@Drnaline,
Drnaline;8250 wrote:Oh to be above it all, maybe come from a life of privalidge. Maybe you could be a little more openminded and/or tolerant? Funny your think inaccurate soundbite's only come from Fox? Talk about false reality.
I was responding to the charge that "my kind" were helping terrorists, apparently
by seeking to understand exactly what motivates them instead of blindly
rushing into wars that aren't accurately planned or evaluated.
Quote:How do you think the north treated south vietnam?
Vietnam was a French colony, and not happy about it and had been fighting
for its independance as well as fighting off invasions from China forever.
The Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh, fought the french for independance and
Japan, who invaded and occupied it during WW2. When the war was over,
the french and the Viet Minh, who the surrendering Japanese had handed
over the public holdings to, and the french struck a deal: Vietnam would
go back to the frenchin exchange for independance within the French Union.
Negotiations broke down and there was the French-Indochina war for 10
years. The french eventually decided to leave Vietnam, and the country was
split in half as a transistion. Ho Chi Minh, whose forces had repelled the french,
was appointed prime minister of North Vietnam. B?o ??i, the Emperor of Vietnam
and a puppet of the French colonialists, appointed a
prime minister for South Vietnam. It was agreed that an election would
take place to re-unite the country under one prime minister. The south later
decided to renig on the deal, and refused to hold elections to reunite the
country under one leader, because the public would've voted for the
commuinst Ho Chi Minh:
- President Eisenhower
So, democracy was denied by people in power who didn't want to lose it,
against the wishes of the public at large. That results in civil war and insurgency.
B?o ??i was a leader who lived like an Emperor and didn't actively do a
damned thing for his population against the interests of french colonialists.
A lot like Batista in Cuba. When the people at the bottom are starving
communism seems like a good option to them. This is where you tell
me that even though they were in the jungle they were supposed to realize
that if they worked hard they could have a mansion in Hanoi. Boy, we do
make the same wrong plays again and again.
Quote:Makes you wonder why they went into Afganistan.
The government of Afghanistan was leaning, out of desperation, to the
Soviet Union, who were supplying food, medicine and aid. We didn't like
that, so we fired up the mujahjadien about communism threatening Islam
and had them fight an insurgency against the government of Afghanistan,
who asked the U.S.S.R. to come help them.
CRG -- The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Quote:All i have to do with this statement is insert right for left. I see your blanket is still warm, but it's hard to see the light through it. So much for being equal when you evidently think you so far above it?
If nothing else I have the ability to see the blunders in history, and see the
parallels that exist today.
When faced with an angry populace that's uprising we send bombs, when
they go with whoever sends aid.
When faced with a country who democratically wants to go with an ideology
we don't want, we throw democracy out the window (look at the Iranian
government of the '50s).
When faced with a country that will fight for its independance to the end we
seem to think it's not a civil war but something else.
These are mistakes that dot American history...
"There's an old saying... fool me once, you fooled me... fool me twice...
you... uh... if you fool me once you... uh... don't fool me again is the point."
- W
