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.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (2479)	1/20/2003 11:30:21 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Yes, of course. And your history apparently fails you. We joined with the Vietnamese people to fight their enemy.

To: PartyTime who wrote (2479)	1/20/2003 11:43:50 AM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

yes and you might want to remember, South Vietnam, asked us for military and economic aid

To: PartyTime who wrote (2479)	1/20/2003 11:54:09 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

This thread needs to be moderated to limit personal attacks. With regard to bare knuckle polemics, those engaging in them are wasting time and energy IMHO. Strong war opponents will never convince hard core armchair warmongers and visa versa. The idea is to win over undecided folks in the middle. Personal atacks and insults are not the way to go about this task to put it mildly. Just post the best stuff you can to support your position.

To: PartyTime who wrote (2479)	1/20/2003 12:05:29 PM
From: greg s	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Vietnam was a divided country. France had been helping the South fight the communist North for years (they had colonial interests to protect) and were, frankly, getting their collective butt kicked. US sent in "advisors" to aid the French and South Vietnamese and to, ostensibly, stop the communist "dominoes" from falling. From that point, our participation escalated as the French influence subsided. To try to compare a potential war in Iraq with the Vietnam debacle is pointless, beyond the potential for becoming embroiled in a bloody and lengthy conflict with an uncertain endgame.

To: PartyTime who wrote (2479)	1/20/2003 12:55:57 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Re: Is Saddam Hussein a greater threat to the American people than were the level of threats and actions imposed by the American presidents on the Vietnamese people? If you were prosecuting the President after the Impeachment (coming soon!) you would be accused of asking a leading question. The defense team attempting to save the Boy King's keister would demand that you retract the question. They would have a point. A legalistic one, and nothing more. Because the answer to your question is that the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to any one member of the American public is infinitesimally small. Does he have an army that could invade the U.S.? Of course not. Does he have weapons that can reach the U.S.? None of a conventional nature. As far as unconventional weapons, we must never forget that the anthrax attack on the Democratic leadership in the Senate was a politically motivated attack that came from within the right wing of the domestic terror organizations associated with Ft. Detrick. The Right never ceases to amaze me in that they conveniently assign risk to Hussein, while conveniently forgetting that they themselves are the greatest risk to American democracy. As to the threat that American Presidents were to the populace of Viet Nam, it is important to attack the outright lies of the Right that suggest that we entered that conflict at the behest of the Vietnamese people. That is utter balderdash. We entered the fray for the sake of French colonialists, first of all. And we did so with the notion that national self-determination for the Vietnamese was anathema to our imperialistic/colonial goals of resource exploitation. Those who so deceitfully state that we went to Viet Nam at the behest of Diem, and that this somehow justifies the imposition of our military on the Vietnamese countryside fail utterly to study history. As documents become declassified, it becomes abundantly clear that our State Department apparatchiks were never in the least bit concerned about the "domino theory", the freedom of the Vietnamese or the spread of democracy. Most of these cables and correspondences clearly show that the U.S. had three primary concerns in our occupation of Viet Nam. They were tin, rubber and oil. This was a war for conquest and spoils. Anyone who chatters on about lofty goals of democracy, freeing people from the prison of communist rule, etc. are simply blowing smoke. The imperialist goals of the military-industrial complex are plain enough. Anyone who denies that we were in a struggle to control resources is either naive or duplicitous. Today, the situation with Iraq is much the same. We demonize the enemy, in the simplistic way of all propaganda Saddam is the face of evil. This is designed as a cynical campaign to bamboozle the ill-informed American public about the true goals of the American imperialist forces. The goal is the same as it was in Viet Nam. To seize and loot natural resources and suppress native populations. Why the Right won't admit this is perfectly apparent. Presenting the facts in this bold fashion would expose the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy for all to see and decent Americans would reject the outright theft that is proposed. So to cover for this great crime, the Right creates a beautiful mythology about Manichean enemies and our need to slay dragons. It's a beautiful lie. But a lie nonetheless. -Ray