July: Fill & Download for Free

Disclaimer : For the short answer, just read the text in bold letters.I believe it too. Here are some reasons :1. She left Barry at altar. If she did not love him or did not want to spend her life with him, then she should have figured it out before their wedding day. Leaving a person like that makes her a bitch.2. After seeing Ross with Julie, she constantly behaved bad with Julie. Come on! Julie didn't do anything wrong. She just felt in love with a guy she likes.3. Feeling jealous of Ross being happy, even after knowing that Paola hit on Pheobe, she slept with him just bcz she did not have any bf at that time...that too without first talking to Pheobe. In a sense, she cheated on Pheobe.4. She never wanted to see Ross happy. According to her, if she does not have a boyfriend, Ross should also not have girlfriend. When Ross was with Julie, she created the whole drama by drinking wine and calling Ross and telling she was over him. She ruined the happy going relationship of Ross and Julie.5. When Ross found out about Rachel liking him back, he broke up with Julie just for Rachel(even when there was no issue with Julie). But she broke up with him over a small issue of Ross making a list of her pros and cons. Ross was surely wrong and faulty but she should not have broke up with him over this issue. Now Ross has neither Julie nor her.6. [I would have slapped her on this point if I were Ross]When Ross and her are back together for second time, Ross wants to spend their anniversary together(Well, who won't?) but Rachel is so busy at work that she can not find time to spend this one of the most special day with his partner. Anyways, Ross comes to her office to celebrate a little with her their anniversary(which I believe its very cute of him) but Rachel is rude to him and kicks him out of the office saying she is busy. Even after coming back home, instead of apologizing for her behavior, she blames Ross for comingto her office(Heights! Any woman would find herself lucky if her husband/bf ever does that). Here is a piece of conversation :Ross: Look, um, about what happened earlier...Whoa. I completely understand.You were stressed.Rachel: I was gonna give you a chanceto apologize to me.Ross: For what? For letting youthrow me out of your office?Rachel: You had no rightcoming down to my office, Ross.7. Over this incident, instead of giving it some time to be normal, she again unexpectedly breaks up with Ross. Was it Ross' fault for wanting to celebrate their anniversary together?8. Sleeping of Ross with the copy girl was a very big fault of Ross and can not be fully justified but here are some points which prove that it was not totally Ross' fault :a. First of all, Rachel was the one who broke up with him, Ross did not want that. If that had not happened, Ross wouldn't have done that mistake.b. Since they were on a break(Yes! I believe it bcz its not like break starts with 3rd or 4th day after one couple breaks up, it starts from the first day itself), the act of Ross can not be fully condemned. Also, Rachel herself had slept tons of guys in her life before Ross so whats the big deal!c. After breaking up, when Ross goes to a bar, she lets Mark come to her place even when she knows that Ross feels insecure of him. Ross called her from bar to work things out, but he heard Mark over the phone and thought that as soon as they broke up, she is now with Mark. He thought if she had moved on, why shouldn't he?e. He was drunk at the time when she made out with that copy girl. He was out of his senses. When he wakes up in the morning, he realizes that it was a big mistake done by him.Although, even after these points, I believe Ross was faulty but I am saying that it was not 100% his fault. Rachel was faulty too. Ross apologized a lot. Rachel should have given him some time and not break up with him again.9. When she could not go out with Joshua, and finds out that Ross is with Emily in Vermont, she gets mad at him. Dear Rachel, if you can go out with a guy, why can't he?10. [Again ruining Ross' life]She goes over to London to tell Ross that she still loves him and break his marriage with Emily. Where was she before? When Ross is finally happy with Emily, why can't she let him stay happy?As well said by a fellow passenger in the plane :Passenger:I just want to say that you area horrible, horrible person.Rachel:Pardon me?Passenger:You're about to ruinthe happiest day of his life.I have to agreewith your friend Pheebs.This is a terrible, terrible plan.Rachel:- But he has to know how I feel.Passenger:- But why?Passenger:He loves this Emily.No good can come of this.By the way, it seems to be clearyou were on a break.If she had not gone to London, Ross probably won't have said her name in the wedding, and Emily won't have felt so insecure of her afterwards. But none of this happened. She went, which eventually lead to termination of Ross' marriage with Emily. (She even agreed to go to the honeymoon suite with Ross when Emily didn't show up.)11. She tells Ross who was just married to Emily that she still loves him even after Monica warning her a hundred times. Why does she wants to confuse him?12. But the bitch does not want Ross when his marriage with Emily is over. Why? The Reason is Ross is now alone. She wants him only when he is enjoying his life with some other girl. When he is alone, she does not want him.13. When Ross is finally having fun with Bonnie, she starts feeling jealous again bcz she does not have a guy to go out. So the bitch suggests Bonnie to bald her head to disturb their relationship.14. [I wanted to kick her ass on this]On the same day, When Ross and Rachel decide to get back together, Ross goes and breaks up with Bonnie. When he comes back, instead of getting back together as they agreed upon, she wants him to take the "full responsibility" of what happened between them in the past by handing him over 18 pages, front and back. Now here are a few questions for the bitch:a. If you had some conditions, why didn't u tell Ross before he broke up with Bonnie? If you had told him the conditions before hand, and if Ross did not agree with it, he could have at least be with Bonnie. What is the point of telling him conditions after he already broke up with Bonnie for u?b. It was 5.30 in the morning. How can you expect someone to read this 18 pages at this time? That too when he had just broke up.c. Why should Ross take the "full responsibility"? Ross was not totally faulty, there was some fault of urs too.d. Even when Ross didn't say anything even after reading the pages, why did u bring it back when u were in the bed saying,"My mom said, once a cheater, always a cheater" and "You needed some time to get a little perspective". Dear bitch, even if someone has accepted his fault, these lines would hurt anyone's pride.As expected from her, she again breaks up with him, leaving Ross alone, again.15. She said yes to Joey when she accidentally thought he was proposing to her. She just had Ross' baby.16. She flirts with Joey(and not in serious way, just physical) even after knowing that he is one of Ross's best friend and that would jeopardize their friendship.17. She decides to go to Paris for a job. How can she do this to Ross? Ross also wants to spend time with her daughter. And he could not keep his son, Ben. She does not even talk to Ross before deciding to go to Paris and taking Emma away from his father. She is totally insensitive to other people's feelings.Moreover, (Some of them are from other sources)18. She asks Ross not to go out with her sister, Jill. If Rachel is not going out with him, she has no right over Ross to force him do that.19. She slept with Barry, even after knowing that he is going to get married with Mindy.20. She was never really thankful to any of her friends. Not even to Monica who supported her during her crisis. In fact she openly expressed her sadness over Monica & Chandler's wedding, just because she was still single and getting old. No good friend would ever say that.21. She is jealous as well as cunning. During the episode with Ross's girlfriend Charlie (one of the nicest people on the show), she did all the bitching and finally made Phoebe look like the culprit.22. Monica wanted to date an actor in season 1 but Rachel stated dating him and convinced the actor to have a threesome with another woman.23. She dates Mark after adamantly denying ever having a thing for him when she was with Ross. Mark tells Rachel that he could not ask her out because she had been dating Ross. This proves Ross' insecurity about Mark correct in many ways.24. She exchanges almost every gift she gets without realizing how people feel about that.25. She was not professional at work either. She hires an unqualified guy, Tag, just bcz she likes his face and sleeps with him.26. She also said Ross came on to her while the truth was the opposite. She even start to watch videotape to prove this wrong blame.27. She ruined Ross' special evening plans of spending time with Emily by throwing a fake on-the-spot party just to seduce Joshua.28. She was bitch in high school as told by Luisa(season 1) from Animal control called by Rachel when she lost Marcel. She was pissed off with Rachel.29. When Brad Pitt comes as Will in one episode, he also hated Rachel so much that he and Ross co-founded the "I Hate Rachel Club".

