etc.
> After 40 yrs of ever increasing taxes from the Left..it [Cheney-Bush >tax cut] was quite refreshing.
And the torturers and secret detainers were given free rein. That's
the "selling your soul" part.
> Vietnam was all about oil? Really?
That's not one bit what I said.
> Btw..JFK and LBJ were Demonrats.
Who cares?
(I wrote):
> >Loved the section on Hitler and labor relations, fine resonance there.
> >Complain, disappear. The skids are being greased. All very fine and
> >necessary until they come for Gunner.
> Snicker..shiney side out, ****tard..and I suggest two layers.
"Gunner thinks he is safe". --D-y
(I wrote):
>Tet cost too many American (all we Americans really worry about)
> >lives, too close together.
(Gunner answered)
> During the entire month of January in 1968..we lost a total of 1163.
> Actually down a bit from the previous months.
The exact "numbers" don't matter. The fact that Tet was a disaster for
the North didn't matter. The fact that a supposedly beaten enemy could
seemingly rise from all corners at once mattered.
Similarly, the VA hospital scandals during the Iraq "war' (undeclared,
end run around the Constitution), matter.
(I wrote):
Ho was right about what would happen with USA involvement.
(reply):
> Again you show your true colors..stupid.
Ho was right, I quoted him, and I'm stupid?
(more apparently willful misunderstanding):
> Blink blink..the military leadership doesnt have anything to do with the
> funding, you ****wit. They can only fight with what they are given.
No picking fights according to what you have to fight with?
That was a little unfair. I understand a big part of the reason for
the humiliating defeat in Vietnam was the militar's being forced to
fight a "war of dipomacy", where, as in the previous humiliating
defeat, the Korean "war" (undeclared, end run around the
Constitution), the enemy was chased into safe hiding (one example);
Hanoi was not bombed until well after they had set up AA defences,
etc.
> After 40 yrs of ever increasing taxes from the Left..it [Cheney-Bush >tax cut] was quite refreshing.
And the torturers and secret detainers were given free rein. That's
the "selling your soul" part.
> Vietnam was all about oil? Really?
That's not one bit what I said.
> Btw..JFK and LBJ were Demonrats.
Who cares?
(I wrote):
> >Loved the section on Hitler and labor relations, fine resonance there.
> >Complain, disappear. The skids are being greased. All very fine and
> >necessary until they come for Gunner.
> Snicker..shiney side out, ****tard..and I suggest two layers.
"Gunner thinks he is safe". --D-y