The article that Blatham offers suggested that Viet Nam was, in the end, a success. At least, they have moved to a democratic form of government.
Those are deep thoughts in there and bitter to read. Maybe we'll have to start a new party, the Empirists? Depressing to me. It doesn't really seem to offer hope, just endless policing and spreading of our professional army thinner and thinner.
Piffka:
I think there's a whole lot of work that needs to be done on our democracy, before we start worrying about everyone elses. For starters, here I thought we were a free democratic nation, only to find that this is a republic, run by the elite. A republic which allows the loser of a democratic election to win by smoke and mirrors, aided by the USSC.
We need a whole lot more work before we can worry about anyone else.
Anon
BTW: Ho Chi Minh was a Vietnamese patriot, a WorldWar II hero to his people. He didn't start off being communist until he found he had to free his country from empire builders like France and the good old USA!!!!
A.
Anon, I'd like to see us extend that to foreign aid: Cut it completely, and help our own country repair its infratstructure, schools, feed our hungry and homeless, and a whole lot of other things, before we dump billions into the foreign aid toilet. c.i.
I believe in paying foreign aid to the ones that would use the money to help their nation become self sufficient, not use it or allow it to be used as a political weapon. I believe we can afford it by scaling back the excess spent on military and using money being wasted already interferencing with the nations of the world. We would still have the resources to rebuild infrastructure here except we are giving it all away to corporate welfare, and allowing drug companies, managed health care concerns and dozens of other concerns to defraud us of the money. Talk about returning the public's wealth to stimulate the economy! Quit bilking them out of billions every year and they will have it to spend - via the boom in prosperity the means to pay for infrastructure will be realized.
edgar, Your quote, "I believe in paying foreign aid to the ones that would use the money to help their nation become self sufficient, not use it or allow it to be used as a political weapon." The only problem with that policy is that our country does use it as a "political weapon." How it gets spent is another nightmare. Who's going to follow the money? Easier said than done, my friend. c.i.
What I believe and current reality probably will never jibe. That doesn't keep me from believing it.
I like your elimination of foreign aid c.i., excluding assistance for natural disaster, of course. Could we, at the same time, eliminate those protective tariffs that make it so difficult for the less developed nations to become self suporting?
I notice our topic is still 'Bring Back the Draft', but, oh well.
Hi roger, Sometimes, tangets can occur in forums that has absolutely nothing to do with the main subject, and take on a life of it's own. I think, IMHO, some flexibility must be allowed for such tangents to occur if they don't overtake the main issues being discussed. Too much restriction, and it'll stifle creative debate. c.i.
foreign aid in the form of tarrif reduction would truely be foreign aid.
But the notion that foreign aid is a waste of money is, IMO, equivocal.
e.g.
Aid to Argentine would help them through a financial crisis and would make the economic pact we want for the Americas more likely. It can be as simple as buying the pact (we helped Brazil, S.A.'s biggest economy and a doubter in regard to the economic bloc get a large loan late last year. The new leftist president has called the bloc an annexation of the Americas for the US. We have bought his compliance by helping Brazil get their load and this will help us if the bloc is realized).
We are the richest country on earth because we play the game well. I do not agree that foreign aid is detrimental to us (Isreal is a great ally because of 8 billion a year) but agree that tariff reduction for developing countries would be a greater aid to them.
But again I digest.
I for one do not care in which manner the foreign aid is dispensed, so long as it is used to better the fortune of that nation's people as a whole. I do know the difference between my vision and what really goes on and I am not particularly happy about it.
Since the post seems to have drifted into the question of foreign aid I would ask?
How much of our foreign aid is intended for the purchase of allies and economic black mail. And how much is for purely altroistic reasons
au
The NY Times magazine piece I linked two pages back gives some information on this. And it is not a happy picture. Which is what disgusts me and many others - the rhetoric being so heavily weighted with claims of altruistic intent, while the reality is weighted in precisely the opposite direction.
