| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ4MCBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2006 12:07:48 AM |
| Object: |
World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iran_Bolton.html
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iran_Bolton.html
Sunday, March 5, 2006 =C2=B7 Last updated 6:03 p.m. PT
Bolton: World must confront Iran
' By FOSTER KLUG
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, speaks during
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) annual Policy
Conference in Washington, Sunday, March 5, 2006. Bolton told the AIPAC
conference that a failure by the U.N. Security Council to deal with
Iran's drive for nuclear weapons would "do lasting damage to the
credibility of the council." "The longer we wait to confront the threat
Iran poses," Bolton said, "the harder and more intractable it will
become to solve." (AP Photo/Caleb Jones)
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Sunday told
an influential pro-Israel lobbying group there is an urgent need to
confront Iran's "clear and unrelenting drive" for a nuclear weapons
program.
John Bolton, speaking before a crowd of 4,500 gathered for an American
Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, said that a failure by the
U=2EN. Security Council to address Iran would "do lasting damage to the
credibility of the council."
"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and
more intractable it will become to solve," Bolton said.
At issue is Iran's ability to enrich uranium to the point it could be
used for a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful
and only meant to generate power. Many in the West, however, fear Iran
is aiming to develop atomic weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency will meet in Vienna, Austria, on
Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program and its compliance with an
IAEA demand that it renounce uranium enrichment. The U.N. agency's
board of governors may at that time send the file to the Security
Council for further action.
Iranian officials were in Moscow last week, negotiating an offer by
Russia to enrich uranium for Iran to be used for energy. The spent fuel
would be returned to Russia, easing fears that Iran could use it for
weapons.
Bolton said the Russian proposal lets Iran "reap the benefits of civil
nuclear power while addressing concerns that they are really pursuing
nuclear weapons."
But he said Iran has been engaging in "doublespeak" during these
negotiations by saying with one voice it welcomes discussion, but with
the other "flatly refusing" to give up access to technology and
material to eventually develop nuclear weapons.
Iran "must be made aware that if it continues down the path of
international isolation, there will be tangible and painful
consequences," Bolton said.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ3OCBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, March 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
08 Mar 2006 10:18:15 PM |
|
|
(Subject heading corrected)
World War III News, Monday, March 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must
confront Iran
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iran_Bolton.html
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iran_Bolton.html
Sunday, March 5, 2006 =C2=B7 Last updated 6:03 p.m. PT
Bolton: World must confront Iran
' By FOSTER KLUG
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, speaks during
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) annual Policy
Conference in Washington, Sunday, March 5, 2006. Bolton told the AIPAC
conference that a failure by the U.N. Security Council to deal with
Iran's drive for nuclear weapons would "do lasting damage to the
credibility of the council." "The longer we wait to confront the threat
Iran poses," Bolton said, "the harder and more intractable it will
become to solve." (AP Photo/Caleb Jones)
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Sunday told
an influential pro-Israel lobbying group there is an urgent need to
confront Iran's "clear and unrelenting drive" for a nuclear weapons
program.
John Bolton, speaking before a crowd of 4,500 gathered for an American
Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, said that a failure by the
U=2EN. Security Council to address Iran would "do lasting damage to the
credibility of the council."
"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and
more intractable it will become to solve," Bolton said.
At issue is Iran's ability to enrich uranium to the point it could be
used for a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful
and only meant to generate power. Many in the West, however, fear Iran
is aiming to develop atomic weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency will meet in Vienna, Austria, on
Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program and its compliance with an
IAEA demand that it renounce uranium enrichment. The U.N. agency's
board of governors may at that time send the file to the Security
Council for further action.
Iranian officials were in Moscow last week, negotiating an offer by
Russia to enrich uranium for Iran to be used for energy. The spent fuel
would be returned to Russia, easing fears that Iran could use it for
weapons.
Bolton said the Russian proposal lets Iran "reap the benefits of civil
nuclear power while addressing concerns that they are really pursuing
nuclear weapons."
But he said Iran has been engaging in "doublespeak" during these
negotiations by saying with one voice it welcomes discussion, but with
the other "flatly refusing" to give up access to technology and
material to eventually develop nuclear weapons.
