So untrue and so unfair. Disagree with his policies,

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

General Giap of the North Vietnamese army wrote his memoirs after the war. He posted that the antiwar movement in the United States gave the North Vietnamese hope after Tet, when they were decimated and ready to surrender. It gave them hope, prolonged the war, and eventually led to our precipitous departure. No, I am afraid you are wrong about your facts. Here's the post from the 1st Cav.

Tet Offensive -- Monica
what are the cause and effects of the TET offensive? and who won this campaign? I don't really get this event! can someone tell me the story in a easier version? I am in the 9th Grade. Monica,

Here is an answer to a very complex question. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was an initiative of the North Vietnam Army to have the civilian population of South Vietnam join them in their offensive and efforts to overthrow the South Vietnam Government, forcing the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 was conceived by General Giap, commander of the North Vietnam Army and his staff. General Giap earlier in his career planned and executed the battle at Dien Bien Phu which drove the French out of Vietnam in 1954. During the battle of Dien Bien Phu, General Giap stated he was willing to lose 10 men for every 1 enemy soldier killed, which indicated that a person's life in Vietnam was cheap.

By the end of 1966, North Vietnam had suffered large causalities in manpower and supplies through the bombing of the North and the fighting in the South. They consider the war was at a stalemate. North Vietnam would need a major victory if they would continue on with the war. Thus the planning for what is known as the Tet Offensive began with General Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) and his staff.

The battle of Khe Sanh (Jan. 21, 1968) was the prelude to the Tet Offensive of January 31, 1968. The battle at Khe Sanh was similar to that of Dien Bien Phu in which the Vietnamese had surrounded their enemy and cut off all land routes for supplies and evacuation. Khe Sanh had two objectives besides the obvious objective in defeating the Marines.

The North Vietnamese Army fought the battle at Khe Sanh and the National Liberation Front (VC) fought the Tet Offensive, which attacked the cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam.

A cease-fire began on January 30, 1968 for the Vietnamese new year of Tet, which falls on the first new moon of January. On January 31, 1968 the Viet Cong broke their cease-fire and attacked many cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam. In Saigon, a small number of VC (19) were able to reach the American Embassy grounds, but did not gain entry into the embassy itself.

In the Northern part of South Vietnam, the city of Hue was taken over by the V.C. and executions of city officials and their families took place. The initial reporting indicated the number of people executed was in the thousands (2,300 persons executed in and around Hue during Tet 68 - Time Magazine 31 Oct 69).

Saigon was the center for most if not all of the news agencies that were covering the war in South Vietnam. Tet offensive of 1968 was the first time, during the war, that actual street fighting took place in the major cities. Rear support personnel and MP�s did the initial fighting by American troops until support from infantry and armor could arrive. These men did an outstanding job in defending the cities, airfields and bases along with the embassy. The news media were able to capture this street fighting on tape in addition to the attack on the American Embassy. This new offensive was immediately brought into the homes of American families through reporting by television and the press. The sensationalism of this reporting brought forth a misrepresentation of the actual facts that took place during the Tet Offensive of 1968. The reports led the American people to think that we were losing the war in Vietnam and that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for North Vietnam. This was not the case. The VC suffered such high casualties that they were no longer considered a fighting force and their ranks would have to be replaced by North Vietnamese regulars. The civilian population of South Vietnam was indifferent to both the current regime in South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The civilian population, for the most part, did not join with the VC during the Tet Offensive.

The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded It was essential to our strategy, referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. Mr. Tin surmised, America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. Mr. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.

The military defeat of North Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968 became a political victory for North Vietnam because of anti-war demonstrations and the sensationalism of the news media. The North Vietnamese interpreted the U.S. reaction to these events as the weakening of America's resolve to win the war. The North Vietnamese believed that victory could be theirs, if they stayed their course.

From 1969 until the end of the war, over 20,000 American soldiers lost their lives in a war that the United States did not have the resolve to win. The sensationalism by the American news media and the anti-war protests following the 1968 Tet Offensive gave hope to Communist North Vietnam, strengthening their belief that their will to succeed was greater than ours. Instead of seeking a successful resolution at the Paris Peace Conference following the disastrous defeat of the 1968 Tet Offensive, they employed delay tactics as another tool to inflame U.S. politics. This delaying tactic spurned further anti-war demonstrations. Those who sensationalized their reporting of the war and those who supported anti-war demonstrations are guilty of giving our enemy hope. Because of their actions, they must share partial responsibility for those 20,000 + Americans deaths.

We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college campuses and in the city streets.

I'll attach the link, but in summary the Secret Service said the "kill em" allegation is unfounded.