Here we go:Now normally I wouldn’t bother writing a ‘Fucked History’ answer on a question as nuanced as this (Really, the levels of analysis that must go into understanding Vietnam are daunting) but I’m seeing some answers from power users, both young and old, that just give surface level understanding while making sweeping declarations.Let’s get into it shall we:For the US involvement in Vietnam, the starting whistle was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which Authorized the Use of Military Force to defend South Vietnam from invasion by North Vietnam.No, it wasn’t.Since Truman, the United States was supporting with material and treasure the French in their attempts to re-assert control of Vietnam which culminated in a request for nuclear ordnance and CIA pilots in the climactic Battle of Dien Bien Phu…..in 1954.For the US involvement in Vietnam, the end whistle (like all wars) is when the peace treaty is signed. For the US this was on 27 January 1973. The US, South Vietnam and North Vietnam all signed the Paris Peace Accords. The lead negotiators for the US and North Vietnam were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.What the OP fails to mention is that South Vietnam was not only left out of secret talks that actually produced the Paris Peace Accords, they were pressured with Nixon’s promise that they would be abandoned had they not agreed with the Accords.Adding insult to injury was Ambassador Lê Đức Thọ of North Vietnam rejecting the Nobel Peace Prize, the only person in history to do so, arguing that ‘true peace’ had not been achieved.This isn't a matter of semantics. This isn't "moving goal posts." The US was not at war with North Vietnam in 1975. They had signed a peace treaty which was entirely in the US's favor. The war was over and the US won. The 1975 war was separate from the US's involvement from 1963 to 1973.This is a poor argument. Full stop.The Accords were not favorable to the United States, simply giving a window for an exit at the expense of South Vietnam nor did it achieve the lasting peace touted by Kissinger and the Nixon Administration.The OP relies on technicalities, something that history is supposed to look well beyond. There are nuances, context, understandings that must be incorporated that the OP has not done nor even made an effort to.Another poor argument:The bottom line is the US went in to stop Communism and support a puppet regime. We pumped in money, aid, troops etc. and in the end we pulled out and the Communists took over.Come on….we have the damn documents themselves, written by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara himself!The Pentagon Papers state, as do a variety of other primary sources, that the purpose, the geopolitical purpose, of Vietnam was to contain China.McNamara, the cold calculating policy wonk he was, assumed that China had imperialistic tendencies that would see her attempt to assert her authority all over Asia.To this end, he devised a ‘three-front’ approach to containing China:Japan-Korea FrontIndia-Pakistan FrontSoutheast Asia FrontVietnam fell into the third point and when the United States began its bombing campaign in February of 1965, McNamara stated: ‘The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.’McNamara even admitted that a China containment policy would be a significant sacrifice in terms of time, money, and lives.Now, the United States was invested in Vietnam for a total of 19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day, spent a total of $950 billion, and lost a grand total of 58,318 lives.What was the end result?China re-approachment, Communism was contained within Southeast Asia, and the United States learns the harsh lesson that ‘containment’ was too ineffective to become the norm, a new initiative was needed.It is pretty clear that the US did not win that war, but lost.Lost the Vietnam War in terms of preventing unification?Sure.Lost the Vietnam War in terms of preventing Communist expansions throughout Asia?That’s a hard no and the words of Lee Kuan Yew highlight this fact in his book, From Third World to First:Although American intervention failed in Vietnam, it bought time for the rest of Southeast Asia.In 1965, when the US military moved massively into South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines faced internal threats from armed communist insurgents and the communist underground was still active in Singapore. Indonesia, in the throes of a failed communist coup, was waging konfrontasi, an undeclared war against Singapore. The Philippines was claiming Sabah in East Malaysia. Standards of living were low and economic growth slow.America’s action enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order.By 1975 (when the Vietnam war ended) they were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no US intervention, the will of these countries to resist them