Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (106824)	7/21/2003 11:32:38 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) of 281500

Anyone else noting the "irony" in the above statement? The statement is not as invalid as you might think, though I'd have phrased it differently. The American focus on confronting the Soviets in Europe after WW2 had a powerful indirect effect on our relations with the developing world. The US refused to support freedom in the developing world, in the form of resistance to colonialism, and stuck with the European colonists instead. That refusal ceded a critical moral high ground to the Communists. If the US had refused to allow the British to bring French forces into Vietnam in 1945, credit for freeing Vietnam from the French would have gone to us, not to Ho Chi Minh, and much unpleasantness might have been averted. As it was, the only force that had the discipline and mass appeal to stand against the French was the Communist party. The Vietnamese had to go through a Communist phase to free themselves, largely because we refused to help them. They paid a high price for that, but I doubt that many would rather have kept the French.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next