Maureen- Thanks for yet another right-on post. Re: Vietnam and the French, did a lot of research on that back in '66 and '67.
You mention tin and tungsten. Don't forget the huge (Michelin) rubber plantation, plus the possibility of oil offshore in the South China Sea. AND, a large potential consumer economy. The Geneva Accords, following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, called for a *temporary* partitioning of the country and demilitarized zone preceding nationwide elections and re-unification. The U.S. did not sign the accords. Instead, we installed a puppet government. The apparent reason is we realized that Ho Chi Minh, as the "George Washington / Charles de Gaulle / Che Guevara" of Vietnam would get 80% of the vote. We couldn't handle the idea of a Communist leader who wouldn't "play ball". This, of course, was at the same time we were buddying up to a "good" commie, Tito of Yugoslavia, because he expressed an interest in more trade with the West and might serve as a buffer between NATO and the Soviet Bear. -Ben -----Original Message----- From: Maureen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:05 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: The Anti Terrorism Act.. At 11:38 AM 10/3/01 Benjamin wrote: >Ok here is an example. Concerning Vietnam. Details may be a little sketch, >but this is how it unfolded. US becomes involved in Vietnam to protect tin and tungsten interests of US corporations. >Skip to 1971: Total American deaths in Vietnam surpass 45,000 Estimated >indo-Chinese dead: 4 million > >Does this sound like the work of a just and moral country? Millions of citizens of the US opposed the war in Vietnam. Don't make the same mistake as a lot of people are doing now regarding Afghanistan by confusing the actions of a government with the actions of the people. >Inside CIA personal speculate that if the US had of supported Ho Chi Minh's >declaration of independence, the Vietnam war would have been entirely >unnecessary because Ho Chi Minh would have been an ally. All because the US >was more interested in allowing France to re-occupy a former colony in our >to restore they pride and power after losing to the Nazis in WW2. I have serious difficulty believing any US action was based on preserving the pride of the French. That's almost laughable. >If anyone ever tells me the US went in to liberated Kuwait for justice and >liberty, they must be on drugs. That was a war over OIL prices. If there was >no oil in Kuwait, America would have done nothing. All wars are wars of economics. Liberty, freedom, nationalism, etc..are just the props governments use to influence the masses. We know that, and while the initial response to the attacks on New York was a lot of flag waving and calls for retaliation, cooler heads have prevailed. If the country of the United States was as immoral as you suggest, we'd own the middle east, and Iraq and Afghanistan would be glowing glass. There is an old saying: My country, right or wrong. and a much later quote that I will append to it: When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be put right. Maureen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
