Thanks for the link BillW.
I want to thank everyone for their contributions here, it has been an eye-opener, and at times, mind-bending. Keep up the good work!!!
I couldn't agree more, Anon ... Just reading has been a great (& humbling) learning experience.
msolga, It may sound strange, but thank you for your thanks. It took me over 20 yrs to even talk about Vietnam. Not because of the violence involved, it was just a war, but more to the fact that I felt tremendously rejected at home. That feeling has done more mental damage to returning soldiers than any stress involved in experiencing combat conditions. At least thats my opinion.
Danon:
Don't feel too bad, I haven't been able to talk about it until last year. The only reason I started talking about it at all is because I was tired of being called un-American because of my vehement anti-war stance. I feel that this country has been manipulated by the war interests for the last 50 years. It doesn't make any difference whether a Republican or a Democrat has the Presidency, it's determined by people who aren't even elected!! That has a lot to do with the theme of this topic. The current press to attack Iraq is nothing more than the same manipulation that resulted in our involvement in Vietnam.
Anon
I've linked this on another thread, but thought it might be rather relevant here as well...
Quote:The United States of America has gone mad
John le Carré
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
Good article blatham, I would like to take one quote out of it:
Quote:The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams.
I would like to point out that Bush responded that "I hit the Trifecta" and the only interpretation I can make of this is that Bush was now free to do all the things he planned to do anyway - he now had an excuse. This man may be the downfall of modern civilization - opps, his actions can't be be termed civil, so the downfall is already here!
Interesting blatham, we now know a little of the surface aspects of Mr. le Carre's opinion of the current situation. I, being of the '60's thinking that "ours not to reason why, but to do and die" is a bunch of BS, do feel that Bush has failed miserably in his attempt to rationally define cogent reasons for wanting to attack Iraq. The term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' is but a panaceanism IMHO.
That leads me back to the subject at hand.
I earlier gave a brief on France's presence in Vietnam. After the 1883 Union Indo-Chinoise was formed, as a result of Vietnam signing a Protectorate Treaty with France, the French began a huge commercial exploitation of the area which lasted until the beginnings of WWII when France was occupied by Germany in 1940. I have empathy for the local Vietnamese society during those 50 plus years. While the largely agrarian population was unaffected the industrial population must have suffered tremendously. Since the late '20's and especially into the '30's Ho Chi Minh's Viet Minh were using the country side to gather support for an independent Vietnam. There were, over the decades many small battles between them and not only the French but with the local War Lords who were always trying to gain power. This all culminated in Ho's return to N. Vietnam by '43. That is the time he first began to receive American support in the form of guns, bullets and more. The takeover of SE Asia by the Japanese in '45 rid the country of French. At the conclusion of WWII, Ho Chi Minh sought American support to keep France out of Vietnam. More later.
Good stuff, danon. I think I see where you've splashed your smoke, and I await with great interest the arrival of your ordnance. I suspect you will have the target well bracketed.
Fire for effect.
timber
danon says:
Quote:The term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' is but a panaceanism IMHO.
I associate Bush's "WOMD" with Nixon's "Domino Theory"
timber,
Yep.
We had our chance didn't we? In fact we had several chances over decades to help the Vietnamese.
I am so looking forward to revisiting Vietnam. It's a wonderously beautiful country filled with absolutely nice people.
Bill, You have a point.
Bill, I believe Tricky Dick borrowed his dominos from his mentor, good old Likable Ike. And even if the game pieces were his own, he learned the play of the game long before Viet Nam was a counter.
timber
Actually, if I remember correctly - "Domino Theory" was a Kissinger thing. Let me do some checking.
Quote:"At a 1953 meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chairman, Admiral Arthur Radford proposed to help out the French Foreign Legion besieged at Dien Bien Phu with a nuclear bombing strike against the Viet Minh. His justification likened the loss of nations to the communist camp to the chain reaction of a falling row of dominos. Eisenhower liked a catchy phrase and so this image was broadcast.
By 1961, the Kennedy administration had transformed a simile into a theory. Nixon, Kissinger and Reagan subscribed to the "domino theory" and this geopolitical specter still haunts the words and deliberations of American and Russian policymakers, with Islam or ethnicity as the catalyst. "
http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/fallwinter99/features/politicsplace.html
Interesting, I never new it went all the way back to Eisenhower. I know that Kissinger use to say it all the time, but, I couldn't have any resource on it.
Weird things happening, my correction ended up with repeating the post - hmmmmmmmm!
Isn't history full of surprises, Bill? There's a huge difference between exploring it on one's own as opposed to accepting some other's version of it. Most folks are disinclined to take the effort.
Kudos for being not so disinclined..
timber
There ain't no new theories, only rehashing of the old. If one wants too, they can turn over any stone and declare war!
I think you're right BillW, the desire for power or wealth in any of the forms it comes in to an individual seems to create a desire to possess. After that all thats required is an excuse. Sometimes not even a good one either.
That double posting thing happened to me the other day too. Dunno why.
timber, right you are re people repeating what they hear as gospel. Even the stuff you read in papers and books is just one persons opinion - and you really don't believe everything everyone sez to you??? I have also noticed on the TV news stations that the interviewer will actually 'lead' the interviewees conversation in a seemingly preconceived direction. I know they aren't taught in Interviewing 101 to do that - so I wonder where it comes from, Oh yeah, it's the money the larger audience attracts.
<<I was once voted the class cynic>> sorry
danon5 wrote: Oh yeah, it's the money the larger audience attracts
Interesting you should mention that. It's being discussed over at
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2835&highlight=
timber
