S
Simple Civilian
Guest
Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. I seek your feedback on Netanyahu's address to Congress today. What are your perspectives?
I'll confess to not having watched it. I was asleep when he took the stage. I've seen a few blog headlines here and there, but not enough to form my opinion just yet. From what I understand, it wasn't exactly widely broadcast on the major networks.
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
We are watching the news (at the moment, The News Hour on PBS) to get some idea of how the media is reporting it. Personally, I think this will actually be more interesting than Netanyahu's speech. I agree with the observations so far that Netanyahu said nothing new today, but that he gave a concise and strong summary of modern history re: Iran, the West in general, the U.S. and Israel. It was, IMHO, a strong speech in that regard.
Brill
SOF Support
Wasn't he on at noon or 1 o'clock eastern?
All times being EST, that means he went on at the latest 30 minutes before I got out of bed. That's the life you lead when you work 1600-ooo1 and then stay up for a few hours after that. Remember, I am an insomniac.
Netanyahu says any deal with Iran is a deal with the devil. But our administration is determined to appease the Iranians and the President denounced the speech as nothing new. Bibi is a big nasty burr under Obama's saddle because he's right and Obama is fucking wrong. Of course Iran wants the Bomb, has always wanted the Bomb, the Bomb scares the shit out of people and every ambitious country wants one...and the Iranians will negotiate, prevaricate, stall, lie, deceive and fiddly-fuck around through years of negotiations while they work to acquire weaponized nukes and become a scary regional and Islamic power.
Years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to make a deal with Ho Chi Minh by offering him billions in infrastructure projects, roads, dams, power grids, hospitals, schools blah blah blah...if only he would cease and desist and leave SVN alone. It was like the Tennessee Valley Authority project for the Red River Delta. Ho wiped his ass with it, as if to say, who the fuck do you think I am, some shitkickin congressman from Podunk? That's the way I view our present administration's naivete when it comes to Iran and it's pretty clear Netanyahu must have similar thoughts.
I mean, after dealing with an idiot like John Kerry what else can you think?
Years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to make a deal with Ho Chi Minh by offering him billions in infrastructure projects, roads, dams, power grids, hospitals, schools blah blah blah...if only he would cease and desist and leave SVN alone. It was like the Tennessee Valley Authority project for the Red River Delta. Ho wiped his ass with it, as if to say, who the fuck do you think I am, some shitkickin congressman from Podunk? That's the way I view our present administration's naivete when it comes to Iran and it's pretty clear Netanyahu must have similar thoughts.
I mean, after dealing with an idiot like John Kerry what else can you think?
Last edited:
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
" Netanyahu's motives in accepting this invitation were undoubtedly part political, but I believe he's genuinely alarmed at the direction the US is taking with regard to the world's bad guys (i.e. Cuba's running a flourishing arms trade with North Korea and yet Obama wants to restore diplomatic relations?). Netanyahu knows a fool when he sees one and he must see an empty head of hair in Kerry and a local community organizer promoted far above his level of competence in Obama."
This.
I am new here and treading softly. Surely I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth, and furthermore, I am here to listen rather than to pontificate.
I have been mouth agape ever since Beyonce' and JayZ's much flaunted trip to Cuba. WTH? I have not one problem with the people of Cuba (I do suspect that our politics would diverge quickly) but the folks running the show in Cuba are the same people who accepted nuclear missiles from Russia and pointed them at my house, in my lifetime. Those people are still there, they are still in charge, they are still calling the shots.
Yes, I'm that old. And these are the things that make me go "Hmmm?" because Obama and I are about the same age. Obama was on this earth as well during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I guess it wasn't his problem because he and his family weren't residing on the CONUS? ??? I don't know.
Even though I do not have cognitive memories of the actual events I do rather take the Cuban Missile Crisis personally.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the people in charge in Cuba probably still don't like us.
Furthermore, we are late to the party in terms of the carrot rather than the stick. TPTB in Cuba have embraced just enough capitalism and trade to compensate for the loss of the gravy train from the fallen Soviet Union. Cuba does not need us. We will see that as time goes on, I suspect. Any concessions to Cuba are "free milk and the cow."