In Re. Ho Chi-Minh
Anon,
Ho Chi-Minh (Nguyen Ai-Quoc) was founding member of the Communist International back in the 1920's. As an agent of the Soviet Union, he helped create the French Communist Party. Ho returned to Soviet Russia to serve his mentor, Stalin in the 30's and 40's. At that time he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party. Ho Chi-Minh spent nearly thirty years supporting the spread of international Communism from France and the Soviet Union, during that time he spent practically zero time in Vietnam. During his long absence, other Vietnamese nationalists, both Communist and otherwise, were killed either by the French or the Japanese during WWII.
Ho returned to his homeland when it became a less dangerous place. He carried with him Stalin's blessings and Chinese military aid to help him establish a Stalinist government in Vietnam. During the war waged to kick the French out, Russian and Chinese advisors were a constant. After the United States entered the conflict, Russian pilots and Chinese AA personnel were part of the massive aid sent to support Ho's efforts.
Ho modeled himself on Stalin, and his policies on those advocated by Lenin. Indeed, Ho remained a vassal to Stalin and the Comintern as long as they existed. Vietnam became a Stalinist state, and Ho was ruthless in his murder of the rich, property owners, and peasants who were economically doing well. During the 1950's Ho purged tens of thousands North Vietnamese as Class Enemies, and Class War continued until Ho's death. Intellectuals were singled out for special consideration, and I don't mean they received fat stipends to teach college students to think for themselves. Ho didn't permit any disagreement with the policies he directed, and carefully managed his personal image to appear a sweet old man. Everywhere in Ho's Vietnam there were personality posters of Ho, Stalin and Lenin - other art languished.
Ho Chi-Minh's personal history isn't a secret, so why is it that these myths about him continue? Ho Chi-Minh may have been a Soviet toady, but he also knew how to manage his personal image. He was astute enough to know that his victory depended not upon his military might, but rather the vulnerable minds of American citizens. He found willing allies among us and played upon our distaste for bloody conflict. His campaign was effective, for what we won on the battlefield we lost in the streets of Chicago. I was one of those taken in. I hope I'm smarter now.
Asherman
.
Quote:He found willing allies among us and played upon our distaste for bloody conflict. His campaign was effective, for what we won on the battlefield we lost in the streets of Chicago. I was one of those taken in. I hope I'm smarter now.
I too am a lot smarter today however, I am not sure in the way you are. Having been brought up in a time when patriotism meant my country right or wrong. I was for our Viet Nam presence. Could not understand and was very much against those who demonstrated. As I said I am a lot smarter now and realize how duplicitous our government can be and in fact is. We should never have been in that misadventure called the Viet Nam war.
Those who do not learn by history are doomed to repeat it.
Asherman
Oh, come on. Protests against Viet Nam were a simple fuction of successful commie propaganda influencing tender little minds? Is this just flowering rhetoric or do you really believe that?
One of the arguments you've made previously is that the military wing doesn't get appropriate respect for putting themselves on the line for the freedoms we enjoy. Well, that works two ways. One of those vital freedoms is the one to tell one's government that they are lying through their teeth and that their motives and ideas are questionable and, often, just stupid.
There is no black and white to Vietnam or any other major world problem. Not every protestor loved Ho Chi Minh any more than the ones today would love Saddam H. Some, like Jane Fonda were drawn in and made use of by the North and some in the later stages of the war in particular abused returning vets. On average, we protesting saw a carnage that did not have to be. We had no axe to grind. You can point out the immorality of the North and be for the most correct. But, the immorality of our American leaders was no greater. We gained nothing in that war. We did lose some of the finest men and women for no reason that made sense then or now.
edgar, As most of us are aware by now, they tried to micromanage the war from Washington. Even the most unsophisticated in war strategy knows that's a stupid way to fight a war. c.i.
well yeah but William Westmoreland said he was sorry he lied.
Asherman:
In response to your personal history of Ho Chi Minh, I offer the truth.
http://motlc.wiesenthal.org/text/x22/xm2201.html
Anon
