+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 18

  1. #1
    umdkook Guest

    Please tell me about Vietnam

    I was not alive at teh time, but Im wondering if the President occasionally appeared in front of the TV and made progress reports or anything like that about the war. Did he at least even try to say what was being accomplished, what goals were worth fighting for, and what teh US was actually constructively doing there?...and I mean specifically mentioned real things, not a general principle to explain the purpose of the war, im talking real productive outcomes.

    I ask becuase I wonder why teh President hasnt appeared and defended the war by stating exactly what has been accomplished, exactly what is worth staying there for, exactly why the naysayers are wrong.

    And please dont respond with links that say "we took out saddam" or "we freed Fallujah of insurgents" cuase we all know they dont count for shi te
    Last edited by umdkook; 11-22-2005 at 06:40 AM.

  2. #2
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    I was there... 108 combat missions on a B-52 Bomber,
    USAF Strategic Air Command duty for six years. Total service time
    14 years.
    The war was started, supposedly, over a Vietnamese coastal patrol boat
    firing on a U.S. warship in coastal waters of Vietnam. I think it was
    supposed to be a torpedo.
    Actually though, that never happened. MacNamara, then Secretary of State
    supported the accusation and because of that Nixon ordered an invasion
    of Vietnam, specifically against the North Vietnamese. There was a film
    released not long ago: MacNamara. Check it out and watch it. He, him-
    self talks and rebuts the original claim of the attck by the patrol boat.
    There was the North Vietnamese: supposedly communist, for the most part.
    South Vietnamese: supposedly christians, buddhists and other religions, for
    the most part, and a desire to be democratic. I think the South Vietnamese
    was labled "the democratic Republic of South Vietnam.
    Past that point, things turned into and ugly mess. We were fighting the
    NVRA = North Vietnamese Regular Army and the Viet Cong, who were also
    North Vietnamese, so it was said, but never clear that they were ALL
    specifically North Vietnamese. THe Viet Cong were sort of like the so
    called insurgents are now in IRAQ.
    I think the final count of american casualities was something like 54,000
    men. The RVN soldiers = South Vietnamese army soldiers were supposed
    to be helping in the fighting but from what I heard they didn't help
    much. Were known to be notorious for knowing when new shipments
    of clothing, underwear and T'shirts and the like were coming in and
    would beat american military people over to the Post Excahnge and
    buy up all the new stuff before our people could get there.
    We finally pulled out because there was so much hell raising about a
    no end in sight war and the carnage of our men. We left in a hurry.
    Check out the documentaries regarding when we left. Took a lot of
    South Vietnamese with us. It was mayhem.
    President Lyndon Johnson ordered our people out of their and declared
    a truce with the North Vietnamese and asked for peace talks.
    There is a lot of books, films and documentation out about this war.
    We didn't lose this war. Just decided to leave. We could have taken
    it further, especially the nuclear route and won it handily. But that
    was wisely decided against. Again, some of the "interested parties"
    that were remotely backing the North Vietnamese was Communist China
    and Russia. They had advisors and training by and from both.
    Who really won this war on our side? Again, as usual, the military/Industrial
    complex.
    Today, vietnam has settled down. Many americans, some ex combat
    troops are going there and living out there life. American businesses
    are becoming established and we are trading with Vietnam.
    After the war, the communist overran the south. There was some executions,
    torture and abusive treatment of especially those that could be identified
    as american supporters.
    Saigon, South Vietnam's name was changed to Ho Chi Minh City. He was
    the president of North Vietnam.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,553

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    Hi Umdkook,
    I suggest you research a variety of histories...

    With all due respest to Coontie the Vietnam conflict was initiated under Kennedy and escalated under Johnson. Also, Robert McNamara was the Sec. of Defense.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara

    In your research you will find a variety of opinions regarding the beginnings of U.S. involvement. One view is that the U.S. took over when the French were unable to hold onto their colonial possesion.

    As far as any Presidential 'progress reports' to the American people... I don't recall any.

    Happy researching...

    cheers,
    Paul
    Last edited by PaulM; 11-22-2005 at 07:39 AM.