would have melted and Southeast Asia would have most likely gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) were nurtured during the Vietnam War years.People tend to think on the surface level and this is no different for Vietnam, they think it was solely about containing Communism within Vietnam.This is not true, it was containing Communism on the broader scale of the Cold War, preventing China from asserting itself more and more throughout Asia. That objective was met.Yes.And not just militarily.I particularly dislike answers like this and OPs who not only leave one or two sentence answers but they do so in areas of colossal complexity, such as History or International Relations, as it provides nothing informative or new to the discussion and is solely existent simply to let us know that the OP can type and has an opinion.Whoopee.Militarily, it can not be seen as a loss no matter how you look at it. The casualty figures were heavily skewed and every significant engagement, whether it be against the North Vietnamese Army or the Viet Cong, were one sided to grotesque degrees.Politically, it was indeed a failure…on the local level.Internationally, it was a victory that not only split the Socialist Camp in half, it also taught the United States valuable lessons in how to defeat the Soviet Union and combat Communism alongside new parameters and with experience earned.Answers like this fail to even offer mitigating evidence to support their assertion and I will downvote, report, and dissect these answers into oblivion until either A) the OP actually writes an answer of substance with evidence or B) they are collapsed by Moderation as ‘Factually Incorrect’.These answers have no place here.I reserve the last dissection for an answer on here that I think helps me illustrate where my views on the issue land:The British “won” battle after battle against Greene’s forces, but they were Pyrrhic victories. Eventually, the Americans forced the British to give up and go home. The Americans did not need to invade Britain. They just made the war too costly for the British to contemplate carrying on.What the OP forgets is that the American Theater was just one theater in the broad scheme of a larger European war, the British had no reason to significantly invest themselves, their treasure, or their military in one theater when they were combating the French in multiple theaters across numerous continents.The Caribbean and India were far more important economically and more effort was poured into defending those assets than the Colonies themselves.Eventually, with no end in sight, the United States of America, like the British Empire in 1783, got tired and gave up. US leaders signed a peace deal with the North Vietnamese which they knew would eventually get broken.What the OP fails to state, again, is the fact that the British “won” that war. France was left insolvent from her financial exertions, which led Louis XVI to convene that Estates General. Britain’s economy on the other hand under Pitt the Younger, boomed!Why the hell would they care that they lost one theater against the broad scheme of the war itself? The British interests were secured in the end and it can even be argued that the war itself put Britain on the path of economic and maritime dominance it would come to enjoy in the succeeding centuries.Similarly, the United States lost the Vietnam War but won the Cold War, riding the end to such economic prosperity that it dwarfed any previous time in its own history, let alone economic history in general.And so the Communist forces defeated the US ally in South Vietnam. They are still in control today. America’s effort fighting Communism in the region came to naught.Seeing as how only Vietnam, China, and North Korea claim to be Communist—it is very debatable as to whether they are or not—I would say that this statement cannot stand under its own weight.I apologize for the rant but such confusion and contradiction in Quora answers, unless warranted, is not only irritating to the point of nuclear contempt but a disservice to those, both on Quora and off, that seek answers to these questions.So to actually answer:Did the U.S. lose the Vietnam War?Yes, it lost the regional war but won the international one.The Cold War was won, Communism suffered catastrophically in the ’80s to the point of humiliation in the early ‘90s.The United States may have lost the war but it ended up on top and Vietnam ended up giving in to flexible economic policies and forming relations with the very nation that attempted to prevent its unification to fight a nation that enabled it.The enemy of my enemy is my friend, especially when I know what they can do.In the end, the only war that mattered was won.

Russell Frizzell Sr - the man closest to the Christmas tree wearing a green shirt and olive green pants. He passed away in July 2013 at the age of 86