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: cnyndwllr who wrote (214760)	1/26/2007 1:52:48 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

I'm afraid you don't have any idea how silly you appear when you make such statements, canyondweller. * The US was driven out of Vietnam because the cost of fighting the war far outweighed any possible benefit to America from continuing it. The US did withdraw troops from SVN. But they did so after securing a peace treaty and assuring SVN that we wouldn't let the North invade. But two years later, the North broke the treaty and invaded. Congress reacted by cutting off all aid to SVN, breaking the agreement made with SVN. * The South Vietnamese lost the war because there were too many little people, you know...the people who actually form the population and who aren't getting rich by staying in power..., who supported a one-nation Vietnam. That is the propaganda you've been fed. Vietnamese risked their lives and many died to escape communism. And they weren't all rich villains. * The Vietnamese nationalists, (you might call them communists) won the war because millions of them were willing to fight and die for a cause they passionately believed in and too few "freedom loving Vietnamese" willing to fight and die opposing them. The side you think are heroic fought because a brutal regime forced them to. Barbarism works. * The N. Vietnamese didn't kill the Cambodians, Cambodians killed the Cambodians. Part of that may have resulted from the destabilization of the region but the Vietnamese didn't make us wage a millions-of-dead war that destabilized the entire region. Congress also cut off all aid to Cambodia insuring its fall to the Khmer Rouge. Bye bye 1.5M poor Cambodians. * It's nice that you feel such anguish for "who knows how many boat people [who] perished escaping communism." What a humanitarian you must consider yourself. By the way, how much anguish do you feel feel for the MILLIONS OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN who rotted in the sun as a direct result of the war you so badly wanted to continue? You're not one of those selective anguish guys..or are you? I would ask you how you feel about the 1.5M Cambodians? Think the cutoff of aid to the Lon Nol government had something to do with that happening? Screw 'em was the liberal view then and now. * And, of course, there's that pesky question you wrapped-in-nationalism patriots never seem to be able to answer; what is it that you think America lost when it left Vietnam? Are the dominoes poised to fall? Are the Vietnamese a threat to us? ...And don't give me any more of that crocodile tears bullshit about how much you care about the lives of all those Indochinians. We didn't lose too much directly. Vietnam wasn't vital territory. Though it emboldened the USSR to invade Afghanistan and engage in various military adventures in Africa. It weakened our allies who knew they couldn't depend on us. And some of them fell over time - the Shan or Iran was one - and were replaced by governments profoundly hostile to us. Our enemies were emboldened. It among other things convinced a lot of people the US was a paper tiger who wouldnt fight its enemies. That boldness contributed to the death of every American who has died from terror attacks in the last few decades. Some of those emboldened enemies struck us on 9/11/01. A withdrawal in weakness from Iraq will bring forth a new generation of enemies. Lastly it radicalized much of a generation who were brainwashed into thinking their country was the great evil force in the world. Examples include many of the posters on this thread.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (214760)	1/26/2007 8:35:49 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

* The N. Vietnamese didn't kill the Cambodians, Cambodians killed the Cambodians. Part of that may have resulted from the destabilization of the region but the Vietnamese didn't make us wage a millions-of-dead war that destabilized the entire region. Even more than that, Vietnam was the only country in the world that moved to stop the killing fields in Cambodia. No one else did, no one wanted to step into a civil war. I can't really say that I blame them entirely for that. And Vietnam was the logical country to do it, given their proximity and the fact that they already had an army that was battle tested and easy to mobilize. But of course, people like Brumar still use their intervention to "prove" how vile the Vietnamese were. Cool....

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (214760)	1/26/2007 10:08:23 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

ED, I agree with you on vietnam as you know. I have one thing to add and sometimes you minimize it--The NVN were not the good guys and they did to the folks who opposed them exactly what the Red Chinese did to the nationalists in 1948. They killed as many as they could and drove many off the mainland. In Chinal we got the nationalist migration to Taiwan and in NVN we got the boat people. Ho may have loved Thomas Jefferson but he followed the Marz/Lenin/Stalin/Mao example post war. The rest of what you say is absolutely true. Folks like Brumar remind me of the folks in the South when i was growing up who were still fighting the civil war. Give it up already Brumar. Enought with the swift boating of the media and folks in the US who opposed the war. By the way my only regret from that period was disrespecting the vets. Most of us who stayed home didnt go because we were scared shitless. And many anti-war folks were anti-war only because they were scared shitless. I thank you for your service and I thank Brumar if he served in that Goddam war. Mike