  4. #4
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    PaulM: apologies... you're correct: I refelcted this morning on the
    Vietnam situation, been some years, as you know. Suddenly it came
    to me that McNamara was Secretary of Defense. Regardless
    of his office title (which I am not denying the importance of), it was
    he, in the majority, that influenced the President to attack North
    Vietnam.
    Yes, there was Republican and Democratic party participation in this
    mess. After all, regardless of party affiliation, it is all about america,
    huh?
    As usual, the main ones that profited was the malitary/industrial complex
    of our country. What do you suppose, for instance, thosed balck rubber
    body bags and Aluminum coffins and the flag that is draped on each
    coffin cost, each, to the american taxpayer? Isn't it interesting, also,
    that there is sensitivity, as in the Iraq situation for pictures of these
    coffins, in masse, loaded on the aircraft for shipment back to the
    U.S., to be made available to show on T.V. to the public? Wonder
    why?
    If you noticed I mostly encouraged umdook to do his/her research
    using documentaries, books. Lots of them, as you are probably aware of.
    Oh, also by the way, I thought: 'well, we will se who is paying attention.'
    Obviously your are. Nice to have critical, discerning minds lurking about
    out there!
    So, what do you have to say, originally, yourself, in regards to the situation?
    Aside from the usual political party aligining? ;)
    Last edited by coontie; 11-22-2005 at 07:26 PM. Reason: spell

  5. #5
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    haha thanks guys but as I was trying to say, I know the history and basic facts, and can look it up in teh encyclopedia if need be, but
    What I am wondering is if the President ever said things such as...."teh US and its forces have pushed the Communists out of City A and City B, allowing for peace and democracy in said areas" or things like that. Things that were the reasons for an invasion.

    I am trying to understand why Bush doesnt ever give reports on why teh war is a success BECUASE THE us HAS ACCOMPLISHED WHAT IT SET OUT TO DO, not because Saddam is out of there. Building a school is great, but the US did not need to or say it went in there to do that.

    I am wondering if Nixon and Johnson and the likes actually reported on accomplished goals or not.

    Do you understand the difference or am i not being clear?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    I don't remember to much of Viet Nam, I was only a kid in grade school when it started. I do remember that it was Pres. Nixon that pulled us out, not Johnson. I'm not here to debate on it on way or the other. I know that guys were treated like crap when they, or if they came back. My father was there in 66-67. He came back, but he was dead within a year from agent orange. War is never pretty, and I'm sure that the years, and all the wars, there have been those who agree and those who don't. All I will say is, support the men and women in the miliatry, no matter where they are. They need to know that they have your support.

  7. #7
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    Quote Originally Posted by umdkook
    haha thanks guys but as I was trying to say, I know the history and basic facts, and can look it up in teh encyclopedia if need be, but
    What I am wondering is if the President ever said things such as...."teh US and its forces have pushed the Communists out of City A and City B, allowing for peace and democracy in said areas" or things like that. Things that were the reasons for an invasion.

    I am trying to understand why Bush doesnt ever give reports on why teh war is a success BECUASE THE us HAS ACCOMPLISHED WHAT IT SET OUT TO DO, not because Saddam is out of there. Building a school is great, but the US did not need to or say it went in there to do that.

    I am wondering if Nixon and Johnson and the likes actually reported on accomplished goals or not.

    Do you understand the difference or am i not being clear?

    It seems as though after the Korean War (which was actually deemed a
    "Police Action" but wasn't - resulted in a lot of loss of life on our part
    and never settled... we pulled out of there after declaring a truce)
    that there was the idea that the public should know first hand more
    of what was going on in war situations. That was because of the advent
    of television, which was in its' infancy during the Korean War (excuse me,
    police action).
    As television got better and the networks, there was only three; ABC, CBS
    and NBC wanted fodder, that is media material to support their broad-
    cast, with essential interest being on making money by getting as many
    product advertisers as possible, ala commercials.
    So these networks beging hounding the government leadership and
    whatever military personnel, that they thought mattered, read: "important",
    and trying to get any little piece of information they could to which
    they added their own spin, to make the story be as sensational as
    possible. Also, trying to get "T.V. war correspondents" into the areas
    of combat. They refer to it now as "embedding."
    Their first big chance was the Viet NAm situation and what a situation
    it was. This was a War that is difficult to condense, compartmentalize,
    describe briefly, except to say it was one helluva mess. I think in retrospect
    that shortly after we became commited there we realize that we
    were up against a formidable enemy that played really rough. Also,
    that we really, in looking back at our motivation for being in there, didn'
    thave any business being in there in the first place. SOund familiar?
    Our countries big problem, so to speak, is our so called freedom of speech.
    It leaves us an our government in a quandry, or simply a double-bind. We
    and our government seek to serve the purpose of free speech, we in
    regard to wanting to know as much details which are truthful and fact-
    ual as possible and the government being, often in a position of:
    maintaining some position of secrecy, some of it because they are
    protecting sensitive combat plans and operation; some of it because they
    just plain don't know, but don't want the public to see them as inept or
    incompetent, so they attempt to appear as if they are well informed from
    the battlefield areas, all the logistics and so on, but the really aren't.
    Then, as now, in the Iraq War, the various "war correspondents" are
    in place, embedded, if you will, up close and personal in the combat
    and rear line assembly and planning positions. So the media has eyes and
    ears there to report back to them what is actually going on.
    Therefore, quite often, the medias' reporting conflicts with the official
    word from the Pentagon and the Whitehouse, which results in a lot
    of consternation and huddling on the part of the government.
    A great deal of this transpired in Vietnam, because the war correpsondents
    were not as limited there as in Iraq. Early on in Iraq, the correspondents
    were numerous and right along side the troops, in the face of some of
    the dealiest combat. But, the so called insurgents decided that they
    didn't like our correspondents taking pictures of them, their operations
    and combat tactics and their faces, when they didn't wear mask, and
    broadcasting it all over the world. So they had open season on the
    correspondents who are now very dimished in number there and those
    that are left just stay mostly cooped up in hotels, biding their time and
    reporting back mostly a lot of rumor based material that they got from
    some other correspondent.
    I'm saying all of this because I have heard comparisions between Vietnam
    and Iraq wars. Plain and simple, there isn't any. Each one is seperate
    and unique in it's own right. Not only in time but in it's character and
    disposition.
    A big problem in Vietnam was our government getting back big figure
    body counts for enemy casualities and low body count for
    our casualities. This really got General Westmoreland into a lot of trouble.
    I think his military career fizzled after that war. Americans on the
    street got really angry because of learning eventually that our
    combat dead was in the 10's of thousands and conditions being
    reported back displayed that we were hopelessely mired in a
    bloody slug-fest with no seming end in sight.
    With Iraq, the war that we launched ourself into, that is to say the way
    it was then, and the war we're engaged in now, is the same war, but
    seperate conditions. The longer a war engagement last the more it
    has the potential to evolve into a monsterous situation. That is the
    way Iraq appears now.
    I think that might be what people like Congressman John Mortha is
    addressing: he was saying in so many words, to put it simply; folks
    we have to take a new look at the situation, have some serious
    discussions, briefings based upon factual, not politically tainted
    information and regroup and address this thing from a different tact.
    That's what the problem is there now and that's what a lot of people
    are, so to speak, yelling about: what's the plan?
    In the meantime, our troops are in combat, minute by minute, hour
    by hour, day by day, slugging it out with the enemy. At least trying
    to maintain, protect theirselves and keep casualities to a minimum.
    That seems, for some time what their objective is. What is needed is
    something to break the stalemate and allow us the advantage.
    Part of the solution to this is stopping homicide bombers, vehicle
    bombers and neutralizing Improvised Roadside Devices. We can do
    pretty good fighting, we have some of the best cobat troops in the
    world, but not when they have to worry about these previously mentioned
    devices.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,553

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    Quote Originally Posted by umdkook
    haha thanks guys but as I was trying to say, I know the history and basic facts, and can look it up in teh encyclopedia if need be, but
    What I am wondering is if the President ever said things such as...."teh US and its forces have pushed the Communists out of City A and City B, allowing for peace and democracy in said areas" or things like that. Things that were the reasons for an invasion.

    I am trying to understand why Bush doesnt ever give reports on why teh war is a success BECUASE THE us HAS ACCOMPLISHED WHAT IT SET OUT TO DO, not because Saddam is out of there. Building a school is great, but the US did not need to or say it went in there to do that.

    I am wondering if Nixon and Johnson and the likes actually reported on accomplished goals or not.

    Do you understand the difference or am i not being clear?
    Well... I'll give it a go here...