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC�s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

How much more is the Obama campaign going to invent. First they try to make it about race when its not. Now they try to say someone said "kill em" when Obama's name in mentioned yet nobody heard it.

You seem to be an intelligent person so would you please explain to me why my opinion is unfair? She never removed her Hollywood, or beauty queen might be a better description, smile. I do not think this is the time or place for the "oh gee, oh gosh, doggone it" folksiness. Give me at least one good point that she made about specifically what she and McCain would do if elected. Oh yeah, I know, she's a soccer mom and she has a handicapped child. Well, Bidin had a more compelling story on that, at least for me! Sheesh? You have your opinion, I have mine. Doesn't matter if we happen to agree or not. I'm not going to "sheesh" you. I DO NOT want to see Palin in the position of Vice-President nor do I want to see McCain in the White House. If picking her as his running mate, after meeting her only briefly, is an example (and it is) of his judgment capabilities then again, in my opinioin, we can expect more bad judgment on crucial issues from him.

I have serious issues with Obama. Again, with his radical, racist church affilitation and there is no doubt in my mind about that. I DO NOT believe he is muslim or has leanings toward muslimism. Then there is the issue of his wife, who is for the first time proud of her country. There is no doubt in my mind that she said what she meant and meant what she said. That ought to tell us something. I am not concerned whether he wears a flag lapel pin or not. That's nothing more than show and tell anyway, a terrorist could wear a lapel pin.

What does concern me is that it is my belief that this Wall Street failure was orchestrated, probably by the Democrats, to give them an advantage. Furthermore, I fully expect the Republicans to retaliate. What will it be? Another terrorist attack or maybe just a video released at an opportune time to remind us that bin Laden may rear his ugly head at any moments and McCain is just the person who could deal with him?

After the debate I feel comfortable with Joe Biden. Perhaps I am wrong. Time will tell. Either Obama will win and, like John Kerry, we'll never know what kind of president John McCain would have been or McCain will win and there'll be no doubt. The last 2 elections I voted AGAINST George W. Bush. Seems I was right but then again, we don't know what kind of pres. John Kerry would have been. I don't see how he could possibly have been worse than G. W. Bush.

Folks, we need to get over the Republican/Democrat thing and realize our country is in SERIOUS trouble. Personally I don't think it will make much difference which of them is elected. We need to write letters, make phone calls or do whatever is necessary to tell these politicians they WILL do their job and pay attention to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I talked yesterday with a lady in my representative's office locally. I told her that I was outraged about the Wall Street bail-out. She said they had had very few calls that were in favor of it but the representative (Republican) voted for it because he was worried about people on fixed incomes. HA! I told her I am such a person. We risk losing our secure retirement but a bail out is not going to help us...the little people on fixed incomes. It will make the rich richer and destroy our children and grandchildren's future. Next will be another conglomerate that absolutely requires bail-out. Maybe it will be Wal-Mart, the retail giant that we just couldn't live without?

Sorry for the rant but IMHO we have gotten in this mess because the majority of voters can't see past the Democrat/Republican affilitation!!!!

definitely in the race as McCain agrees with his polices over 90% and has announced to plan to change any of those policies.

coming from this administration. Do I think Bush is a good president, yes! Do I think he's great? No, because, personally, he's not been conservative enough for me. To me, Ronald Reagan was great. He was tough, but he still made people like him. Bush not been tough enough on some issues.....however, that's never here or there. I have always freely said that I don't agree with everything coming from the Republican party. I'm a conservative first, Republican second, but as the days go on I am becoming more and more a Libertarian. I will still vote Republican, because I think that's where my vote has the most value, but if the Libertarian movement becomes more of a contender, believe me, I'm going to catch that wave.

I said all that to say this.....I never generalized when it came to Democrats when it came to Clinton in office, because, being from the South where there are still a lot of old Southern Democrats (and, gasp, I was one for several years believe it or not...) I knew all Democrats did not stand behind some of the Clinton policies. There were some Clinton policies I did like, although as a presidential role model he drug the office of president through the mud.....

To me it seems that liberals are all or nothing in hating Bush, but if there are some liberals out that who like Bush speak up and prove that generalization wrong

Lying and attacking and personal insults. You can't defend the issues because your theory is indefensible.

1. Sarah's socialism is fine and dandy for Alaska: "...and Alaska - we're set up, UNLIKE other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs"... boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.�

2. She agrees with Obama's windfall profits concept...a windfall profit, by any other name, is...well, a windfall profit.

