Text 13595, 103 rader
Skriven 2005-06-13 22:56:57 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 13582 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Hatred
==============
Ed Hulett -> Gary Braswell wrote:

 EH> Gary Braswell -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 GB>> Ed Hulett -> Gary Braswell wrote:

 EH>>> Gary Braswell -> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:
 GB>>>> VERN HUMPHREY -> GARY BRASWELL wrote:

 GB>>>>>>>> There is a massive difference. Poor analogies.

 VH>>>>>>> Is there?  Gary, I SAW the graves opened at Hue.

 VH>>>>>>>>> I've seen what Ho and his minions do, first hand.

 GB>>>>>>>> Hey, once they fell in with China and Russia, no argument there.

 VH>>>>>>> Ho and his party were what they were, and you can't blame
 EH> China or
 VH>>>>>>> Russia for it.

 GB>>>>>> I don't think I did.

 VH>>>>> My point is, Ho was not a man we could back -- any more than we
 GB>> could
 VH>>>>> back Hitler or Tojo.

 GB>>>> We could have, before we even got involved with our own troops.

 EH>>> When Vern says Ho was not a man we could back, I'd believe him. What
 EH>>> evidence do you have that we could have backed Ho?

 GB>> His working with us during WWII against the Chinese, his approaching
 GB>> Claire Chenault who time and again tried to get the US to back Ho
 GB>> against the French trying to re-establish their colonial empire. His
 GB>> desire to emulate the US at that time and establish a democracy.

 EH> We didn't fight the Chinese in WWII. They were our ally. We helped the
 EH> Chinese against Japan. Remember the Flying Tigers?

You are correct, I meant Japanese.


 EH> France was our ally as well, before AND after WWII. He might have put on
 EH> airs that his intent was to establish a democracy, but his actions were
 EH> those of a tyrrant.

Later, yes.

 GB>> We backed Saddam, Ed, is he any more cuddly than Ho?

 EH> We did NOT back Saddam. We gave him intelligence only.

We backed him in a war against Iran, we also gave him money.


 GB>> Ho started to allow/authorize his own people to be murdered in "the
 GB>> cause", among a great many other evils.

 EH> Ho didn't have "his own people." He was a tyrrant and a dictator. He
 EH> lead by fear of death.

Ho was Vietnamese, you can't change that.


 GB>> But at one time, early on, it was different. Ho, at the time he was
 GB>> dealing with Claire Chenault, fully expected the US to back a
 EH> democracy
 GB>> movement.

 EH> So, you are saying that since we turned him down he became a commie over
 EH> night? ROFL!

I give up Ed.

Ho was a French communist since the 20s.

He did not become a commie over night. He did go to the communists for help
after we turned him down.


 GB>> Then the Cold War set in.

 EH> Which had nothing to do with our decision to not back Ho.

Better check again. Backing France in Vietnam was their price for NATO.


 GB>> Things changed for everyone.

 EH> Uh huh. You can delude yourself that Ho was a pro-democracy "George
 EH> Washington" of Vietnam, but it isn't based on the truth.

I am not deluding myself on anything.

Those words above are yours, and have nothing whatsoever to do with my point or
what I have been saying.

You have been trying to put the words of leftist re-writers of history into my
mouth since the start. I have never characterized Ho as an "Uncle", nor a
George Washington figure. He does not resemble either.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)