    As I understand it it appears you are asking why we do not have specific progress reports similar to the scenario you mentioned. This is not a "linear" war... there are no "front lines" so to say. There was no real battle for this city or that... the insurgents are not a 'regular' military organization and as such do not engage in that type of combat... they 'hit & run'. The President cannot give 'progress reports' because there are none to give. Also, what could he say that we have not already heard through the media?

    Coontie... you asked my opinion... well, for what it's worth :)
    Saddam "did" possess chemical weapons... he employed them on the Kurds after the 1st Gulf War... so he did have them and demonstrated he was willing to use them. When we invaded, on a pre-emptive basis, I had the gut feeling it was wrong simply because it went against all the U.S. had done in the past. Occasional air strikes are one thing, but to invade with the purpose of regime change when we had not specifically been attacked by said regime... I was leery about.
    As it is turning out... IMO when we eventually do leave there will be a civil war in Iraq leading to a regime change since the present government will be viewed as a U.S. puppet by Iraqis and the general Middle East... if not the world. I would support a general time-table for withdrawl since such a time-table would let our troops know, within reason, when their mission would be "officially" completed. At which time, the U.N. should step in to supervise the completion of the rebuild and assist in stabilization of the country.

    As I said... for what it's worth...

    cheers,
    Paul

  9. #9
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    PaulM: maybe we're getting off thread here, but when one is considering
    what our nation gets itself involved in it almost cannot be helped..
    WMD's? you said Saddam had them, used them on the Kurds... I agree.
    He also used them (gas and chemicals) on the Iranians, otherwise the Irans
    would have whipped him handily. Wouldn't be suprised that he also use them
    on the Kuwaitis. Saying that, where did they disappear to? Why haven't we
    found any, especially the purported nuclear materials?
    I 100 percent expected they had them and really thought that we would
    find them. But didn't. Taken out of the country? I am sure we have been
    watching these people very closely for some time with satellite technology.
    Why didn't they see the removal of these items, say, to Syria? Is'
    puzzling.
    As for the civil war and it being a given because the then installed
    government, after we leave, will be considered a puppet government.
    I think it goes beyond this. I think the sticking point with these people
    there, besides their religious differences is there tribal affiliations. Those
    go back several thousand years and what are bind these people very
    close together, in regard to allegiance and alliances.
    I think what we are seeing is an evolution of these people, wherein they
    are just in recent years starting to realize that the world is passing them
    by and they have to evolve, catch up. We're being used to help them
    do this and it is sure hard and expensive on us and the rest of the
    world.
    Where a country like us has our hands tied when we do battle with the
    likes of the majority of these folks, for the most part we are much more
    sensitive and humane in regard to human life. There should be no
    question where this stands on their part, when they handily strap on
    explosive belts with shrapnel loaded into them, walk into a crowd, of
    whomever, and blow everyone up and leave many maimed, both
    physically and mentally.
    Good example was, other than the blood and gore in Iraq, where those
    Iraqis went to Jordan and blew up a wedding party. Now Alzawarri,
    or whatever he's called is saying it was a mistake. Pathetic isn't it/
    Some mistake eh? Tell that to the families and friends of thos killed and
    maimed.
    Enough!

  10. #10
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    yea well i just wasnt sure how it had worked in the past, so i was just curious.

    but, for what its worth Paul, by using that logic ANY country can practically invade ANY other country due to their past actions using chemical weapons, including the biggest of them all THE US.

    the world would not condone Japan for invading teh US simply becuase they dropped two big as bombs worse than any chemical weapon in the past.

    yes saddam was terrible and yes it was terrible what his regime did to the kurds, but that reasoning is strate BS. but we dont have to get into that type of stuff so ill leave it at that.

  11. #11
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    Quote Originally Posted by coontie
    Good example was, other than the blood and gore in Iraq, where those
    Iraqis went to Jordan and blew up a wedding party. Now Alzawarri,
    or whatever he's called is saying it was a mistake. Pathetic isn't it/
    Some mistake eh? Tell that to the families and friends of thos killed and
    maimed.
    Enough!
    well its a good thing there are the jews and Israel to blame the bombings on, since they were the intended targets. Im surprised they didnt try to say the Israelis set it up so the bombers thought the room with the wedding was the Israeli spy meeting room.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,553