4. Sarah can articulate the shrub's oil policies even more precisely that her running mate.

have to change. Quite frankly, I'd rather feed a family than endure/survive a home invasion. We haven't even SEEN the outcome of this economic crisis. When people are hungry, they steal. When people have nowhere to live, they steal. They steal in order to survive. In order to avoid massive civil unrest - these people need a safety net. My husband is laid off and he is a professional. I pray we don't have to resort to eating out of dumpsters in order to survive. And don't think for a minute you are immune.

Commentary: Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers

Despite slower-than-anticipated growth and lower-than-expected profits, many corporations have generously rewarded their leaders, while simultaneously reducing lower-level staff salaries and benefits in an attempt to control costs. This disturbing practice only serves to further widen the gap between America�s wealthy few and its working class and clearly demonstrates just how little this country values its workforce.

At a time when most American workers are struggling to make basic ends meet and worrying how they�ll manage to save enough for retirement, many of this country�s corporate chief executives are stuffing their pockets with larger-than-life compensation packages that include high base salaries, stock options and ample pension plans. In 2004, the average chief executive�s salary at a large company was more than 170 times that of the average worker�s pay. Last year, executive salaries grew 25 percent, while that of the average American worker grew only 3.1 percent.

Even when a company struggles, their CEOs are still rewarded. For example, the current CEO of a global manufacturing firm received over $11 million in compensation last year, despite the company�s $3.4 billion revenue loss, an 11-percent drop in stock value and a staff reduction of 17,000 workers. There are similar stories at corporations across the country. While worker pensions are frozen and many are asked to do without raises, CEOs manage to earn their multi-million dollar bonuses.

It�s no surprise that CEOs are cleaning up. Consider this: Corporations often use compensation committees to set their executive salaries. Many of these committees use outside consultants to help guide the process. These consultants are often already contracted to do other work for the company. The conflict of interest here is obvious: The consultant won�t upset the CEO -- and risk losing other contracts -- by setting a more realistic, performance based pay model.

Many corporate CEOs are, in short, getting over, and it is a slap in the face of every American worker. While it is understood that executive salaries would greatly exceed that of the average worker�s, there is no logical argument to explain why the growth rate between the two is so dramatically different. To protect its workforce, corporate America must ensure worker�s salaries grow at rates that keep pace with the cost of living, while slowing the rate of growth of CEO salaries. Corporate boards must stop rewarding CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses. It is unacceptable for a company to lay off thousands of workers and then turn around and pay an executive for a job well done.

As a country, we often ask our government to think about the needs of the average American, and rightly so. However, if America is to truly prosper, the corporations that feed our local economy must also consider and respect the well-being of average worker.

---

Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.

If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.

However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.

If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.

Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!

Colter is a hatemonger, thats all. I heard every hour of AL Franken's program and he never said anything outrageous like she/it. Al Franken was quite witty and entertaining and merely give his listeners the facts that were suppressed elsewhere. He was on the story about Asian factory workers forced to have abortions by their American bosses way before other outlets were discussing it. Really!! Stop trying to pull the wool ....

I would like to note that all social reform to take place in the United States has been at the heels of a liberal movement. From our breaking off with Britain in the mid 1700s, to civil war in the mid 1800s, and the liberal movement of the mid 1960s. Liberalism as a belief has moved from Republican to Democrat and back again more than once. Taking your stance on pro-life and moving it to the time of mid 1800s would put you for all intents and purposes under the Democratic wing.

As the saying goes, complacency breeds contempt, and I believe that we are now in the beginnings of another liberal movement. A little quicker than our 100 year mark, but with the speed that the world is changing, so must we.

We as a people and government have to embrace change, that is the true nature of liberalism.

Realistically, your views/postings justify the label. You may not wish it, but by just expressing them promotes it. The fact that you have never mentioned the remote possibility of voting Democrat, which at this point in our history leans toward the liberal, and only looking at the Republican party is labeling. If you did not want to be labeled or wish not to be, you wouldn't be so quick to make your conservative opinions heard.

As I frequently tell my husband, if you get too caught up in the details, you will lose the bigger picture, which usually leads me to telling him that he gets in his own way more often than not.

I feel the reason New Orleans went under was because the National Guard, tanks, etc. were all in Iraq.

Doesn't it bother you that Palin actually said, her son was going to Iraq to fight the people that attacked us? Clueless.

I agree that McCain is a war hero, so is my dad, but he certainly is not qualified to be President.

Sam does research before posting an answer to some of the statements told here, then posts the links so we can all see what is the truth, not just a few. Anyone who cares anything about this country would do the same. It's not rocket science. The problem is some people on this board don't care to listen. They're right and everybody else is wrong.They think sam is attacking them personally, when he/she is not, just stating FACTS, not untruths.