mazeltov:
Appleyard , the only valid point you made in your post is the motive behind United states invasion of Vietnam.

Nixon sought to deflate the antiwar movement by appealing to a “silent majority” of Americans who he believed supported the war effort. In an attempt to
limit the volume of American casualties, he announced a program of withdrawing
troops, increasing aerial and artillery bombardment and giving South Vietnamese control over ground operations. In addition
to this policy, which he called
“ Vietnamization,” Nixon continued public peace talks in Paris, adding higher-level
secret talks conducted by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger beginning in the spring of 1968. The North Vietnamese continued to insist on complete U.S. withdrawal as a condition of peace, however, and the next
few years would bring even more carnage, including the horrifying revelation that U.S. soldiers had massacred more than 400
unarmed civilians in the village of My Lai in March 1968.
Anti-war protests continued to build as the conflict wore on. In 1968 and 1969, there were hundreds of anti-war marches and
gatherings throughout the country. On November 15, 1969, the largest anti-war protest in American history took place in
Washington, D.C., as over 250,000 Americans gathered peacefully, calling for withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. The anti-
war movement, which was particularly strong on college campuses, divided Americans bitterly. For some young people,
the war symbolized a form of unchecked authority they had come to resent. For other Americans, opposing the government was considered unpatriotic and treasonous.
As the first U.S. troops were withdrawn, those who remained became increasingly angry and frustrated, exacerbating problems with morale and leadership. Tens
of thousands of soldiers received
dishonorable discharges for desertion, and about 500,000 American men from 1965-73
became “draft dodgers,” with many fleeing to Canada to evade conscription. Nixon ended draft calls in 1972, and instituted an
all-volunteer army the following year. In 1970, a joint U.S-South Vietnamese operation invaded Cambodia, hoping to wipe out DRV supply bases there. The South
Vietnamese then led their own invasion of Laos, which was pushed back by North Vietnam. The invasion of these countries, in violation of international law, sparked a new wave of protests on college campuses across America, including two at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi during which National Guardsmen and police killed a total of six student protesters.
By the end of June 1972, however, after another failed offensive into South Vietnam, Hanoi was finally willing to compromise. Kissinger and North Vietnamese representatives drafted a peace agreement by early fall, but leaders in Saigon rejected it,
and in December Nixon authorized a number of bombing raids against targets in Hanoi and Haiphong. Known as the Christmas Bombings, the raids drew international condemnation.
with this little analysis, I believe you must learnt why Us goverment withdrew its troops. America didn't withdraw its troops because they lost - No America didn't lose - but because the war has divided many people at home. The war was lost at home 'America' not on the battle field. The battle lacked major support
• What constitutes "winning"?
It’s not as easy to answer this question as one might think.
Lance Janda, a professor of history at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla., said that "our strategy in Vietnam did not revolve around taking and holding terrain. In fact,
we often captured and then abandoned key positions over and over again, and measured our progress in the war through a body count."
By that measure, Janda added, "it’s certainly true that we consistently inflicted far greater
casualties on the Viet Cong and North Vietnam than we suffered, and if that’s the only gauge one uses to measure ‘victory,’ then we really did win in Vietnam."
On the other hand, he said, "if you argue that the North Vietnamese learned how to fight us in the early major battles of the war
and then developed superior tactical and strategic plans for prolonging and ultimately
winning the war, then you can plausibly make the case that they were winning a lot of battles from the beginning, regardless of
the body count."

TheNextAce:
If Chelsea fails to win, what happened in 1968 will happen again to their manager

damton:
Amaechi be like someone about to poop on his body.

bookceleb:
Do not worry ma..
we are praying fervently for you but not against cancer.
We are praying to God to help you return our yam jejely.

Stealing is now corruption...

bookceleb:
Do not worry ma..
we are praying fervently for you but not against cancer.
We are praying to God to help you return our yam jejely.

Stealing is now corruption...

seunlayi:
Thank you, I was unable to pick his word while the broadcast was on. His speech needs to be subtitled.

