It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uh Ho: Obama Says Vietnamese Dictator Inspired by Founding Fathers

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




well how would anybody 'justify' mass killings because of politics and/or economic systems ?

I think the 'commies' have a bit of a history of mass killings with plenty of excuses and 'reasons'.

The mass starvations in commie USSR and commie China are two big ones.

Those happened within a few decades of each other in the 20th Century.

How many have the 'cappies' killed ?




edit on Jul-28-2013 by xuenchen because:





posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Again, thanks to Wrabbit for posting a link to the Pentagon papers. I spend some time with them yesterday reading Part 1 that covers the earilest US internal analysis on the growing situation and it changed my mind about a few things.

I have never really known that much about the context in which the "war" in Vietnam began. I just 'knew' it was wrong and the US position was wrong as well as untenable. I have always believed that it was an attempt to get the local (US) economy booming again after the slumps following Korea and the rebuilding of Europe and Japan.

The papers start in the last year of WWII. During that time all parties to the War were scrambling to find the best position for their nation in the post war world. France was interested in recovering their pre-war colonies. The US, I believe, was in general, at the time anti-colonial (for obvious reasons) but had to maintain a a shaky alliiance. There was the post-war USSR problem which was paramount in Washington. Roosevelt died, a new President was in power, policy was changing.

Along come the French - pestering the government for guaranttees that there pre-war standing would be returned. Washington declined comment or help. The bomb was the thing!!!! France turned to England, who in their own way was scrambling for post-war status unilateraly gave aid to the French in the form of transport for troops into Vietnam so they could reassert power.

The english, in their passive agressive, way - stabbed us in the back.

And so the story begins. It continues in the same manner as I'd always understood but I now feel that their was little choice but to become involved. However the manner and implementation of that involvement (militiary rather then diplomatic) WAS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD TO THE US PEOPLE.

The miliary industrial complex has learned how to manipulate people all the better from there experience in manufacturing a market for their 'systems'.

A bit of background, my Dad was a WWII vet, he demobilized after the war, was called back to service less then two years after and went on to serve for more 20+ more years. My early years were spent under the contast 'threat' of the "Commies" and my parents had to work hard to help me see a realistic picture and not the proprogandised version fed daily to all US Citizens - at home and abroad. I was lucky that both parents were intelligent, well-read and thoughtful people.

We talked a lot about the issues surrounding Vietnam at the dinner table but being so young I really couldn't follow - at the time all I cared about was the nuclear bombs that were going to rain down on us at any moment.

And that my friends is another topic and a life long struggle for me. Being raised in an environment of constant fear and watchfulness is not healthy. PTSD - yeah, my Dad had it real bad and died young - the rest of the family continues to suffer.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




well how would anybody 'justify' mass killings because of politics and/or economic systems ?

I think the 'commies' have a bit of a history of mass killings with plenty of excuses and 'reasons'.

The mass starvations in commie USSR and commie China are two big ones.

Those happened within a few decades of each other in the 20th Century.

How many have the 'cappies' killed ?




edit on Jul-28-2013 by xuenchen because:



That number, imo, would be kind of hard to calculate because capitalism has killed many people in more ways than war. For instance, investing in terrorists, drug lords and tribal warlords. However, a lot of people have died in Asia because of government up to the present day.... and it is an interesting point to ponder.

With the amount who have died in communism... for example in "the Great Leap forward" after the communists defeated the nationalists, that was a frightening thought. With these facts in hand at the time, it was not hard to get many on board with fear of communism. However, looking at it from the opposite perspective, the scope is very narrow. Rather than having the ability to understand all the details of history which lead the communists to such drastic measures that they later had to overcome and are still working to overcome... it was easier to just give examples of the mass death and call them evil. In other words the sentiment was "Kill them before they kill us".... It is a deep rooted insecurity that does not want to allow them to have very much control.

So where does that leave us today? There's an aspect of history that we must allow to heal and forgive.

However, that is very hard to do when you look at the present day and you see that old pattern persisting.

Where is the majority of the scramble for global control using violence and not a fair game of prospering coming from right now?

It's coming from the west. It's coming from European and Israeli Elite and it's coming from the Pentagon.

That's how I feel about it anyway. It's hard to have respect when every day you see someone in washington pulling at someones strings and they refuse to give it a rest. Capitalists have a tendency to grossly overlook their own brutality.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
If anyone cares to look at the history of Vietnam you will find that country was invaded by one country after another until they became a colony of the French. Ho did in fact seek US help in ousting the French thinking that since we ousted our former colonial rulers (the British) that we might be sympathetic to their plight.

vi.uh.edu...