I have the same feelings about Iran. Iran does not need us. Iran is a modern day Russian client state. The powers that be in the former Soviet Union do not have much in terms of gravy train to offer client states these days but there is still huge influence, and, I imagine if one is so inclined to throw one's lot in with the former Soviet block, some perks. Any concessions with Iran once again ring of "free milk and the cow."
I look at the entirety of what appears to be this administration's foreign policy (such that it is) and it seems to be one of alienating historical allies (except for France) and appeasing historical enemies. I guess this is part of "fundamentally transforming America." We get new BFFs!
Alternately (and generously, but hey, why not go there? since we are already there, apparently) I could posit that Obama is trying on a whole new approach. The "old way" isn't working (or it isn't getting results that Obama considers wins) so he's trying a whole new approach.
From a purely academic standpoint, I can see some merit with trying something new. We will never know unless we try, right? But from a practical point of view, it seems that in the process of "trying something new" we are also throwing out decades of hard earned wisdom and strong allies. "Trying something new" doesn't mean ignoring facts on the ground and alienating friends.
It's scary as hell when another head of state has to come to your country to warn your Congress of the folly of your sitting president. That's some scary stuff right there. (Can I say "hell" on Shadowspear?)
And as far as relations with Russian client states go, if Obama is matching wits with Putin and trying to steal friends and influence client states, I am reminded of Ralph Peter's paraphrasing of A.E. Housman's verse in relation to Obama early in Obama's first term:
"The Russian Bear is huge and wild,
He has devoured the infant child,
The infant child is not aware,
He has been eaten by The Bear."
Just my opinion, but I see nothing out of Obama so far that convinces me that he is any match for Putin.
OK I said too much.
Your turn. :)
This.
I am new here and treading softly. Surely I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth, and furthermore, I am here to listen rather than to pontificate.
I have been mouth agape ever since Beyonce' and JayZ's much flaunted trip to Cuba. WTH? I have not one problem with the people of Cuba (I do suspect that our politics would diverge quickly) but the folks running the show in Cuba are the same people who accepted nuclear missiles from Russia and pointed them at my house, in my lifetime. Those people are still there, they are still in charge, they are still calling the shots.
Yes, I'm that old. And these are the things that make me go "Hmmm?" because Obama and I are about the same age. Obama was on this earth as well during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I guess it wasn't his problem because he and his family weren't residing on the CONUS? ??? I don't know.
Even though I do not have cognitive memories of the actual events I do rather take the Cuban Missile Crisis personally.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the people in charge in Cuba probably still don't like us.
Furthermore, we are late to the party in terms of the carrot rather than the stick. TPTB in Cuba have embraced just enough capitalism and trade to compensate for the loss of the gravy train from the fallen Soviet Union. Cuba does not need us. We will see that as time goes on, I suspect. Any concessions to Cuba are "free milk and the cow."
I have the same feelings about Iran. Iran does not need us. Iran is a modern day Russian client state. The powers that be in the former Soviet Union do not have much in terms of gravy train to offer client states these days but there is still huge influence, and, I imagine if one is so inclined to throw one's lot in with the former Soviet block, some perks. Any concessions with Iran once again ring of "free milk and the cow."
I look at the entirety of what appears to be this administration's foreign policy (such that it is) and it seems to be one of alienating historical allies (except for France) and appeasing historical enemies. I guess this is part of "fundamentally transforming America." We get new BFFs!
Alternately (and generously, but hey, why not go there? since we are already there, apparently) I could posit that Obama is trying on a whole new approach. The "old way" isn't working (or it isn't getting results that Obama considers wins) so he's trying a whole new approach.
From a purely academic standpoint, I can see some merit with trying something new. We will never know unless we try, right? But from a practical point of view, it seems that in the process of "trying something new" we are also throwing out decades of hard earned wisdom and strong allies. "Trying something new" doesn't mean ignoring facts on the ground and alienating friends.
It's scary as hell when another head of state has to come to your country to warn your Congress of the folly of your sitting president. That's some scary stuff right there. (Can I say "hell" on Shadowspear?)
