My True Feelings.....by Rude

[Puke]

The reason it got 'set up that way' was because Uncle Ho would have won if the South had held free elections in 1956.

Montezuma, the contention the South made was that the North under communist rule were not allowed to vote freely.  Thus the South cancelled any election for reunification and contested the Geneva Accords.  

I think you miss something...yes, the South was Democratic and the North was Communist even before the elections for reunification.  The vote in 1956 was for who would rule when the two countries when re-united.  And I think President Diem of South Vietnam had a point in questioning just how free those "free elections" in the totalitarian state of the North were to be.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Puke

I think you miss something...yes, the South was Democratic and the North was Communist even before the elections for reunification.  The vote in 1956 was for who would rule when the two countries when re-united.  And I think President Diem of South Vietnam had a point in questioning just how free those "free elections" in the totalitarian state of the North were to be.

Diem won the election by 98% of the vote in the south, he was about as democratic as Saddam Hussien.  Then he gets assassinated by his own Army and the counry is run by a series of inept military strong-men until the US finally leaves.

Yeah, we were defending democracy.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Puke

People make mistakes.
Countries make mistakes.
Even America, you can nothin do about it, only tryin your best

And Vietnam adventure was the biggest mistake America ever made.

 And if ya can't see, that this endless killing of civillians, bodycount every evening on tv, torture, murder, using napalm on little towns regularly was a political crime altogether, i can't help ya, puke.
60000 Americans and over a million Vietnam people paid a very high price for a little lecture of democracy teached by american politicians in the jungle of Vietnam.

It was not different from what the russians did in Afganisthan, it was just the other way round.


Regards Blitz

[Puke]

Blitz, we will have to disagree.  I do not see the overall reason for the Viet Nam war as being evil or a big mistake on the USA's part, but I do see how it was micro-managed by Washington as being a mistake...and that's it.  But you don't really understand the war, and thus I can't help you.  Did you know Napalm was only used in SVN?  SVN never made claims we were conducting a political crime, so it's hard to even discuss this stuff with you when you really have little grasp of the details and I can tell keep pulling out these cliches.  It all comes down to one point, assisting one country in repelling an invasion... INVASION.  (Note the big letters.)  

Montezuma, whether you think Diem is a good leader or not does not mean SVN was not a democratic country.  (I think he was a numnutt.)  To be detailed about all this would take volumes, but there was much squabbling between religious groups, casts/societies and more which caused a lot of infighting for power in the South.  It's not an easy thing to follow.  Point is, the country was Democratic.  Kennedy was assassinated about the same time as Diem...was it a plot?  Was America not democratic?  The North had a greater populace and was under communist rule and I can see where someone would have problem with a vote for reunification under those conditions.  You know, back through the ages the northern part of Annam has always had the greater populace, but when the country was split at the 17th parallel and the French had to come South and the Viet Minh North, there was much more North to South travel of civilians than South to North.  I think something can be made of that too.

Is this my first hijack of a thread?  I love chatting about the Vietnam War, it's my greatest interest, so my apologies to Rude.

[SLO]

damn guys relax man...we all on the same side......

and AKIron...read it carefully.....i said "people view you like that"

where in there does it say 'I DO'


Its a known fact or perception of you by others 'OUTSIDE' your diddlyin country......stop looking in your own backyard once in a while....

sorry guys...no offense intended.....

look at the global picture and you'll see most agree that iraq does need help and that Saddam needs to leave.....but folks are seeing Bush use his in-experience in foriegn affairs surface...by usin his cowboy(most non-american see em that way) approach to this whole affair....

AGAIN AKIRON.....I say this as someone who looks at it globally....not internally

[straffo]

Originally posted by AKIron
I was responding to a post by Slo in which he called Americans arrogant, materialistic, and self-centered. Kinda pisses me off when I think of all the help both in money and lives sacrificed to help those around the world less well off than we are.

If ya don't like it, stick it where the sun don't shine. Now, that I admit IS arrogant.

Try to re-read your post as it was made by me.
and "poof" (that's the sound of a miracle ...) it will sound arrogant ...

strange no ?


Rude I can copy and paste a whole dictionnary if I want
.
Your answer was neither a rebutal nor a genuine work.

I asked YOU personnaly to explain me the differences not anyone else.
And please keep it short so I won't spent my sleep time translating it.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Puke
Blitz, we will have to disagree.

It's not we, You disagree.

Half of the world and half of America sah it exactly the way i mentioned.

And because many, many people in ya own country stood up against their goverment in a great democratic manner, even soldiers, this mindless, bloody war had come to an end.


Regards Blitz

[Toad]

Blitz, you're wrong about so many things and so blind to the facts Puke is presenting you that there is no point in discussing it with you.

If half the world agrees with you, well, that says something too. They didn't do their research either.



Nice job, Puke. You obviously have made a study of VietNam.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad
Blitz, you're wrong about so many things and so blind to the facts Puke is presenting you that there is no point in discussing it with you.