"Ho had sought American support throughout his struggle against the French. In 1943, he initiated contacts with U.S. intelligence agents in southern China and the Viet Minh, it was reported, helped rescue American pilots downed behind Japanese lines, and may have even received light armaments from the Office of Strategic Services [OSS]. Just as he had approached Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, Ho wrote letters to President Harry S Truman in 1945 seeking friendship and assistance, but Washington D.C. never even acknowledged his overtures."

We did not help so he sought help where he could get it. That is history, those are the facts.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
If you ever go to Vietnam, you'll realize how revered Uncle Ho is there. This "dictator" is long gone, but people still speak well of him and his picture is everywhere. Obama is just playing nice to local sentiments to better integrate himself for some future US deal in the area.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?


Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.

Communism expanded by military action.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




well how would anybody 'justify' mass killings because of politics and/or economic systems ?

I think the 'commies' have a bit of a history of mass killings with plenty of excuses and 'reasons'.

The mass starvations in commie USSR and commie China are two big ones.

Those happened within a few decades of each other in the 20th Century.

How many have the 'cappies' killed ?




edit on Jul-28-2013 by xuenchen because:



Throughout history - billions my friend. How would one even begin to count. Since mankind developed cities and trading - the killing just hasn't stopped. Some would say it's human nature (I'm not a believer - though history supports the idea).

Communism is even a newer idea then US style representative democracy. It hasn't had the time Capitalism/Colonialism has to rack up bodies.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Well your deeper thinking is deeper than mine will ever be.

The points about cappie systems and ancient systems killing people are so noted.

But just the same, we are talking about the perception of Ho Chi Minh in the 20th Century and today.

He was a mass murderer and carried a high flying flag of the commies.

Like they say ---- business is business.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?


Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.

Communism expanded by military action.


Well, those aren't really the greatest examples since they did not permanently take them.
To use examples like that you must look at how many places the west has colonized and administered... and many still to this day. Permanently. This is really the point i was trying to make. The communist expansionism always seems to be circumstantial, to regain lost territory they once held, temporary or in times of conflict for security purposes ...just like China in vietnam. whereas western expansionism is not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent... and regarding that there are numerous examples all over the world.
edit on 28-7-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?


Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.

Communism expanded by military action.


Well, those aren't really the greatest examples since they did not permanently take them.
To use examples like that you must look at how many places the west has colonized and administered... and many still to this day. Permanently. This is really the point i was trying to make. The communist expansionism always seems to be circumstantial, to regain lost territory they once held, temporary or in times of conflict for security purposes ...just like China in vietnam. whereas western expansionism is not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent... and regarding that there are numerous examples all over the world.


One can argue that all colonization was for 'security purposes.' Stalin's taking of many countries by military might was 'not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent.' In this case, the aggression lasted from 1945 until 1991, 56 years of the 69 years of the Soviet Union's existence [80%]. It was about as permanent as it could be. Stalin, who killed more of his own people in peacetime than Hitler did in WW2, took those countries as 'buffers' for security purposes and, of course, bled them dry for mother Russia.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
It's interesting to me that people point to all those killed during the Vietnam civil war after we left as proof that Minh was a horrible dictator and monster. And yet people look to Lincoln as a hero and patriot despite all the horrors and deaths of the civil war. It may be instructive to realize that the Vietnamese may look on their civil war just as we look upon ours, and this may give some more reasonable frame of reference for how the people there may view Ho Chi Minh, and it is entirely possible that those that live there may have a clearer understanding of both the man and the events than do we.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
And if you want a death count for capitalism and democracy, we can start with this. Philippines, 500000, Vietnam 2-4 million, Laos: 250000, Cambodia: 500000, Iraq: 1200000, for a start. I would also lay much on them of the actions of Suharto, Pinochet, the Duvaliers, and other dictators we put I to power and propped up. Reza palahvi, like that.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



But I understand how conservatives like to find any specious reason to get mad at Obama. For some reason conservatives and Republicans get a lot more hot and bothered about non-issues involving Obama than real issues involving him -- and boy, are there a lot of real issues involving him, but Fox news and the usual gang of right-wing media suspects want to point conservatives to these non-issues rather than address actual ones.


Is there any topic, anywhere in this site you can discuss where partisan sniping and nastiness isn't a part and center to your answer like an agenda you just grind away on forever? It really draws hard away from any intelligent point you're trying to make....and it's almost every reply, every forum, every time I see.


Now if we cannot note what an ignorant fool this President is? That's a shame and frankly, your problem to get over....not ours to adjust to. Bush had his moments of pure STUPID on a stick ...MANY such moments, actually. Obama is also a master at ignorance worn like a badge.


Your hero turned around, by the way, and characterized Korea as a "victory", shortly after praising Ho Chi Minh like a folk hero or some nonsense. (Where did that idea come from? When was armistace and a state of war to this DAY ...a victory?? He needs the term explained real slow, in bright colors, it seems) Does this man even own history books in his personal possessions or does he just have a staffer come in and give a summary? His knowledge of history would get him a failing grade, LITERALLY, in any schoolhouse in America with this crap he babbling like it's factual.

* The more amusing thing about this? People look at Ho Chi Minh, with what may have been or could have been by his desperation of sending HELP ME! letters out to several nations all over the world, like a shotgun approach in the 50's, and think that makes all the years of war AFTERWARD an event that didn't happen. (Ask the 2+ Million DEAD civilians AFTER the U.S. Left what a swell fella Uncle Ho and his merry band of psychopathic murderers were.) Over 2 MILLION dead men, women and children .... Like most communist stooges, they ruled by murdering what didn't agree....and did from 1975 onward with a free hand. So did another fine, upstanding example of mass murder, I'll bet some here think was a swell fella in Cambodia....around the same time.

Sorry.. I don't give big sloppy hugs to the leader of opposing forces to my nation, the way some absolutely LOVE anything on two legs that hates America. That part is pathetic enough to laugh at, for how common it's becoming ...right here, too. :shk:
edit on 29-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?


Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.

Communism expanded by military action.


Well, those aren't really the greatest examples since they did not permanently take them.
To use examples like that you must look at how many places the west has colonized and administered... and many still to this day. Permanently. This is really the point i was trying to make. The communist expansionism always seems to be circumstantial, to regain lost territory they once held, temporary or in times of conflict for security purposes ...just like China in vietnam. whereas western expansionism is not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent... and regarding that there are numerous examples all over the world.
edit on 28-7-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)


You seem to be ignoring the role that de-colonisation played, especially within French Indochine. This created a vaccum which needed to be filled.

The communist movements in S.E.A were laregly started by the dissaffected young elites.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


And yes - it was truly a mess. Ho was looking for freedom for his people. Their idea of freedom was different then ours as was their right. Commies under the Bed.


Our idea of "freedom", by that appraisal, is so radically opposed from finding common ground in even basic concept? I think it's hopeless.

You might say the couple million people Ho's inspired movement murdered in the years following the fall of Saigon missed the boat on all that freedom stuff and the great benefits of "The People's Movement". All they got was dead. Funny how that works? The Soviets kill 10's of millions of innocent people in the purges. The Chinese kill 10's of millions of innocent people in the Cultural Revolution. The Vietnamese kill a couple million innocent people in the retaking and consolidation of power after 1975...and Cambodia had it's epic 'killing fields', shooting anything educated enough to debate the fact. :shk: (Yet some still see this as great to follow? Follow into what.. death?)

Communist rule seems to lead to millions of dead civilians? Odd how that plays out...but it does, actually, play out. It shouldn't have been our place to have anything whatsoever to do with them killing each other over there, but then we're trying to make 1960's moral judgements with 21st century standards today. Never something that can be done in historical research and appreciation of facts, right?

All kinda of warped conclusions start flowing when one judges history with the standards of a radically different time for values and morals, IMO.
edit on 29-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by grey580
 


The Mujahideen were freedom fighters then. They were fighting Soviet Communism back then. Somewhere along the way, Osama turned, or he got thrown to the wolves, not really sure which.
Reagan is entirely different from BObo. Reagan knew Communism was the enemy and Bobo, well different story. Bobo and Anita Dunn are quite the pair in glorifying communist dictators.
edit on 27-7-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


From what I've read they were fighting not communists but Infidels.
And anyone who isn't muslim is an infidel in their eyes.
So nothing changed. It's not that they were freedom fighters.
They were just fighting infidels. Like they always do.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
In reply to wrabbit....its interesting that you mention Pol Pot in association with how horrible Ho chi Minh was. The reason I say it is interesting is because it was the Vietnamese, under Ho, who were the only ones to finally go into Cambodia and remove Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge from power, in what is possibly the only example of a just, non acquisitive war that we have in the last century. They went in, defeated the Cambodian forces, took pol pot out of power, and then left.
I also wonder what might have happened in Vietnam had the French and Americans not gotten involved. From what I understand, the Vietnamese were UNITED in celebration of their independence after japan was forced out, and it wasn't until the French went in and divided the country, setting up a small group that they provided wealth and support to in the position of the foreign friendly approved leadership, which is a common divide and conquer colonial tactic, that there grew the schism in the Vietnamese culture. Somewhat similar to what we did in korea, except there it was their former Japanese overlords that we kept in power over the Koreans.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


"From what I've read they were fighting not communists but Infidels. "

communist=there is no god.
Infidel=wrong god.

