In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in
Vietnam since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed at
Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again), snivelling
liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully recovered
from the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well economically
since we started trading with them but they do not enjoy the freedoms
we have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are not
doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their families that
only want to leave that country. It's a real shame we failed them and
Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to be
on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied to
human rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged
Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they
wouldn't be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like for
persuading them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving the price
down below production costs. And anyone could see that it's better to
grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move to the
cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making shoes for export.
Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

What only kind of deal do you the communist bosses make are one that
benefits the party not the people. Thanks for making my point.

Same deal made with coffee farmers all over the world. The US doesn't
really care about anything except the corporate bottom line and the balance
of trade.

We are not supposed to care. It's called free trade. If the foreign
governments don't have the best interests of their people in mind what
are we supposed to do about it other than pass a bill to protect those
people by limiting trade unless human rights conditions improve in those
countries. You know a bill like the one Kerry spiked.

Otherwise armed intervention is the only other option.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American constitution),
recalled their advisors, and told the French to come back in. They could
see that the Vietnamese were going to become commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

I wouldn't know about that.

You should! It's the basis for the 20th century history of the region.

The US position was that they could not
support themselves against communist aggression. Looks like we were
right.

No that's not right: the US supported the French against the fledgeling
democratic movement, having previously promised the Vietnamese self gov't
for help against the Japanese and then reneged. (The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who also
lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone along with
having their country given back to the French. The excuse about not being
about to resist communist agression was concocted later, post hoc. In 1945,
The Chinese were not communist yet, that occurred in 1949, Russia was in no
condition to do anything and had no agents or advisors in the country. It
was up to the US, which could have rejected the French recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about Chile
and Guatemala?

You have the wrong take on this. The idea was to build up a modern
country and economy in the backward parts of the world. They were
supposed to become self sufficient thru trade.

It is not this countries policy to support colonization anymore.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California