And as far as relations with Russian client states go, if Obama is matching wits with Putin and trying to steal friends and influence client states, I am reminded of Ralph Peter's paraphrasing of A.E. Housman's verse in relation to Obama early in Obama's first term:
"The Russian Bear is huge and wild,
He has devoured the infant child,
The infant child is not aware,
He has been eaten by The Bear."
Just my opinion, but I see nothing out of Obama so far that convinces me that he is any match for Putin.
OK I said too much.
Your turn. :)
Obama's foreign policy seems to be based loosely on the flawed progressive/socialist world view that everyone can be reasoned with, that all countries want what's best for their people, and that sanctions are scary. :whatever: It's not new, it's trying to leverage your adversaries with bribes or hollow threats...pay ransom, in other words, to make them do what you want. IMO the Iranians and the Russians are probably two of the worst possible subjects upon which to try this kind of approach.
Last edited:
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
I am not well-versed in the particular history that I'm about to reference, but didn't we (and most of the west) get backed into this corner with North Korea as well? I seem to remember some period of time in which we were giving North Korea a certain amount of humanitarian aid for complying with nuclear inspections. (Again, I say, I am thin and shallow on this subject- if I've got it wrong, please correct me.) And then, it seemed, North Korea reversed the psychology and started demanding more aid or it would stop cooperating. And then, if I recall correctly, aid stopped, was curtailed or merely not increased- I don't remember- and North Korea withdrew from nuclear treaties, refused inspections and went ahead with its nuclear program, subsequently conducting yet another nuclear test. Do I have this timeline more or less right?
Bottom line, if a country insists on being a bad actor on the world stage, appeasement doesn't tend to dissuade it. At least not historically. As much as I can recall, although I will freely admit that I am not a scholar.
Nothing suggests weakness and fear more than trying to buy your enemies to leave you alone. Sanctions are window dressing, hollow and usually ineffective, they can be used as propaganda against you (see Saddam Hussein), or to rally resistance among your own people. They can hurt your economy, create hardship, but don't have much effect if the leadership doesn't give a shit about the common folk (see North Korea). And even if sanctions start to hurt you, there's always somebody out there willing to do business with you, (see Rhodesia et al.)
There is no iron in appeasement. And as we inexorably approach the 10-billion mark in population and the world gets smaller and more crowded, armed conflict will only increase. The world becomes a more dangerous place with each passing day. In another century people may be killing each other over food, living space and potable water. The pie-in-the-sky view of progressive/socialists that we can all live in perfect peace and harmony is fantasy. It'll never happen.
Netanyahu gets it. The man who draws the line in the sand gets it. Fuck with me and your country dies. Keep playing your dangerous game and we will pre-emptively blow your shit to Jupiter. That's the kind of arithmatic they understand.
There is no iron in appeasement. And as we inexorably approach the 10-billion mark in population and the world gets smaller and more crowded, armed conflict will only increase. The world becomes a more dangerous place with each passing day. In another century people may be killing each other over food, living space and potable water. The pie-in-the-sky view of progressive/socialists that we can all live in perfect peace and harmony is fantasy. It'll never happen.
Netanyahu gets it. The man who draws the line in the sand gets it. Fuck with me and your country dies. Keep playing your dangerous game and we will pre-emptively blow your shit to Jupiter. That's the kind of arithmatic they understand.
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
Ah, yes, resource wars. This is literally the stuff of my nightmares and daymares, although when considered, almost all wars are resource wars at least in some capacity. If conflicts begin over ideology, at some point at least part of the conflict becomes focused on resources. This is as old as Napoleon's supply lines and older.
But you are right: as the planet becomes more crowded and stressed and resources become thin, we'll see more conflicts. Simply having more people in less space leads to conflicts. As we drain dead dinosaurs lower and lower we'll see even more strain on global relations. Alternative energies are good and fine; I'm a huge fan and I see no reason not to develop them. To the best of my knowledge, however, there is no energy platform other than nuclear that even begins to approximate the cargo carrying capacity of oil and coal. That will be an ever growing source of conflict in itself.
I will never forget the moment when an acquaintance, a person much younger than me incidentally who, as I recall, did not live through this conflict, pointed out that the Vietnam war was as much about French rubber plantations as it was about communism. The light bulb that went off over my head was blinding. Of course! WWI ushered in The Industrial Revolution. WWII brought us the modern assembly line and ubiquitous car ownership. Beyond cheap gas and quick, cost effective manufacturing that creates a product affordable for the masses, we need- TIRES. Wow.
Changed the way I look at conflict, it did.
Anyway, yes, I agree, Ocoka- appeasement is temporary at best. It can be used to by time, I guess, but to what end? Is that what this administration is doing- buying time? Giving the benefit of the doubt in this argument, just to be the devil's advocate and to think of the situation from another perspective. If this administration is buying time, to what end? (I'm not saying that's the strategy- just trying to puzzle through what we are seeing here.)
But you are right: as the planet becomes more crowded and stressed and resources become thin, we'll see more conflicts. Simply having more people in less space leads to conflicts. As we drain dead dinosaurs lower and lower we'll see even more strain on global relations. Alternative energies are good and fine; I'm a huge fan and I see no reason not to develop them. To the best of my knowledge, however, there is no energy platform other than nuclear that even begins to approximate the cargo carrying capacity of oil and coal. That will be an ever growing source of conflict in itself.
I will never forget the moment when an acquaintance, a person much younger than me incidentally who, as I recall, did not live through this conflict, pointed out that the Vietnam war was as much about French rubber plantations as it was about communism. The light bulb that went off over my head was blinding. Of course! WWI ushered in The Industrial Revolution. WWII brought us the modern assembly line and ubiquitous car ownership. Beyond cheap gas and quick, cost effective manufacturing that creates a product affordable for the masses, we need- TIRES. Wow.
Changed the way I look at conflict, it did.
Anyway, yes, I agree, Ocoka- appeasement is temporary at best. It can be used to by time, I guess, but to what end? Is that what this administration is doing- buying time? Giving the benefit of the doubt in this argument, just to be the devil's advocate and to think of the situation from another perspective. If this administration is buying time, to what end? (I'm not saying that's the strategy- just trying to puzzle through what we are seeing here.)
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
That is not correct at all.
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
OK, I will admit to being sloppy with the timeline, but I am interested in your perspective.
Tell me how this is incorrect.
I'm excited- I'm going to learn something today. :) (I say that with sincerity, not snark.
)
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
OK, I will admit to being sloppy with the timeline, but I am interested in your perspective.
Tell me how this is incorrect.
I'm excited- I'm going to learn something today. :) (I say that with sincerity, not snark.
Why don't you do a 2 minute google search and tell me why what you wrote is incorrect.
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
OK, let me try again. The Industrial Revolution et. al. began in about 1760 and stretched until about 1840. The Second Industrial Revolution began about 1840 and stretched into WWI. My point was not to nail down the dates as much as to point out that WWI was the first truly mechanized war powered by combustion engines.
Henry Ford's production lines began in 1913. WWI started in 1914. Yes, technically, "the production line" was born before WWI and made much of the mechanization of WWI possible, as well as and along with the combustion engine. But the production line as a modern entity, producing the mass amount of supplies needed for modern warfare (everything from munitions to arms to parachutes to uniforms to MREs) was the stuff of WWII, not WWI.
Per above, the production line was born in 1913, but only after it was done with pushing out WWII did it turn toward domestic production in a big way. Ubiquitous car ownership happened post WWII, when the production lines were dedicated to cars and other items for domestic consumption and foreign trade.
A car in every driveway and the development and flight to the suburbs increased demand for rubber for tires. And the French had rubber plantations in Vietnam.
Now I'm really reaching into the dark corners of the brain (I haven't thought about this stuff in years) but didn't Ho Chi Minh approach the United States initially seeking sponsorship for independent statehood, with a constitution based on the U.S Constitution? IIRC we declined his petition for sponsorship because of our treaty agreements and alliance with France.