Alpet:

Source: www.punchng.com/news/fear-of-arrest-politicians-lobby-ccb-to-rectify-declaration-forms/

Omooba77:
Leicester host Arsenal on Sept 26.
he gloom of last week has been replaced by the optimism born from Wednesday’s win, victory always makes the world seem a brighter place. Yesterday’s media briefing by Arsène reinforced the good news; Francis Coquelin won’t feature today, may not on Tuesday but has a chance of making a return against United next weekend.

Arsenal travel to Leicester and face the only remaining unbeaten side in the Premier League. Which doesn’t say much for the early season form of the top sides. Looking at their fixture list, it isn’t any surprise they have yet to taste defeat; it’s hardly been the most taxing of starts for Claudio Ranieri as their new boss.

In stark contrast to the absence of any relationship with the current Chelsea manager, Wenger looked forward to renewing acquaintances with the Italian. Ranieri expressed surprise – almost disappointment – that Arsenal haven’t won the title since 2004. Join the club, Claudio, join the club.

Wenger’s admiration for his opponent succeeded in riling Mourinho, the claim that Ranieri had laid the foundation for the success the Portuguese enjoyed in his first Chelsea reign sent him into apoplexy. Driven by jealousy of Wenger’s job security, Mourinho ranted and raved seeming to provoke himself into a siege mentality over Diego Costa’s ban, Gabriel’s ban being rescinded before capping it off with the lunacy over perceived favouritism from referees. It was bizarre and probably the reaction Wenger hoped for.

Vaguely on that subject and I did mention his name in the last paragraph, Gabriel received a one-match ban having admitted a charge of improper conduct. There is some bizarre logic flying around, trying to justify why he shouldn’t have been charged even though the one man you would expect to defend him to the hilt, Wenger, chose to justify why he should. He misses today and probably more with Per Mertesacker’s return to fitness.

One player who will start is Alexis, desperately looking for form and goals. Arsène knew it would be a difficult season for the Chilean so in his infinite wisdom decided to play him before he was fully fit. Yesterday, he admitted that this is a fundamental reason for the player’s inconsistency, citing also Chile’s Copa America win as a motivational issue.

Sanchez wouldn’t have taken much (any?) persuading to be in the squad for the opening day of the season but his performance then reflected his lack of fitness and practice. It would be interesting to know how many of the successful international side have seen their form suffer. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t; it makes Wenger’s decision to rush him back all the stranger with the Premier League being an unforgiving environment in which to have problems. It’s a damning indictment that the squad couldn’t cope without him for the first couple of games. We couldn’t cope with him in the side on the opening day either.

Having had a good début season, Alexis has had something of a ‘free pass’ so far. Had any other player shown the same form, it’s fair to say that they would have been subjected to greater scrutiny, shall we call it. Arsène pointed out that given the number of chances he has had, Alexis might reasonably have expected to have scored half-a-dozen goals by now. That Arsenal’s leading scorers each have a brace tells you that he isn’t the only player misfiring. By far the most noticeable but not the only one.

It’s a problem which I am sure will soon be rectified. Perhaps even today, on the ground where he scored his first Premier League goal in last season’s corresponding fixture. That match, the third in that campaign, underlined Arsenal’s inconsistency. Six games in and the club had a total of ten points, the same as this season. Arsenal need to find their form quickly to take advantage of rivals whose starts have been even more laboured. There are only two games before the international break and six points would put a different complexion on the season.

Wholesale changes from Wednesday are expected today with the only question being whether Arteta or Flamini replaces Coquelin. The latter might feel that he earned the chance with his brace of goals on Wednesday and I understand that. He won’t get it or it will be a major surprise if he does even though his style of play releases Cazorla from defensive duties. Wenger is nothing but loyal to Arteta though and I think will remain so today.

It means a line-up (Arsène’s selection) of:

Cech; Bellerin, Mertesacker, Koscielny, Monreal; Flamini (Arteta), Cazorla; Ramsey, Özil, Sanchez; Walcott.

Leetunechi: