Re: hlob vaj pov tub nkees, rau reason

1. you lost on all issues.
2. you lost on definitions.
3. you lost on sources.
4. you compared apples to oranges.

go home sore loser.

you're ugly.


reason wrote:
1. hail tail.
2 No Plan

Stop Crying. It's Ugly.


zhen wrote:
retard, look at the post trails, you're the one that used webster
first. LOL!

c'mon, can't take your own medicine?

semantics count.

'lazy'. hahahahahaha

can't prove vaj pov tub nkees and was proven a fool yourself so now you
just crying. boo hoo.


reason wrote:
Semantics.
zhen wrote:
kiss my ass dude. you're full of ***. now that you lost on the simple
definitions, you excuse yourself with 'it does not have to say
evacuate.'

whatever.

sore loser.


reason wrote:
Your the one who don't understand. When you retreat, you take your
peope right? Taking the people is evacuting. It would also apply to
us becase we would be retreating to Thailand.

Do you need it spell out to you? It does not have to say "evacute".
So you have nothing else except talking about semantic?

zhen wrote:
hahahahha 'lazy'

i find myself repeating many times to you. you must have a thick skull.

like i said search for the word 'evacuate' in that document about the
long marc. NOTHING. laff.

retreat does not mean evacuate. here, since you're a fan of webster, i
used their thesuarus on the word evacuate:
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=evacuate&x=0&y=0.
me also did one for retreat.

it seems 'retreat' is not a synonym of 'evacuate' and vice-versa. they
are similar but not synomyms. c'mon. play by your own rules. don't
cry. use the dictionary. tis plan and simple.

don't cry. we all make fools of ourselves (usually, however, not to
your depth).

you compare apples and oranges. mao and the allies were moving
soilders, but you seem to think it's the same as moving civilians.

come back when you're strong. my kungfu will stay sharp.

me win. u lose. me happy. u mad.

reason wrote:
Go and define retreat. It means the same thing. To move to a safe
place. Your the one who don' t undestand words.

zhen wrote:
ok. compare apples and oranges. again, your immaturity and rash
reasoning exposed.

did mao 'evacuate' people? again, you misuse words. that was a war. to
where did mao and his refugees go? dude, i'm laffing my ass off, you're
demented. mao did not evacuate anyone. that was a war. go to this site,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March, and tell me if you find the
word 'evacuate' describing the long march or mentioned at all.

LOL! this 'reason' guy is incorrible. irretrievably broken.

as for the battle of dunkirk, those were soldiers. who did and would
gvp have to evacuate? women, children, civilians, soldiers, etc... do
you think you can compare soilder evacuation to civilian evacuation?
LOL! c'mon, you're incredibly naive.

dude, you crack me up. apples and oranges. but you too immature to
realize it.

c'mon. weak.



reason wrote:
Yes, Long Cheng and Saigon could have been evacute. History has shown
that it could be done. Mao Tse Tao took over 1million on the long
march. Britian evacuted over 500,000 troops at the battle of Dunkirk.
6 month and no plan. Just high tail.

zhen wrote:
who said anything about spur of the moment? he resisted leaving. go
study.

so, one of your 2 points (if they are indeed points) is already
destroyed. the 'high tail' part. because you just admitted it was not
'spur of the moment.'

so, now remains your 1 point--abadonment. which i already answered. so
go get phonics and reread my posts.

could everyone in long cheng and saigon be evacuated with the leaders?
IF, it was abandonment, is this 'abandonment' because they wanted to
leave others behind or was this due to their limited capacity and
improvisation? or was leaving long cheng and saigon 'running for your
life' (AS WAS CLEAR, MANY OF THOSE WHO DID NOT LEAVE DIED AND CONTINUE
TO DIE).

no one saw 'it' coming. go study. the US support in Laos waxed and
waned like the moon. go study. some seaons, it looked like democracy
would prevail, other seasons, it looked like communism would win. they
had 2 coalition governments due to the foreign machinations and
manipulations. was that to be anticipated?

this was a power struggle, nothing predictable, just will and desire to
assert control. victory and defeat was cyclical and temporary.

go study. learn how to read and comprehend.

last point, destroyed.

hlob vaj pov not 'lazy'. touby not 'lazy'. nomtswv hmoob nyob los tsuas
muaj politik muaj power tsis yog tub nkees. muaj tswvyim muaj zog thiaj
li muaj tseem muaj noob hmoob txawj ntse.

your defeat, well-documented. your immaturity, self-evident.


reason wrote:
It was not spur of the moment. He had six months. Troops were order
to turn in their weapons earlier. The signs were there. He lied if he
said it was spur of moment. In war there is no spur of the moment.
Get the facts straight. He saw it coming.


zhen wrote:.
you have poor readin' skills. i already answered/countered you
sufficiently. you have no points, just profoundly misguided fancies.

i never said he knew, you putting words in my mouth so you can appear
to have the edge. i said he wanted to stay and fight. you said he 'high
tailed' and 'abandoned' his people. i don't really know how else to say
it to you other than (see above) and get some hooked on phonics for
your readin' disabilities.

we had to fend for ourselves since the day we step on the Laos soil. go
study. immediately upon our arrival in vietnam and laos, rebellions
took place and so did fighting with the viets and laos. go study.
what's your point?

if the US was taken over, and only a few people could evacuate--THESE
PEOPLE would NOT be me and you. that is not to say our leaders would
not want us to go, but that they can only take so many. got it?

GVP cannot from thin air click his fingers and have planes, trains, and
automobiles to take everyone. NO leader can do that. you're immature in
thought. when you reach puberty level of critical thinking, come back.
just because he did not take EVERYONE does not mean he abandoned us or
high tailed.

again, he COULD NOT take everyone in the midst and confusion of
imminent communist control AND he did not high tail as he fought before
the Americans came and up until freedom lost to communism. see, your 2
points spoon fed to you again.

weak. grow up.


reason wrote:
You are dodging the issues again. Counter th two points I posed.

If he new it was over why did he not plan the evacutoin of the people.
He could have left a second in command to carry it out. Why were the
people left to fend for themselves? He had the troops. Why did he not
have the troops fight a holding action for the people to escape? The
truth is that there was none. We had to fend for ourselves. That is
what you would call high tail.

reason,

me already answer ALL your untenable 'statements.' many on here can
see, but u. keep professing your 'lazy' theory into the history books,
we'll see how many pages are afforded to you.

just start another thread, ask people to vote, was 'vaj pov' a 'lazy'
leader?

he did NOT abandon his people. he stuck with Laos TO THE VERY END until
it was imminent and inevitable Laos would be a communist state.

he left reluctantly--do your research. he wanted to stay and fight. do
your research.

had he not left, he would be picking strawberries with the King and
Phranya. (second time i will be saying this). and so would your parents
and mine.

don't talk to you about 'facts'? lol! okay. sure. me follow u command.

your family is not the only one who lost loved ones in the war. we are
here because we paid with rivers of hmong blood--the price of our
freedom.

fact, gvp also lost loved ones in the war. fact, he had many attempted
187 on him. he was not sleeping or 'lazy'.

since you said you 'lived it' how many battles did you fight? who was
your captain? who was your colonel? c'mon, show your scars. you 'lived
it' huh?

fact, the northern front in laos against communism was PURELY
DEFENSIVE. it was not OFFENSIVE. gvp had his hand tied behind his back
in that sense. go study.

gvp, touby, lyfoung, kaitong, faydang, bush, clinton, etc... are
leaders. they have good and bad. they made mistakes, but they fought
for their people. why are you so ungrateful and bitter? you used
management theory to discuss leaders and managers, yet you fail to
understand the human element of leaders.

poor you. flexing rote memory without firm comprehension.

because of the decisions gvp made, we are here today. he went to
thailand, so did we. he went to america, so did we. i rather be here
than in thailand or laos ANYDAY. we have primier education, social
services, true liberal democracy, constitutionally protected rights to
dissent, economic and political FREEDOM, etc...

fact is, you need to mature on your critical thinking skills. the
learning curve seems steep for you. i'll give a few years to come
around. then, when you've wasted enough time, learn how to debate with
sequental thoughts that consequentially rest upon one another to a
well-grounded conclusion.

you paint our leaders and people in the worst possible light. too bad,
i know you're just a juvenille historian.

'conjecture' is not a bad word. i see that used in science literature
all over the place. but 'lying' is a word that one does not want to be
associated with--in this case, that's you. so, me conjecture (which me
have plenty time claimed), but you lie (which u cannot claim). read my
posts, some things are conjectural, some things are 'facts.'

c'mon try to make a comeback. but i suspect it'll only be more yapping
and yapping.

*yawns*



reason wrote:
Look,

1.VP left - He abandon his people. How many people did he put on the
plane with him. How many planes did he use? 99% of the people who
showed up in Thailand did it on their own initiatives. Did he organize
any plan to get the people out of Laos? I was there. When we got to
Thailand, he was already in the US. Did he even stay in Thailand to
ensure everyone got to the US? NO. Don't talk to me about facts. I
lived it. You only read it.

All this credit that you give him is paid by the bloods of my uncles,
cousins, aunts, and grand parents and many other people like me. My
dad still carry the scars and nightmares from fighting in the war since
he was about 15.

Once thousands of Hmongs ended up in Thailand, the US had to clean up
its mess. It was not VP. Everybody credits him for getting the US to
relocate us to the America. On the contrary, it was in the best
interest of their policy. The US has no friends. If they did not want
to VP could do nothing.

I give him credit for being a briliant tactician in the war.

Those are the facts.

2. Did he have a plan in the event the US withdrew like the French? No.
He was too complacent. He thought the US was going to be there for
ever.

Unless you have facts to refute these the debate is over.

zhen wrote:
oh here we go again. injecting more lies about hmong history. touby is
not a loser like you. he would be respected anywhere he went. you, on
the other hand, have to stand afar.


reason wrote:
Thats the point. No one paid taxes. The previous leaders force the
people to pay taxes. Even though it was the French who made them do
it. Thats why Touby did not want to come to America. He knew he would
be confronted with that issue.

SUNRISE wrote:
i'm grateful for the valor sacrifice my predecessors made. To be
honest, the funding the U.S. gave to us has no justification for our
services toward their freedom and democracy.
i did not see anyone force me to pay for taxes as a child in GVP's era;
maybe you have.
i received the education our predecessors could only dream of. one good
performane is better than none and is good enough for me.

reason wrote:
I guess people are greatful for the years of funding the US gave us
during the war. He was the only leader that did force people to sell
their children to pay for taxes. It must be like Joe Namath. Living
off one good performance.

SUNRISE wrote:
i don't quite understand the reasoning either. donation is most common
from the rich to the poor, but with GVP it is not quite the same.
whereever he goes hmong of both poor and rich welcome him with open
arms and honor. they gave him feast with unprecedent gratificattion.
they praised him and continue to make generous donation. it's rare and
in my view, only a man of greatness and mystical power is being loved
at this magnitude.

reason wrote:
I don't quite understand the reasoning, but its funny. Boy, he must be
a billionaire by now.

SUNRISE wrote:
Reason:

since Zhen is too pre-occupied by your reasoning and has completely
ignored my question of what is the biggest nation, let me just give you
the answer. The biggest nation is not China, the U.S., nor Russia,
it's DONATION. Hmong is the leading race in donation. where-ever GVP
goes, people donate money for him for all purposes...

reason wrote:
I do not think GVP 'high tailed.' HE WANTED TO STAY AND FIGHT!!! Ask
anyone. It was influences from ABOVE him that he decided to leave--he
left reluctantly. You're too naive that a dragon would not continue to
fight a war he was born to fight. Go research, there's an interview
with a CIA operative that explains how difficult it was to get "the Meo
General to leave."

An excuse. A captian never jumps ship. He goes down with it.

2. As a leader he should have found a way to fight for the people.

Did GVP not "find" a way to fight for the people (Lao, Hmong, Khmu,
Mien, etc...) from 1960-1975? If he did not find a way to fight or did
not desire to protect the soveriegnty of Laos, why, for over a decade,
did he risk life and limb?

He got paid to do it.

Post Secret-War, is GVP NOT accused of sponsoring resistance from
abroad against LPDR?
I think GVP made more than 1 attempt to "find" a way to fight for the
people. Whether he was successful is another issue. Obviously, his was
NOT successful, and so you seem to think he is 'lazy' due to his poor
results.

A lame attempt to earn a living. People gave him thousands of dollars
for nothing and he is still trying. Thats why the Hmong community do
not trust him or his cronies any more. History is written the way it
is currently because of politics. The truth will come out in time.


Arafat was a kind of hardline freedom fighter in the
sense that he used strength from weapons to achieve freedom.

Look he achieved freedom but he didn't take it. The Israel gave him
land a homeland. He was too greedy. If the Hmongs were offered that
we would have taken it.

Now, let's compare with the Dalai Lama. He also has wealth stashed away
and is supported by American celebrities and heads of state around the
world. How much freedom has his wealth afforded the Tibetans? He is a
kind of soft freedom fighter in the sense that he avoids using weapons
and opts for politics and world appeal to achieve freedom.

Look pacificist is only good for propaganda for the powerful to keep
the common people down.. Don't play the fool. History has shown it.

Now, Arafat rich, Dalai rich, and Arafat guns, and Dalai words. GVP, on
the other hand, 'rich' and guns and words. All three in one hand, NO
EFFECT, NO FREEDOM! Are all three 'lazy'? No. The answer is not so
easily captured by 'lazy'.

Once you jump ship it is over.

Money is necessary, but insufficient for freedom to win.

I agreed it is the will. Money is only a tool.

Help will never come--at least not military help and at least not in
time before all the resistance fighters have died.

Did you know the Chinese offer to help the Hmong in the late '70s?


The freedom fighters cannot be blamed either. They have helped
themselves to near extinction. Against all odds, they made a valiant
and COURAGEOUS effort to win. They were not 'lazy' as you may think.
They reinvented themselves plenty to fight for freedom, but perhaps
there are other factors outside your 'lazy theory' to account for why
they did not succeed.

Look. They lost the leader. And he said he would return. They waited
for him. If not they would have accepted the Chinese's help and Laos
would have been Hmong's. Twice the French wanted to give us Laos we
turn it down. You don't see that in the history book.

5. Instead he fled and thousands die for his stupidity.

I think you misspoke again. He evacuated and thousands lived following
him into Thailand. The only "stupidity" precipitating was of those who
thought it would be safe to remain behind either to live under LPDR
rule or have possible victory in fighting for freedom.

That was a clean up job by the US.

Had GVP not "fled", how many MORE Hmong would have died due to the
FALSE sense of security emanating from his stay? I think it is probable
that perhaps you and me would still be trapped in some part of the
jungle should our parents be lucky enough to survive (me is a post-1975
child), and if not, would be having tea with the King and Phranya in
dab teb lawm.

Check above about the Chinese help.

ALL my grandfather's brothers (4 of them) DIED staying in Laos under
communist rule. How many families have stories like mine? Guess which
male remains from my great-grandfather's family? My grandfather. Why?
He chose to cross the Mekong. Simple as that. Is that stupidity? Is
preserving your life stupidity? Is subjecting yourself to injustice
"smart"?

Check above.

6. What a coward.

If GVP is a coward, then no one can ever be courageous or hope to
achieve any inkling of courage. Tell me, how many battles did GVP
fight? How many assasinations did he survive? How many bullets went
into GVP's flesh? In the flames of war GVP lived for over a decade.

A soldier getting paid to do his duty only. When the money stops he
disappeared.

Okay, now, let's focus just a little bit on you. Did you fight? Where
were you stationed? How many bullets ripped through your flesh? Did you
stand outside the fire and furry of war, or did you immolate yourself
in the hellish depths of the Secret War?

Secret War is still going on if you did not know. Who said its over.

GVP and the soldiers who fought in Laos to protect were no less
courageous AND no more cowardice than any soldier who ever fought or
will ever fight.

GVP yes. The soldiers were not coward. Don't try to miss use the
word.

7. He had no plan in the event the US pull out.

There is no plan for failure. There is only a plan for victory.

Yes that is why the US is in trouble in Iraq. If they had plan in the
event things went wrong things would be different. Same with GVP.
Murphy's Law - anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

The
evacuation 'plan' was improvised following domestic pressure in the US
to pull out. How do you think refugee camps were created without a
'plan' (albeit improvised)? The only plan GVP had was to protect Laos.
He stepped up to the plate to meet the challenge of the century for
Laos. Do you think a man without intestinal fortitude can manifest the
history and legacy GVP has left in Laos? I think we Hmong are so
fortunate to have been blessed with GVP

Do you know his nick name? Pov "the Liar."

Paj Cai as examples of our
people's love for freedom. In this past century, we have had NOT 1, but
AT LEAST 2 examples of Hmong individuals leading the people of Laos
against foreign invasion and for freedom (I would even add Touby to the
ranks of these guys).

Do you know his nick name? Pov "the Liar."

yog horizontal line xwb hais txog vim li cas hmoob thiaj li poob
tebchaws.

Don't get brainwash. Organizational theory explains the failure of a
people or country. The failures lays at the top. Calm down and talk
facts. Lets debate not personal attack.

Everyone is part of a bigger group. The leader of the group is
responsible for all good and bad. All these leaders are to be blame
for our current situation everywhere.

.

Loading