Mujhadeen,,,communist,,they believe in no god,,therfore bad.

America,,,,Infidel=wrong god.,,,,

Mujhadeen,, we fight with Infidel,,, against,",there is no god.",,,for that is blasphemy.

so yes it does make a difference,,Russia today..."communist=there is no god.",,,not so much thanks to Gorby.
Putin,,good guy,,nice pike
, Religion,,,communist=there is a God.,,communism,,with Religion,,sure why not.times change.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?


Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.

Communism expanded by military action.


Well, those aren't really the greatest examples since they did not permanently take them.
To use examples like that you must look at how many places the west has colonized and administered... and many still to this day. Permanently. This is really the point i was trying to make. The communist expansionism always seems to be circumstantial, to regain lost territory they once held, temporary or in times of conflict for security purposes ...just like China in vietnam. whereas western expansionism is not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent... and regarding that there are numerous examples all over the world.


One can argue that all colonization was for 'security purposes.' Stalin's taking of many countries by military might was 'not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent.' In this case, the aggression lasted from 1945 until 1991, 56 years of the 69 years of the Soviet Union's existence [80%]. It was about as permanent as it could be. Stalin, who killed more of his own people in peacetime than Hitler did in WW2, took those countries as 'buffers' for security purposes and, of course, bled them dry for mother Russia.

There is no way you can compare Australia, South Africa, the United States, Canada and a slew of others that are permanently dominated by white English people, like Guam, rich white people on numerous islands all around the globe... It would take me way too long to go down the list. I'm not even including the British administration of Hong Kong because this falls under that so called security (even thought it was an obvious lie and more about competitive trade) and many other countries we have occupied TEMPORARILY. I'm talking full scale take over.... entire continents, man. PERMANENT.

No way you can compare these things. Most will agree because it's got a lot of people in the world seriously aggravated and wanting to kill us.... living their entire lives trying to figure out how to beat us. There's no way it will ever compare what White Europe has done with Russia to... say...what? East Germany?? Come on!
edit on 29-7-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


And yes - it was truly a mess. Ho was looking for freedom for his people. Their idea of freedom was different then ours as was their right. Commies under the Bed.


Our idea of "freedom", by that appraisal, is so radically opposed from finding common ground in even basic concept? I think it's hopeless.

You might say the couple million people Ho's inspired movement murdered in the years following the fall of Saigon missed the boat on all that freedom stuff and the great benefits of "The People's Movement". All they got was dead. Funny how that works? The Soviets kill 10's of millions of innocent people in the purges. The Chinese kill 10's of millions of innocent people in the Cultural Revolution. The Vietnamese kill a couple million innocent people in the retaking and consolidation of power after 1975...and Cambodia had it's epic 'killing fields', shooting anything educated enough to debate the fact. :shk: (Yet some still see this as great to follow? Follow into what.. death?)

Communist rule seems to lead to millions of dead civilians? Odd how that plays out...but it does, actually, play out. It shouldn't have been our place to have anything whatsoever to do with them killing each other over there, but then we're trying to make 1960's moral judgements with 21st century standards today. Never something that can be done in historical research and appreciation of facts, right?

All kinda of warped conclusions start flowing when one judges history with the standards of a radically different time for values and morals, IMO.
edit on 29-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


How many Native Americans did the early United States government kill? Where was their freedom?

Here is a quote from George Washington you might want to consider:
"Indian's and wolves are both beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape."

It is no secret that Washington wanted to completely eradicate Native Americans...some would call that genocide.

But I guess what you are saying is that it was OK when the US government did it, because times were different...right?

This thread seems to be full of people made at Obama stating a fact...Ho Chi Minh WAS inspired by the founding fathers...this is a FACT. And when you take an honest look at them, they were no better or worse than Ho Chi Minh was. The only thing that differs is your perspective.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join