Text 13612, 150 rader
Skriven 2005-06-15 01:49:06 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 13598 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Hatred
==============
Gary Braswell -> Ed Hulett wrote:

 JH>>>>>>>> He didn't give a rat's butt about anything but Uncle Ho and
 EH>> controlling
 JH>>>>>>>> Vietnam, and would've allied himself with anybody who helped
 EH>> him achiev
 JH>>>>>>>> that end.

 GB>>>>>>> Ho liked America, traveled and learned here, hero worshipped
 EH>> Claire Chenault
 GB>>>>>>> who tried to convince the powers that were to side with Ho. Ho
 EH>> even read fro
 GB>>>>>>> Jefferson when he came to power.

 GB>>>>>>> I have read a great deal about him and this is no socialist
 EH>> malarky.

 VH>>>>>> Ho was a murderous personality-cult dictator.  I saw what he and
 EH>> his
 VH>>>>>> minions did when they had the chance.  I saw the graves at Hue
 EH>>>> opened.

 GB>>>>> And he certainly was responsible for those things.

 EH>>>> And you'd still back him?

 GB>>> Back him???? Where did I say I back him? He made war on the US nd with
 GB>>> the US, I back us.

 EH>> He was a tyrrant long before we started fighting him.

 GB> So? That was never my contention.

Then, just what *IS* your point?

 GB> He was when the war with he and the French got rolling.

And you think we could have sided with him against the French?

 GB>>>>> What I am talking about dealing with him is before we got involved
with
 GB>>>>> troops.

 EH>>>> In what way?

 GB>>> Explained in an earlier email I just sent to you.

 EH>> At least you tried.

 GB> Its all I can do.

So far, you haven't succeeded.

 GB>>>>> Heck look what Saddam did, we backed him, didn't we?

 EH>>>> No, we never "backed" Saddam. All we did was provide some intelligence
 EH>>>> during the Iran Iraq war. We never sold him arms, we never trained his
 EH>>>> men, and we never backed him financially.

 GB>>> Actually we did back him financially. Read my previous email to John.

 EH>> No, we didn't finance him. We gave him intelligence. He had all the
 EH>> money he needed from his oil.

 GB> Do you know the reason he invaded Kuwait?

He claimed they were taking his oil.

 GB> Iraq was nearly bankrupt from the war with Iran. He has sustained one of
 GB> the largest militaries in the world and as soon as the Iran conflict was
 GB> over, France, Germany, Russia, UK and the US pulled support, which
 GB> included money. His military was still huge and not being propped up
 GB> anymore and exceeding what the Iraqi economy could support, not to
 GB> mention his lavish lifestyle.

The US never supported him. We gave him limited intelligence. We never financed
him. France, Germany and the USSR financed him. That's why Iraq is still in
debt to them.

 GB> He would either have to lose the military to use it to gain more.

He wanted Kuwait's oil. He claimed they were drilling into his fields.

 GB> Kuwait was weak and awash in oil.

Kuwait has always been weak and awash in oil.

 EH>>>> If you are going to make a comparisan, do it with someone we actually
 EH>>>> did back instead of parrot the unsupported claims of the loony left.

 GB>>> These are not the claims of the left nor are they unsupported.

 EH>> Oh is that right? You have yet to support them.

 GB> Why bother with you?

Yeah, why?

 GB>>> Ed, in a previous debate we had over Slobo (remember him), I quoted a
 GB>>> number of sources written by non-partisans over the Balkan conflict.

 EH>> What does this have to do with Ho?

 GB> It deals directly with sourcing.

Nonsence. You haven't once provided a source for your silly claim that things
would have been different (I assume you mean better) if we'd taken Ho's side.

 GB>>> I mean we had an instance of a conservative defending a hard-core
 GB>>> Stalinist who taught Lenin in college.

 EH>> Your point?

 GB> Greater theater you cannot hope for.

I don't know what you are referring to. In our discussion about the Balkans no
one I know was defending Slobo. I always pointed out that though Slobo was not
a nice guy, we didn't have the right to attack Serbia. Kosovo had been a part
of Serbia for generations. The claim of genocide was a lie. There weren't tens
of thousands of Albanians buried in mass graves.

That's all old news. Why you bring it up and try to claim any conservative was
defending Slobo only shows you trying to change the subject.

 GB>>> Whlie you never once provided a single quote from any source to counter
 GB>>> them, you simply dismissed them and asked lamely, how do you know they
 GB>>> are correct.

 EH>> Huh?

 GB> There is no huh about it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have always provided quotes and
cites when asked.

 GB>>> With that kind of a yardstick for "unsupported claims", spare me.

 EH>> Stuff it.

 GB> As I figured.

You're the one who brought it down to this level.

If you can't back up what you claim, just drop it, don't try to change the
subject by making unfounded claims about some several year old discussion.

Ed

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)