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    Quote Originally Posted by coontie
    PaulM: maybe we're getting off thread here, but when one is considering what our nation gets itself involved in it almost cannot be helped..
    Oh yeah, we're getting off topic, but that's never stopped a good discussion before so why should this be any different :)
    Quote Originally Posted by coontie
    WMD's? you said Saddam had them, used them on the Kurds... I agree.
    He also used them (gas and chemicals) on the Iranians, otherwise the Irans
    would have whipped him handily. Wouldn't be suprised that he also use them
    on the Kuwaitis. Saying that, where did they disappear to? Why haven't we
    found any, especially the purported nuclear materials?
    I 100 percent expected they had them and really thought that we would
    find them. But didn't. Taken out of the country? I am sure we have been
    watching these people very closely for some time with satellite technology.
    Why didn't they see the removal of these items, say, to Syria? Is'
    puzzling.
    I agree completely, but with another addition... perhaps, just perhaps Saddam's WMD program was a "one-trick-pony". In other words, what stockpiles he had were used up? I know this is stretching things quite a bit, but it was my observation during Gulf War I that Saddam had no clue how to launch a missle attack or lacked the resources. By that I mean a handful of missles launched at a target (I recall attacks involving 1 or 2 missles at the most). This tells me that he was either an idiot by attacking in piece-meal fashion or he simply didn't have the weapons available.
    Could it be that his stockpile of chemical weapons had been severely depleted or was never that large to begin with?
    Quote Originally Posted by coontie
    As for the civil war and it being a given because the then installed
    government, after we leave, will be considered a puppet government.
    I think it goes beyond this. I think the sticking point with these people
    there, besides their religious differences is there tribal affiliations. Those
    go back several thousand years and what are bind these people very
    close together, in regard to allegiance and alliances.
    Very true. If any form of Democracy takes root in Iraq it will not be along the lines of a Western model.
    Quote Originally Posted by coontie
    I think what we are seeing is an evolution of these people, wherein they
    are just in recent years starting to realize that the world is passing them
    by and they have to evolve, catch up. We're being used to help them
    do this and it is sure hard and expensive on us and the rest of the
    world.
    I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. It almost reads that we were 'invited' to invade so that we could upgrade their sociatal infra-structure and social order?? I don't think that is what you meant... could you please expand on this?

    cheers,
    Paul

  13. #13
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    ahha thats not a bad idea for poor nations....just let the US invade and destroy everything, cuase theyre gonna have to rebuild it anyways!!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,553

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    Quote Originally Posted by umdkook
    yea well i just wasnt sure how it had worked in the past, so i was just curious.

    but, for what its worth Paul, by using that logic ANY country can practically invade ANY other country due to their past actions using chemical weapons, including the biggest of them all THE US.

    the world would not condone Japan for invading teh US simply becuase they dropped two big as bombs worse than any chemical weapon in the past.

    yes saddam was terrible and yes it was terrible what his regime did to the kurds, but that reasoning is strate BS. but we dont have to get into that type of stuff so ill leave it at that.
    I think you need to re-read my post... I made no statement justifying anything. I said:

    "...When we invaded, on a pre-emptive basis, I had the gut feeling it was wrong simply because it went against all the U.S. had done in the past. Occasional air strikes are one thing, but to invade with the purpose of regime change when we had not specifically been attacked by said regime... I was leery about."

    As you can see... there is nothing in that statement attempting to justify anything. It is merely a statement of how I felt when we invaded Iraq and why I felt that way.

    cheers,
    Paul

  15. #15
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    no no no, I wasnt saying you were justiying it, I was saying by using the logic you posted, which many do use, the argument i wrote can be made.

    your post started with this ...."Saddam "did" possess chemical weapons... he employed them on the Kurds after the 1st Gulf War... so he did have them and demonstrated he was willing to use them.", so i htough tu were using that as the reasaon Bush convinced the US to go in there, i see now thats not where you were oging though.