Ho Chi Minh then approached Russia for sponsorship again IIRC, and that's where my memory goes foggy, but this was the beginnings of Soviet involvement in Vietnam and the subsequent Vietnam conflict, which was a proxy war for the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
It's easy, probably too easy, to say that we missed a chance there with Vietnam, but I am not a scholar in this area. I don't know what was truly asked in terms of sponsorship, or what we were free to do or not based on treaties, or what would have happened had we offered sponsorship and supported Vietnam in its quest to end French colonial rule. Furthermore, it is not a given that the Soviets simply waltzed into a vacuum left by our refusal, and it was as simple as that.
Not a scholar, furthermore, rather absorbed in my own domestic duties (March is an interesting month around here for various reasons) so no, I have not and probably will not dig deeply into it with Google at this particular moment.
Henry Ford's production lines began in 1913. WWI started in 1914. Yes, technically, "the production line" was born before WWI and made much of the mechanization of WWI possible, as well as and along with the combustion engine. But the production line as a modern entity, producing the mass amount of supplies needed for modern warfare (everything from munitions to arms to parachutes to uniforms to MREs) was the stuff of WWII, not WWI.
Per above, the production line was born in 1913, but only after it was done with pushing out WWII did it turn toward domestic production in a big way. Ubiquitous car ownership happened post WWII, when the production lines were dedicated to cars and other items for domestic consumption and foreign trade.
A car in every driveway and the development and flight to the suburbs increased demand for rubber for tires. And the French had rubber plantations in Vietnam.
Now I'm really reaching into the dark corners of the brain (I haven't thought about this stuff in years) but didn't Ho Chi Minh approach the United States initially seeking sponsorship for independent statehood, with a constitution based on the U.S Constitution? IIRC we declined his petition for sponsorship because of our treaty agreements and alliance with France.
Ho Chi Minh then approached Russia for sponsorship again IIRC, and that's where my memory goes foggy, but this was the beginnings of Soviet involvement in Vietnam and the subsequent Vietnam conflict, which was a proxy war for the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
It's easy, probably too easy, to say that we missed a chance there with Vietnam, but I am not a scholar in this area. I don't know what was truly asked in terms of sponsorship, or what we were free to do or not based on treaties, or what would have happened had we offered sponsorship and supported Vietnam in its quest to end French colonial rule. Furthermore, it is not a given that the Soviets simply waltzed into a vacuum left by our refusal, and it was as simple as that.
Not a scholar, furthermore, rather absorbed in my own domestic duties (March is an interesting month around here for various reasons) so no, I have not and probably will not dig deeply into it with Google at this particular moment.
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
... and somehow we've done enough historical and rhetorical gymnastics to get from Netanyahu to Ho Chi Minh. That's not something you see every day. :)
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
... via WWI and WWII I might add. :)
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
So I'll start by saying that you love to talk, and be heard, and talking shit is part of your game.
You like to talk a lot to make yourself look knowlegeable, that will win you nothing but scrutiny on this site.
You have been proven to talk shit (lies, untruths) already. I suggest you adjust, in a major way your interaction on this site, or never come here again again, because I promise you, every lie you tell, we will correct.
Understood?
I'll be devils advocate for a minute: Does Bibi cock on about Iran because Israel has nukes and Iran doesn't? Changes the playing field a bit when over yonder has a big toy too, one you've had for a while.
S
Simple Civilian
Guest
Third time's the charm, right? :)
OK. I'm not sure where the disagreement lies, so I'm just going to guess that it has to do with either
a. My statements about Ho Chi Minh or
b. My statements about rubber plantations in Vietnam or
c. Both.
To clarify:
The OSS, the precursor to the CIA, worked closely with Ho Chi Minh toward the end of WWII. During this time, Lt. Col. Archimedes Patti worked one on one with Ho Chi Minh. He also worked with Major Allison Thomas, who commanded the Deer Team and who worked closely with Ho Chi Minh. Lt. Col Patti worked with Ho Chi Minh's on Minh's early drafts of the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. (I apologize, I referred to it as the constitution earlier. My mistake. As I said, I haven't thought about this stuff in years.) Patti offered several corrections and observed that Minh had written the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence to almost exactly mirror the United State's Declaration of Independence. Archimedes Patti later said that the Vietnam War was avoidable. He sent several position papers on Vietnam to the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House via Julia Child (yes, that Julia Child) in 1945. Upon his retirement he discovered that the documents had never been opened by any of the recipients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Patti
Ho Chi Minh continued to try to communicate with the United States. He wrote several letters to Truman, pleading for the United State's help in Vietnam's quest for independence from France:
"Ho Chi Minh was two things. He was a Communist and he was a Nationalist. He wanted independence and he led this great movement of people. Some of them were Communists. Most of them were not. But they all wanted independence from France. Ho Chi Minh wrote — and this is in the Pentagon Papers — Ho Chi Minh wrote many letters to Harry Truman. Roosevelt died in the spring of '45. Truman took his place, and Ho Chi Minh, at the end of 1945, wrote — I counted in the Pentagon Papers 14 communications from Ho Chi Minh to President Truman — saying, "Remember the pledge of the Atlantic Charter. You promised us our independence. We want it now. Keep the French out."
"According to the Pentagon Papers, not one of those communications was answered.
No answer.
That told the story. The United States set out, starting in 1945 slowly, but more and more firmly, to put the French back into power in Vietnam, and the British collaborated.
And so the French came back in 1945, and they faced this independence movement; and in the Pentagon Papers, one of the remarkable things that appears [is] a document which is the Declaration of Independence that Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam and independence movement drew up in 1945."
http://www.pbs.org/pov/camden28/special_zinn_02.php
http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=228
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/vietnam-bf3262-interview-with-archimedes-l-a-patti-1981
Was Ho Chi Minh sincere in his overtures to the United States? I can't answer that question. Opinions about whether Ho Chi Minh was more of a nationalist or a communist seem to be mixed. It was a subject of some debate in 1944-1945. "Ho apparently thoroughly convinced the Deer Team commander of his sincerity. In an effort to further dispel OSS or U.S. government concerns about Ho, Thomas emphatically wrote in the report: "Forget the Communist Bogy. VML [Viet Minh League] is not Communist. Stands for freedom and reforms from French harshness." - See more at: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm#sthash.2RLcT43U.dpuf
"In other reports to the OSS, Thomas had raised a number of political concerns, from Ho's allegiances, to Indochina's struggle with the French, Vichy, Japanese, Chinese and the British. In a July 27 report, Thomas had stated that Ho's league was an amalgamation of all political parties that stood for liberty with "no political ideas beyond that." Thomas added, "Ho definitely tabooed the idea that the party was communistic" since "the peasants didn't know what the word communism or socialism meant—but they did understand liberty and independence." He noted that it was impossible for the French to stay, nor were they welcome since the Vietnamese "hated them worse than the Japs….Ho said he would welcome a million American soldiers to come in but not any French." - See more at: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm#sthash.2RLcT43U.dpuf
A lot of people appear not to know this, but Ho Chi Minh lived abroad for about 30 years, including living and working in the United States. He also lived, worked and studied in France, Britain, the Soviet Union and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
But on the other hand, there is this perspective as well:
"Washington decision makers were wrong to think of Ho Chi Minh as a puppet of Moscow or Beijing, but they were not wrong about the danger of Communist aggression. Furthermore, they were right to be concerned about the fate of those Vietnamese in the South who opposed a Communist takeover, many of whom had fled from the North to escape it. We cannot know with certainty what would have happened to them if the United States had delivered them to Hanoi under the fiction of a neutralized government, but there was reason to expect the worst. After all, Communism in the Soviet Union had killed more Soviet citizens than even Hitler did. Mao began his murderous Cultural Revolution not on Moscow's orders but to achieve his own purposes."
https://www.nytimes.com/books/99/08/08/reviews/990808.08matlot.html
I am NOT an apologist for Ho Chi Minh. I am merely trying to respond to replies to my previous posts.
