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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (12166)	8/27/1998 3:49:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

A violent revolution will almost always be dominated by the most extreme faction. A peaceful political transition will favor moderate groups. By refusing to yield to any impetus for peaceful change, the Romanovs created a climate that favored the ruthless. This mistake has been repeated many times in this century. Ho Chi Minh achieved popularity by preaching independence, not Communism. Not that he wasn't a communist, but his popularity was based on his fight for independence. If independence had been achieved without a war, at American instigation, what might have happened? Ho would not have ceased to be a communist. But once the Americans were established as protector and supporter of independence, they would have been well positioned to either influence him or support those who wished to replace him. I doubt that there would have been any shortage of candidates in the latter category. There is no historical precedent that will allow us to judge what might have happened if the US had elected to support, rather than oppose, a war of national liberation. It never happened. By the time the colonial wars had been fought and lost, the US was irrevocably marked as the enemy, and the Soviets were ready and willing to step into the vacuum. Steve