  16. #16
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Please tell me about Vietnam

    PaulM: I made the comment about these mideastern nations evolving and
    we are somehow being used in this regard...
    It seems like it is sort of on an a somewhat metaphysical level, beyond
    some energy of the world that propells us all along in fufilling our
    own seperate desstinies. That is, it occurs to individuals and to nations
    as well.
    I don't mean that we go there consciously recognizing, realizing that
    we are serving in some capacity, degree, to change the nations. A lot
    of what happens in this regard is beyond our initial intentions or
    cognition, Sounds weird in a way? Well, in my life as I see it now, and
    then looking back, I realize and recognize things that have transpired
    in my life, some of which changed me to a great extent, to where
    I am at now, along my personal destinie's path. I look back and
    often cannot believe where I have been, what I have experienced and
    what has transpired.
    I see this with our nation: we have definitely made a big impact on the
    world and for the most part have, as a nation, been responsible for
    bringing about some very worthy and admirable changes in this world.
    To the credit of america and americans. And we as a people should be
    very proud.
    And instead of some people saying "why do they hate us so much." The
    real question is why are they so jealous of us and why are people
    continuing to have a very strong desire to be in out country. Because
    the U.S.A. is the best thing going on the planet. :cool:

Similar Threads

  1. Obama and Vietnam, yeah right you're sorry.
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2012, 09:17 AM
  2. Kennedy would have driven us into Vietnam
    By danrush1966 in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-28-2010, 12:33 PM
  3. Obama's Vietnam lies
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 10:34 PM
  4. U.S. liberating Vietnam
    By Ronald in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 06-27-2007, 04:58 AM
  5. Please Note: Iraq Is Not Vietnam
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11-27-2005, 09:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
abc, accomplished, accurate, accusation, action, actions, added, advisors, age, agen, alive, alliances, allowing, american, another, appeared, appears, are, aren, aries, army, assembly, assist, ation, attacked, attacking, attacks, attempt, attention, aware, back, bad, bags, balck, based, basic, bat, beat, best, bet, better, biggest, bit, blame, blew, blood, bomber, bombs, books, break, broad, building, bush, called, cannot, career, catch, chance, chemicals, chris, christia, christians, city, civil, claim, clear, clo, close, colo, coming, communist, completely, condi, condo, conflicts, congressman, cons, coo, correct, cost, count, countries, country, crap, credit, critical, crowd, day, dead, decided, defended, democracy, democratic, demons, des, desire, did, didn, difference, differences, different, difficult, documentation, doesn, don, dont, double, dow, dropped, dry, due, early, east, eed, ells, embedded, eme, end, ended, enemy, engagement, essential, expand, eyes, face, facts, factual, familiar, families, fashion, father, feeling, felt, final, flag, folks, forces, fra, french, front, gas, general, getting, give, gonna, good, great, gut, guys, had, haha, hand, hands, happened, harbor, hard, hasn, head, heard, hell, helped, helping, hey, higher, him, his, history, homicide, hose, hotels, huma, ial, iced, idiot, ill, ime, impact, important, in front, individuals, industrial, interest, interested, invade, invited, involved, involving, ion, isn, israelis, ist, its, japan, jealous, johnson, jordan, just, justifies, kennedy, killed, korea, korean, kurds, large, last, launch, launched, leading, leave, led, likes, limited, line, lines, links, living, logic, logistics, long, longer, lose, loss, lot, main, make, making, many, matter, mea, meaning, meeting, men, mentally, mess, missle, model, moment, mor, morning, nam, nation, nations, nbc, need, needed, networks, never, nice, nixon, north, now, nuclear, office, officially, ones, only, onto, open, operation, orange, order, ordered, org, organization, original, part, party, pas, past, pathetic, paul, paying, peace, pen, pentagon, person, personal, pictures, piece, place, plane, planning, plans, played, point, politically, poor, pos, position, post, posted, potential, power, presiden, president, pretty, productive, progress, public, pulled, puppet, question, quote, raising, rated, rea, read, ready, real, reasons, regarding, regime, regular, religious, remember, removal, reporting, reports, research, respond, responsible, rest, results, rick, rip, robert, roo, room, route, roy, run, safe, scenario, scheduled, school, season, secretary, semi, sensitive, serve, service, set, shipment, shirts, shortly, simple, simply, soldiers, son, sounds, speak, specifically, star, started, starting, stay, step, stuff, success, such, suppose, sure, surge, tactics, take, taken, takes, taking, talking, talks, targets, tells, terrible, they, thing, thought, thread, tie, tied, time, title, total, treated, treatment, trick, tries, troops, trouble, truce, turned, turning, type, ugly, unique, url, usual, view, wanted, war, wars, week, weird, western, when, wikipedia, will, wome, won, worked, works, world, worry, worse, worth, worthy, wrong, year, years, you, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •