Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Al Gore

2008-03-03T02:43:24Z

Zmaxcomputer: /* Biased views */

3/20/07 - Intended to do considerable work to correct spelling and grammatical errors, but time flies. Will return when I have more time. In the interim, I have updated some info and worked to maintain the encyclopedic nature of the entry (attempting to resolve some "opinion" matter which had existed).

This entire entry needs to have citations or references or anything. This violates the 2nd commandment...always cite!--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==alleged voting irregularities==
I don't think that it is best to say that Gore challenged the 2000 election because of "alleged voting irregularities". Gore's main argument was that the election was very close, and another recount might have favored him. Yes, there were some irregularities in the way that hanging chads were counted, and maybe some other matters, but Gore was really taking a stand on how those should be counted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==
The entire Criticism section seems to be based on gossip. Discussing Al Gore's electrical bills and monetary practices has nothing to do with his public life. Instead, this section should contain references to public criticism of Gore, not just the criticisms of the user who wrote this section. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]]

It seems this entire website is slamming democrats every chance that is given, even if its not serious. Exploiting their flaws instead of posting any positive effects they might have done. I love the example about pointing out that Al Gore uses a private jet; such a terrible crime. It doesn't state his intentions while using the jet were good or bad it just states that because he uses his jet he is a hypocrite. O and he owns a mine which is "potentially" dangerous. Wasn't aware of a mine that wasn't dangerous. Instead of bashing the democrats so much, why is it not in conservapedia's nature to bash the republicans a bit? Their mission statement is to post neutral articles from a conservative point of view? Then why is it on this page they get pissed at gore for using his JET, but when i look at Nixon's article on this site nothing is mentioned about how poorly he managed the Vietnam war? Guess the whole jet thing is more important huh?

:Take a look a [[Scooter Libby]], then get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth. As to Nixon's managing the Vietnam War, you are correct. We need more on how the Democrrats protested their own war that they started. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::No mention of the fact in the above rant that Gore preaches against all of that engine exhaust causing global warming...but his intentions are good while he's on that private jet spewing all that exhaust so he can get to his destination and preach against global warming. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I will probably be blocked soon, so i am merely posing this question: how is this an editable encyclopedia? If someone is blocked, they can supposedly discuss it with the admin who blocked them. But any edit on their talk page will be auto-blocked. In addition, close mindedness is stopping the most important articles from being fair.

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

So did we go out of our way to find the least flattering Al Gore picture we could find? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 01:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Probably. Just like [[Rosie O'Donnell]]. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 15:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
the article need some [[Al Gore]] photo.--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: That one at his breakfast's particularly good. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
I thought that the one with him as Vice President was nice. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 15:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Media bias==

We can compare the lionization of Al Gore to the favorable treatment given [[Paul Ehrlich]]:

*Despite his lengthy green-left credentials and his terrible track record as a prognosticator, NBC contracted with Ehrlich in 1990 to produce a 12-part series on global ecological issues for [[NBC News]]. NBC cast the radical professor as a disinterested scientist dispassionately explaining global warming and environmental issues. Ehrlich was later nominated for an [[Emmy Award]] for his TV propaganda and received a five-year [[MacArthur Foundation]] fellowship. [[PBS]] subsequently made him the subject of a puff-piece documentary. [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+%22experts%22:+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451]

== Biased views ==

"An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Oscar despite its blatant scientific inaccuracies."

Proof please? - Nebjy

You may start from the article [[Global Warming]]. For your signature, use three tilde (~) characters. Better yet, use four of them, so that date and time are added as well. Regards, [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:28, 12 December 2007 (EST)

As a scientist myself, as well as working alongside many environmental scientists i can assure you that the facts used in his film are common knowledge. Sorry guys.... denial is powerful.

Talk:Al Gore

2007-07-09T04:16:42Z

Zmaxcomputer:

Talk:Vietnam War

2007-07-02T01:08:06Z

Zmaxcomputer: /* This article is woefully inadequate */

What was the first Indochina Conflict? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 15:06, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:That was the war between the French and the Viet Cong that took place in the late 1940s - early 1950s, prior to our involvement.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 18:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Unless strong documentation can be provided, I have to support Hojimachong's decision to remove what appears to be odd claims of an imminent North Vietnamese surrender at the time we pulled out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== This article is woefully inadequate ==

A lot of work needs to be done on this topic. There's a great deal of information left out. Also, the U.S. did not lose this war. When the U.S. pulled out S. Vietnam was safe and secure. The VietCong was destroyed and the borders were agreed to by the Paris Peace Accords. It was only after the U.S. was completely out of the region that the North Vietnamese attacked. It was 2 years after the U.S. pulled out that North Vietnam invaded. However, because of communist infiltration of the U.S. govt. and Congressional efforts to squash S. Vietnam and the violation of the SEATO treaty to render air support to the S. Vietnamese, the North felt this was the opportune moment to invade. All this is left out from the article. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I beleive that outline of telling events is very good. How's this, "Vietnam was lost in a spasm of Congressional irresponsibiltiy after Congress cut off aid to the South Vietnam govt and the hard won peace negotuiations by Henry Kissinger". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:52, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

About the only thing the Vietname War article does not discuss... is the Vietnam War. But at least we have a list of really hip songs from that era ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:17, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, it's not ready to be displayed. I'm going to demote it to a [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

"stated military goals of the Americans were not met".. So basically, you lost the war. Funny way to say it. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 10:10, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

This site is an embarrassment. I included some of the most accurate statistics in respect to the war and they are deleted. I guess having the U.S.A be part of a war claiming the lives of millions; many of them innocent is just too liberal. I guess that implies the facts themselves are liberal (which obviously cant be allowed) making this site no more than poor propaganda. Wikipedia has a very accurate breakdown of this war, the casualties, who was involved, as well as a very detailed escalation as to the events that occurred right up to the present day. I also find it hilarious that Nixon isn't mentioned once in this whole article.

Vietnam War

2007-07-02T00:36:17Z

Zmaxcomputer:

{{rewrite|Doesn't give the origin of the war, what it was fought about, and what the sides were. See [[Talk:Vietnam War/draft]]}}
[[Image:SaigonFall.jpg|thumb|South Vietnamese residents flee [[Saigon]], as North Vietnamese forces enter the city.]]
The '''Vietnam War''' ended in 1975 when the north conquered the country. It had been in progress more or less continuously since the surrender of [[Japan]], which occupied Vietnam during [[World War II]], in 1945. [[Ho Chi Minh]], a [[Comintern]] operative, led the movement for a unified, [[Communist]] Vietnam from 1945 until his death in 1969.

Ho's declaration of Vietnamese "independence" in 1945 from [[France]], the former colonial power, was famously modeled on that of the [[United States]], but that country correctly interpreted the flattery as subterfuge and backed France and its ally [[Bao Dai]] to the hilt. By 1953, 80% of the money and material used by Bao Dai's troops came from the United States. Nonetheless, in early 1954 French and allied troops were defeated at the [[Battle of Dien Bien Phu]]. The French sued for peace at talks in [[Geneva]], the upshot of which was the creation of four independent countries in their former colony of [[Indochina]]: [[Cambodia]], [[Laos]], [[North Vietnam]] and [[South Vietnam]].

The war was characterized for the ensuing twenty years by the efforts of North Vietnam to take over the South. Rather than play to the strength of the Americans by launching a [[conventional war]] like [[Korean]] leader [[Kim Il-Sung]] had, Ho chose [[subversion (political)|subversion]] of the South as his strategy, using as his tools the [[National Liberation Front]] and its non-uniformed [[guerrilla]] wing, the [[Viet Cong]]. The Comintern resistance movement against the French had previously been known as the [[Viet Minh]]. The South Vietnamese, under various [[military governments]] following the overthrow of their last civilian leader [[Ngo Dinh Diem]] in early November 1963, similarly tried to subvert Ho's government in North Vietnam, but with much less success. U. S. forces supported these operations, leading to the [[Tonkin Gulf Incident]] on August 2, 1964, when at least one U. S. destroyer was fired on by North Vietnamese forces as it operated close to their waters. The United States responded first with air attacks that became known as [[Operation Rolling Thunder]] and later with ground troops.

Military, political, and social historians have ever after debated why the United States was unable to defeat the North Vietnamese. The primary reason is probably the total psychological commitment of substantially all North Vietnamese and many South Vietnamese people to reunification of the country. America at first operated on the assumption that [[victory by body count]] was possible and would eventually bring the North Vietnamese to the peace table. There were in fact peace negotiations following [[Operation Linebacker II]] in December 1972, but these succeeded mostly in giving the United States its prisoners back and time to withdraw from the fight. It was simply impossible for the North Vietnamese leadership to imagine the indefinite existence of South Vietnam or to think critically about the price they were paying to annex that country. Accordingly, they renewed their offensive in 1975 and took over the former South Vietnamese capital of [[Saigon]], renaming it "Ho Chi Minh City."

Though there is speculation among the number of casualties, estimates reveal that as many as 5 million Vietnamese died as a result of the war. In addition to this death toll, as many as 4 million were considered civilians.

The total number of United states armed forces casualties = 58209

Today Vietnam has a communist government.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==

*Larry Berman, [http://hnn.us/articles/37934.html ''Perfect Spy: The Incredible Double Life of Pham Xuan An''], Time Magazine (Smithsonian Books/HarperCollins, 2007). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060888381/Perfect_Spy/index.aspx]
*[http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/almanac-saigon.pdf SIGINT and the Fall of Saigon, April 1975].
*[http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=6 "Secrecy, Freedom and Empire: Lessons for Today from Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"].
*[http://www.onpower.org/foreign_regional_Asia.html#10 Vietnam War].

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:United States History]]