29 Jun 07
It's amazing how perspectives change. Communism in Vietnam represented a "Global Threat." Today, we buy practically everything from Chinese Communists. Who'd a thought?
Say, 'Vietcong' to some people (e.g. slimjim; jammer) and they start to twitch -- same as 'Hamas' to some people (e.g. seitse) today.
But a lot depends on your ability to see past the rhetoric and posturing and get down to what really needs to happen to resolve conflicts.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by spruce112358Hokay, I gotta take issue with a couple of points.
This doesn't worry me much more than Bible prophecy. When was this charter written -- when Hamas was 12 intellectual friends meeting in a basement?
Hamas (like all Palestinian Arabs) is upset about the Jews migrating to Israel. Some agree they have a legitimate complaint that should be addressed. Others...well, they seem to start foaming at the mouth ...[text shortened]... ublic of South Vietnam -- another corrupt, useless regime that was without popular support.
We label them terrorists because they are.
Comparing the Palestinian conflict to Vietnam boggles. Are you part of the Vietnam era left that is so prone to seeing everything through the Vietnam filter?
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by princeoforangeYou obviously haven't been studying the UK constitution properly then.
Considering I have just spent one year of my life studying the UK constitution at University, I will not accept the word of an unreasonable communist such as yourself to contradict all the professors at the best law school in Scotland and my own personal study.
You are simply wrong, I can't even be bothered going into an argument with you about this, because you are not a sane or reasonable individual.
Everyone knows that the rubbish from the 17th century isn't a constitution.
It's a bunch of agreements which can be changed by any government at any time.
Yes, some idiots do call it a constitution, but they basically argue that any law = constitution. Which is, obviously nonsense, because then a constitution becomes pointless.
DUH...
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by spruce112358http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam
... Instead, we called them 'terrorists', turned our backs on them, and tried to keep Fatah limping along. In time, we will find that was as bad a mistake as trying to prop up the Republic of South Vietnam -- another corrupt, useless regime that was without popular support.
"The elections and unification did not take place as planned (see below). When the territory was divided in this way, approximately 800,000 to 1 million North Vietnamese, mainly but not exclusively Vietnamese Roman Catholics, sailed south (Operation Passage to Freedom) due to the perceived danger of religious persecution in the North, which turned out to be well-founded: In 1956, 50,000 Catholics were executed and another half million were starved to death. "
29 Jun 07
1 edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Van_Thieu
"Nguyen Van Thieu, (April 5, 1923 – September 29, 2001) was a former General and President of South Vietnam.
...
In January 1975, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam at the city of Đà Nẵng. Nguyễn Văn Thiệu notified President Ford that he was of the opinion that North Vietnam had violated the 1973 Paris Peace Accords and asked for $300 million of aid, but the U.S. Congress would not release the funds. Angered, Thiệu stated "The United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days?", "The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men."[1]
"
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by MerkThen so were the Vietcong. And they won.
Hokay, I gotta take issue with a couple of points.
We label them terrorists because they are.
Comparing the Palestinian conflict to Vietnam boggles. Are you part of the Vietnam era left that is so prone to seeing everything through the Vietnam filter?
I'm not drawing a strong parallel. But why prop up a corrupt or dishonest regime against a regime that has integrity and popular support but nevertheless some "flaw" (i.e. they are communists or don't recognize Israel)?
The moral character of the regime -- even if there is some superficial thing about their policies we don't like -- should count for a lot.
I prefer an honest communist to a lying Republican.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Talk to Hamas. Recognize them as a government. End the blockade of Gaza and let them travel and trade with the outside world. Tell them to ignore Israel if they like, but hold them to the 10-year cease fire. Allow them enough military capacity to patrol their own borders and stomp out the rogue militias within the country.
Lets start with you. Tell us what needs to happen.
You don't even need to send them aid -- the Arab Nations will supply all the aid that's needed.
Then start peace talks somewhere in permanent session. Maybe you end up with East and West Palestine -- whatever.
This is what I would push for if I was Blair.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou are absolutely right. The South Vietnam military was very capable of defending themselves. They destroyed the North's attack in 1974. However, they needed bullets,supplies and parts to continue. They had no industry to produce their own. The north had the help of Russia and China. The American people punked out ( led by radical war protesters, who were funded by the left) and thru the south to the wolves. Americans have a short attention span when it comes to war. Don't trust them. We should stay out of wars completely unless we are attacked. 100,000 Montangards (sp) were killed by the north for aid the US not to mention millions of South Vietnamese. Yeah" commies are so much better than us!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Van_Thieu
"Nguyen Van Thieu, (April 5, 1923 – September 29, 2001) was a former General and President of South Vietnam.
...
In January 1975, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam at the city of Đà Nẵng. Nguyễn Văn Thiệu notified President Ford that he was of the opinion that North Vietnam ha ...[text shortened]... nd it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men."[1]
"