Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Fascist Oligarchs Attack Cute Cuddly Canadians -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (581)	9/6/2002 10:23:29 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1293

It is a mistake to confuse the drive to Vietnamese independence with Ho Chi Minh's communists.They were two separate forces. The Independents got subverted as they were far too fragmented and non military to lead. The commies got control of the independence movement by killing everyone that disagreed with them being boss. The same way the Bolsheviks did. That is why the fr. and the US feared giving things over to independistas because they were not strong enough to hold off military coups. Of course the US themselves would not support democracy in the corrupt south. Once the nice commies got the country, only a million died at the point of a gun in relocation ceremonies. Nice. Independent. The people would have been worse off with a US military government? I think not. Say what you want about Mai Lai and the price of war. There were a fair number of Viets who would rather not have had the commies. You don't see people fleeing South Korea in droves or drowing in the sea either. Damn few people crawled over the Berlin wall or risked bullets fleeing east. Setting up democracy in countries that have cadres of highly militant one party groups is always hard. Impossible in fact. You don't have real democracy in any African or Asian country. (exceptions?) The former Rhodesia is a poor pretence. SA will give in to some form of military government or other after a while. Rwanda, Uganda, the Congo, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Mali, never were stable for the past 400 years at any time when there was non white rule. Civil war prevailed. When you get to Pakistan, anyone from there will tell you that the military government is far better than democracy was. Democracy would be subverted by the Mullahs, killing and threats within months. It could not survive. Few purely democractic governments in South America had a clue how to run an economy. They usually ruined the economy within 5 years. At least, the Belgians in the Congo, the Rhodesians, the Boers in SA, Strassner and Pinochet kept their countries solvent. Democracy is only a good thing if the infrastructure is in place to keep the demagogues away from the purse strings. The US worked because it was set up by the gentry, businessmen who knew the dollar and how to keep a country going. Jefferson ran the US on zero income tax, and tariffs only. It ran fine, with a good expanding army and navy. The US was not a populist democracy with a bunch or orators running the slate. It was an agreement between plantation owners to conduct their business affairs amongst themselves without central dictatorship. But by the time of Lincoln dictatorship of the federalistas had set in. Now entitlements rule the roost and government spending is clearly out of anyone's control. I don't like military dictators either. But I don't like so called democracies that just steal money. Canada is a case in point. All the successive liberal governments have done is steal tax dollars to spend in Quebec. Then you have to elect thieves to reverse the process for a while. There are no good governments. Only bad and less bad ones. EC<:-}