Text 13652, 75 rader
Skriven 2005-06-19 19:26:16 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 13648 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Hatred
==============
19 Jun 05 19:20, Gary Braswell wrote to John Hull:

 John Hull ->> Gary Braswell wrote:

 JH>> 13 Jun 05 23:02, Gary Braswell wrote to John Hull:

 JH>>  John Hull ->> Ed Hulett wrote:


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

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

 JH>>>> He's still stuck on that image of Ho as George Washington that 
 JH>>>> was perpetrated by the revisionist historians of the 60's.  Same 
 JH>>>> bunch that

 GB>>> I am?

 GB>>> I challenge you to show where I said this.

 GB>>> What is it with your two?

 GB>>> Continually putting words in my mouth and points I am not making.

 JH>> We can't help it if the way you word things leads one to that

 GB> Why not take what I say? I do to you guys and don't put words in 
 GB> your mouth. Its dishonest debate/discussion.

Look, I can't help it if what you wrote is taken the wrong way by those who
read it.  As you are well aware, I've had my own problems on occassion with
that sort of thing.  It is not dishonest to point out that what you've said we
don't agree with.  We interpret one way and you say we are putting words in
your mouth.  Like I've had to do you need to be very specific in what you say
so that nobody misunderstands what you mean.  By the way, you are not the only
one here who has this problem at times.


 JH>> conclusion.  You made it sound as if there was a real chance for 
 JH>> Ho to get aid from the US.  You are the one speculating on how 
 JH>> things 'could have' been different.  We've been telling you all 
 JH>> along that Ho never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting aid 
 JH>> from the US.

 GB> There were people in both the military, Truman's admin and even in 
 GB> Ike's admin that thought backing the French in re-taking their 
 GB> empire was a bad idea.

So what?  Truman was the big dog, and the only one who had the final say. 
While it was true many were less than eager to prop up the French, nobody I
know of was refusing to do so in favor of siding with Ho over DeGaulle.

 GB> Considering how the French government in exile treated us during 
 GB> the war, and how they did after the war, one wonders. But with the 
 GB> Cold War looming, the chances were slim.

There were a lot of reasons why we needed France in NATO.  They have some of
the best ports in Europe, they are strategically situated in relation to the
rest of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and western Russia.  On top of
all that, DeGaulle had a lot of horsepower with the rest of the European
leaders, and we couldn't get that any other way.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
LIBERALS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS!

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)