As far as the French rubber plantations, that's easily researched. The largest exports from Vietnam under French colonial rule were rice and rubber. Michelin owned and operated the largest rubber plantation in Vietnam from 1925 through the Vietnam war. "The plantation was an important source of revenue for the South Vietnamese Government and it was believed that the Michelin Company paid off the Vietcong in order to keep the plantation operating during the war. US forces were obliged to compensate Michelin for damage caused to the rubber trees during operations in the plantation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Rubber_Plantation
I should have said that the genesis of the war in Vietnam was about French colonialism vs. Vietnamese independence vs. communism. I will admit, I have not been able to find any documentation online that points to the United State's refusal to support Vietnam's bid for independence directly linked to tire production in French Colonial Vietnam. Got me there. My previous reference to tires was based on a conversation with another person and I can't find any supporting evidence online at this time.
For some reason the United States decided to ignore Ho Chi Minh's initial and subsequent overtures, as well as position papers from one of its senior OSS/Army officers. Was it due to alliances with France and from benefitting from the French colonial exports from Vietnam? I don't know, but the above linked interview about the Pentagon Papers indicates that the U.S. began trying to put France back in power in Vietnam in 1945 with collaboration by the British. On the other hand, Lt. Col. Patti stated that they'd received orders not to assist the French. He said that they had notably NOT received orders about stopping the French either, so they simply stayed out of the French forces way. Link posted again for clarity:
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/vietnam-bf3262-interview-with-archimedes-l-a-patti-1981
Other theories are that we'd just fought in two world wars and we were done with foreign involvements. We just wanted to bring our troops home.
We may never agree, or even know for sure, if we missed an opportunity to avoid the Vietnam war, and if we did, why.
And that's a long way from Netanyahu.
I apologize for offending you, Pardus. It was not my intent.
OK. I'm not sure where the disagreement lies, so I'm just going to guess that it has to do with either
a. My statements about Ho Chi Minh or
b. My statements about rubber plantations in Vietnam or
c. Both.
To clarify:
The OSS, the precursor to the CIA, worked closely with Ho Chi Minh toward the end of WWII. During this time, Lt. Col. Archimedes Patti worked one on one with Ho Chi Minh. He also worked with Major Allison Thomas, who commanded the Deer Team and who worked closely with Ho Chi Minh. Lt. Col Patti worked with Ho Chi Minh's on Minh's early drafts of the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. (I apologize, I referred to it as the constitution earlier. My mistake. As I said, I haven't thought about this stuff in years.) Patti offered several corrections and observed that Minh had written the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence to almost exactly mirror the United State's Declaration of Independence. Archimedes Patti later said that the Vietnam War was avoidable. He sent several position papers on Vietnam to the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House via Julia Child (yes, that Julia Child) in 1945. Upon his retirement he discovered that the documents had never been opened by any of the recipients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Patti
Ho Chi Minh continued to try to communicate with the United States. He wrote several letters to Truman, pleading for the United State's help in Vietnam's quest for independence from France:
"Ho Chi Minh was two things. He was a Communist and he was a Nationalist. He wanted independence and he led this great movement of people. Some of them were Communists. Most of them were not. But they all wanted independence from France. Ho Chi Minh wrote — and this is in the Pentagon Papers — Ho Chi Minh wrote many letters to Harry Truman. Roosevelt died in the spring of '45. Truman took his place, and Ho Chi Minh, at the end of 1945, wrote — I counted in the Pentagon Papers 14 communications from Ho Chi Minh to President Truman — saying, "Remember the pledge of the Atlantic Charter. You promised us our independence. We want it now. Keep the French out."
"According to the Pentagon Papers, not one of those communications was answered.
No answer.
That told the story. The United States set out, starting in 1945 slowly, but more and more firmly, to put the French back into power in Vietnam, and the British collaborated.
