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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (108592)	7/28/2003 9:51:43 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

As a recall from somewhere, Turman did it in order to keep the French in NATO. The British did the transporting. Didn't want any examples being set for the Burmese, the Malays, or the Indians. Sandcastles in the rising tide, of course, but they had no way of knowing that. Have you ever wondered how different things might look now if the European colonial powers had acknowledged the obvious and voluntarily relinquished their colonies, with some effort at transition?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (108592)	7/28/2003 10:03:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Turman did it in order to keep the French in NATO. I had heard that part of it, and Steves explanation makes sense. I have followed the discussion you two have had on Nam. If we had kept the French out and backed the Catholics, there might have been a chance, but I think we just did not have the will to stop the Communists in Asia at the time. People forget just how strong the pro-communist movement was in this country at the time. It was disguised under "Agrarian Reform," et al, but a lot of the left here felt it was the wave of the future overseas, and we should stay out of it's way.