Nice job, Puke. You obviously have made a study of VietNam.

If half the world agrees with you, well, that says something too. They didn't do their research either.

Every nation got their own dirty red spots in there history, doesn't help to always yell, "We're the best, we're so
 proud,
we only do good", cures nothin. You can't rewrite history , how hard ya may try.


Regards Blitz

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad

If half the world agrees with you, well, that says something too. They didn't do their research either.

 


Regards Blitz

[Toad]

We're not rewriting the history of the VietNam war it but you obviously never bothered to learn it.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Toad
We're not rewriting it but you obviously never bothered to learn it.

There is 2 way to read this post
And at last one is very offensive for all the German I know.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad
We're not rewriting it but you obviously never bothered to learn it.

I feel so bad


Regards blitz

[lazs2]

methinks blitz is feeling a little guilty about all those ovens and wants to tar all humanity with his brush.
lazs

[Sabre]

Posted this in another thread, but relevant to Rude's original post here...

There are a couple of reasons I believe the US is pursuing the issue of Iraq. We have seen numerous examples in the last ten years of the UN failing to take decisive action to prevent genocides and general racial or political oppression. In case after case, in Yugoslavia, Africa, and the Middle East, dictators and thugs have gone about their criminal and often grizzly tasks of killing and oppression with little fear of intervention by an impotent United Nations. Yes, impotent, and made so by the very diversity of culture, values, and national interests of the nations that belong to it. My own belief is that President Bush decided to push the Iraqi issue to either finally make the UN relevant, or to prove it irrelevant and unworthy of further support by this country. I believe he hoped the UN would just this once say, “Enough is enough,” and act decisively to remove Saddam from power. If the UN could do this, and free the Iraqi people from his tyranny, then perhaps the next time it was challenged by a dictator or ethnic cleansing the mere threat of “decisive action” would actually give the perpetrators pause to reconsider their chosen course of action.

And it almost worked. The US’ pledge to act with or without UN sanction resulted in the unanimous passage of UN resolution no. 1441 last November. This was to be the Iraqi dictator’s last chance for cooperative disarmament, and promised “serious consequences” if he failed to comply fully and eagerly. That, coupled with the US/UK military buildup forced the Iraqi despot to agree to 1441. Does anyone out there believe for a moment that the UN would have enacted 1441 last November, or that Iraq would have accepted it, if George Bush (and PM Blair, who’s own support can not be understated in importance) had not made his speech to the UN…and backed it up by deploying forces to the region? The problem of course is, once you commit to such a course of action you may be required to follow through on your pledge. If you don’t, than no one will ever take you seriously again. Unfortunately, it appears certain member nations of the Security Council don’t understand this. Bush, however, does.

As we have seen, Baghdad immediately began testing the resolve of the Security Council. When Blix made his first report to the Council, which in essence said that Iraq was not complying with resolution 1441, that was the point the UN could have averted the war I believe is just weeks away. They could have joined together to declare Iraq in material breach, and passed a second resolution authorizing military action after a certain short deadline passed, giving Iraq only until then to change their attitude in dramatic and meaningful ways. Saddam remembers the last time the UN issued a deadline, and another such decree might just have been taken more seriously than the French, German, and Russian battle cry, “give the inspectors more time.” Saddam instead has seen the UN for what it. He has continued to doll out empty promises and little dribbles of “apparent increases of cooperation” on the eve of each new report deadline. In this way, Blix has been forced to qualify any negative aspects of his reports with words such as “possible change in attitude” and “signs of increased cooperation.” Saddam knows full well that as long as he throws out these little tidbits, countries like France and Russia will greedily seize upon them to prevent the UN from acting.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people continue to suffer at the hands of their own government, and other potential despots and tyrants are emboldened to forsake even the trappings of civilization, for who will stop them?

Why did President Bush choose Iraq for this litmus test of the UN? First, the last ten years of Iraqi defiance of the UN was the firmest bedrock he could find to build a case on. Second, the events of 9/11 woke up the world to what could happen if certain elements got a hold of WMD such as Iraq has most certainly been developing. It highlights the threat Iraq posses to not only its neighbors, but to the world at large. Third, maintaining the sanctions and no-fly zones on Iraq, are not only costly in and of themselves, but are also proving ineffective in forcing Iraq to reform itself. How many thousands in Iraq have died at Saddam’s orders, or have suffered deprivations to build his palaces and rebuild his military and WMD arsenals. Finally, both President Bush and to a great extent the American people see the whole Iraqi problem as unfinished business.

Blix has as much as stated that inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq, if Iraq is intent on hiding WMD from the inspectors. He has said specifically that more inspectors are not the answer. Only if Iraq embraces the disarmament process, enthusiastically, publicly, and honestly as South Africa did, can there be any hope that inspectors will be able to verify Iraq if free of WMD. There is no sign that Saddam intends to do so, so removing Saddam is the only way to end the suffering of Iraq while insuring that country is no longer a threat to world peace and stability.