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 (221357)	2/27/2007 1:36:39 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is nothing outlandish in claiming that instituting a socialist revolution on a conquered province involves killing large masses of people. First you have to remove the entire previous ruling glass, either killing them or enslaving them. Vietnam did the later, with its "re-education" camps, where the former ruling class became slave labor with a high death rate. Then you have to forcibly expropriate all privately held land and factories, which has the side effect of removing all the people who actually know how to produce food from the business of doing so. Third, you have to deal with the acute shortages created by Step 2. Fourth, in the case of Vietnam, you have to enlarge your army to prepare for the next war with China, which came in 1979. So shortage turns into famine, which causes a huge exodus of desperate people who have nowhere to go. No, my claims are not so outlandish at all. Just history that people don't want to see. Now it's true that I don't know if the Vietnamese dead actually reached a million, but in a country of 80 million undergoing forced collectivization, the figure is scarcely outlandish. If I kept looking (why don't you look too?) I'm sure someone has done an estimate. Vietnam Under Communism, 1975-1982 (Paperback) by Nyuyen Van Canh (Author amazon.com

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (221357)	2/27/2007 7:25:22 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

So, you are a Holocaust denier! Isn't that illegal? < the fact that you'd support Nadine's outlandish claim that the Vietnamese communists killed millions of their countrymen> Irving was gaoled in Austria for Holocaust denial. Which is hilariously ironic given Adolf being born there. Gaoling him confirms the nature of the hordes who created the repressive power to the Third Reich. They are still at it, but in another guise. It's not illegal in NZ, UK or USA to deny the Holocaust or even to question the totals. It seems absurd to me that belief is forced. It's like the heresy trials of olde times. Thou shalt believe, or else!! No ifs, buts or maybes. No question. Just take it as given. Since Jews were against Adolf and the Third Reich in the 1930s, it's a bit like the USA put Japanese in concentration camps, but the difference was that the USA didn't have shortages and didn't really think they were necessarily enemies. I can understand Adolf thinking that if Jews were against them, then on the principle, "You are either with us or against us", it was reasonable for him to assume they were against him. Which they were. Which is quite understandable. It will be interesting to see how Europe handles another religious group when push comes to shove. I suspect Islam will not be treated a lot better than Jews when the crunch comes. In Srebenica, it was a mini-Holocaust. Which I guess you don't deny. Though it was males, rather than everyone. Which is also understandable since males are the traditional people likely to attack one. Mqurice