And so the French came back in 1945, and they faced this independence movement; and in the Pentagon Papers, one of the remarkable things that appears [is] a document which is the Declaration of Independence that Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam and independence movement drew up in 1945."
http://www.pbs.org/pov/camden28/special_zinn_02.php
http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=228
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/vietnam-bf3262-interview-with-archimedes-l-a-patti-1981
Was Ho Chi Minh sincere in his overtures to the United States? I can't answer that question. Opinions about whether Ho Chi Minh was more of a nationalist or a communist seem to be mixed. It was a subject of some debate in 1944-1945. "Ho apparently thoroughly convinced the Deer Team commander of his sincerity. In an effort to further dispel OSS or U.S. government concerns about Ho, Thomas emphatically wrote in the report: "Forget the Communist Bogy. VML [Viet Minh League] is not Communist. Stands for freedom and reforms from French harshness." - See more at: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm#sthash.2RLcT43U.dpuf
"In other reports to the OSS, Thomas had raised a number of political concerns, from Ho's allegiances, to Indochina's struggle with the French, Vichy, Japanese, Chinese and the British. In a July 27 report, Thomas had stated that Ho's league was an amalgamation of all political parties that stood for liberty with "no political ideas beyond that." Thomas added, "Ho definitely tabooed the idea that the party was communistic" since "the peasants didn't know what the word communism or socialism meant—but they did understand liberty and independence." He noted that it was impossible for the French to stay, nor were they welcome since the Vietnamese "hated them worse than the Japs….Ho said he would welcome a million American soldiers to come in but not any French." - See more at: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm#sthash.2RLcT43U.dpuf
A lot of people appear not to know this, but Ho Chi Minh lived abroad for about 30 years, including living and working in the United States. He also lived, worked and studied in France, Britain, the Soviet Union and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
But on the other hand, there is this perspective as well:
"Washington decision makers were wrong to think of Ho Chi Minh as a puppet of Moscow or Beijing, but they were not wrong about the danger of Communist aggression. Furthermore, they were right to be concerned about the fate of those Vietnamese in the South who opposed a Communist takeover, many of whom had fled from the North to escape it. We cannot know with certainty what would have happened to them if the United States had delivered them to Hanoi under the fiction of a neutralized government, but there was reason to expect the worst. After all, Communism in the Soviet Union had killed more Soviet citizens than even Hitler did. Mao began his murderous Cultural Revolution not on Moscow's orders but to achieve his own purposes."
https://www.nytimes.com/books/99/08/08/reviews/990808.08matlot.html
I am NOT an apologist for Ho Chi Minh. I am merely trying to respond to replies to my previous posts.
As far as the French rubber plantations, that's easily researched. The largest exports from Vietnam under French colonial rule were rice and rubber. Michelin owned and operated the largest rubber plantation in Vietnam from 1925 through the Vietnam war. "The plantation was an important source of revenue for the South Vietnamese Government and it was believed that the Michelin Company paid off the Vietcong in order to keep the plantation operating during the war. US forces were obliged to compensate Michelin for damage caused to the rubber trees during operations in the plantation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Rubber_Plantation
I should have said that the genesis of the war in Vietnam was about French colonialism vs. Vietnamese independence vs. communism. I will admit, I have not been able to find any documentation online that points to the United State's refusal to support Vietnam's bid for independence directly linked to tire production in French Colonial Vietnam. Got me there. My previous reference to tires was based on a conversation with another person and I can't find any supporting evidence online at this time.
For some reason the United States decided to ignore Ho Chi Minh's initial and subsequent overtures, as well as position papers from one of its senior OSS/Army officers. Was it due to alliances with France and from benefitting from the French colonial exports from Vietnam? I don't know, but the above linked interview about the Pentagon Papers indicates that the U.S. began trying to put France back in power in Vietnam in 1945 with collaboration by the British. On the other hand, Lt. Col. Patti stated that they'd received orders not to assist the French. He said that they had notably NOT received orders about stopping the French either, so they simply stayed out of the French forces way. Link posted again for clarity:
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/vietnam-bf3262-interview-with-archimedes-l-a-patti-1981
Other theories are that we'd just fought in two world wars and we were done with foreign involvements. We just wanted to bring our troops home.
We may never agree, or even know for sure, if we missed an opportunity to avoid the Vietnam war, and if we did, why.
And that's a long way from Netanyahu.
I apologize for offending you, Pardus. It was not my intent.