Iran "must be made aware that if it continues down the path of
international isolation, there will be tangible and painful
consequences," Bolton said.=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ3OCBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, March 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
08 Mar 2006 10:21:01 PM |
|
|
(Subject heading corrected)
World War III News, Monday, March 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must
confront Iran
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iran_Bolton.html
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iran_Bolton.html
Sunday, March 5, 2006 =C2=B7 Last updated 6:03 p.m. PT
Bolton: World must confront Iran
' By FOSTER KLUG
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, speaks during
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) annual Policy
Conference in Washington, Sunday, March 5, 2006. Bolton told the AIPAC
conference that a failure by the U.N. Security Council to deal with
Iran's drive for nuclear weapons would "do lasting damage to the
credibility of the council." "The longer we wait to confront the threat
Iran poses," Bolton said, "the harder and more intractable it will
become to solve." (AP Photo/Caleb Jones)
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Sunday told
an influential pro-Israel lobbying group there is an urgent need to
confront Iran's "clear and unrelenting drive" for a nuclear weapons
program.
John Bolton, speaking before a crowd of 4,500 gathered for an American
Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, said that a failure by the
U=2EN. Security Council to address Iran would "do lasting damage to the
credibility of the council."
"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and
more intractable it will become to solve," Bolton said.
At issue is Iran's ability to enrich uranium to the point it could be
used for a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful
and only meant to generate power. Many in the West, however, fear Iran
is aiming to develop atomic weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency will meet in Vienna, Austria, on
Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program and its compliance with an
IAEA demand that it renounce uranium enrichment. The U.N. agency's
board of governors may at that time send the file to the Security
Council for further action.
Iranian officials were in Moscow last week, negotiating an offer by
Russia to enrich uranium for Iran to be used for energy. The spent fuel
would be returned to Russia, easing fears that Iran could use it for
weapons.
Bolton said the Russian proposal lets Iran "reap the benefits of civil
nuclear power while addressing concerns that they are really pursuing
nuclear weapons."
But he said Iran has been engaging in "doublespeak" during these
negotiations by saying with one voice it welcomes discussion, but with
the other "flatly refusing" to give up access to technology and
material to eventually develop nuclear weapons.
Iran "must be made aware that if it continues down the path of
international isolation, there will be tangible and painful
consequences," Bolton said.=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 09:50:26 AM |
|
|
These morons might just be Stupid enough to bomb Iran...Anyway, other
than the Blair lapdog types, the world pretty much knows who the worst
Terrorists are...the ones governing America, today
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 05:15:20 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> Spat the Words
These morons might just be Stupid enough to bomb Iran...Anyway, other
than the Blair lapdog types, the world pretty much knows who the worst
Terrorists are...the ones governing America, today
Considering that the US and Israel would be the first to receive
an A-Bomb care package from Iran, I'm thinking 20,000 lb bombs (lots
of them). Iranian society would be largely untouched by bombing. It
would be the nuclear facilities that would become rubble.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ4MCBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 08:47:19 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> Spat the Words
These morons might just be Stupid enough to bomb Iran...Anyway, other
than the Blair lapdog types, the world pretty much knows who the worst
Terrorists are...the ones governing America, today
Considering that the US and Israel would be the first to receive
an A-Bomb care package from Iran, I'm thinking 20,000 lb bombs (lots
of them). Iranian society would be largely untouched by bombing. It
would be the nuclear facilities that would become rubble.
One needs to factor in Russia -- it cannot be left out of the
equation.....
Russia has both vital strategic & economic interests invested in Russia
-- & Russian technicians currently working & residing near Iranian
nuclear installations.....
Israel is quite expendable in such a scenario (despite the fact that
they have a considerable arsenal of nukes & would cause tremendous
irreparable damage to the entire region for millenia to come.....
One can draw their own conclusions from this -- I'm not one to spoil
the surprise -- the events will soon be played out for all to see,
anyways !!
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
============
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 05:21:53 PM |
|
|
Totally false...Totally Ignorant.
Many of the nuclear facilities are in and around civilian areas. And
further, it's highly doubtful that when Iran does get an A-bomb that it
would commit suicide by using it....the fact is it is America that is
more likely to use one on Iran first...Once hit, Iran will undoubtedly
bite back...and hard. And if not America, then Israel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 06:02:43 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> Spat the Words
Totally false...Totally Ignorant.
No you've got that wrong. The victor is ALWAYS right. The victor
writes the maps. The victor writes the history books.
Many of the nuclear facilities are in and around civilian areas. And
further, it's highly doubtful that when Iran does get an A-bomb that it
would commit suicide by using it....
I should hope not. The Iranian president seems to think suicide
is glorious though.
the fact is it is America that is
more likely to use one on Iran first...Once hit, Iran will undoubtedly
bite back...and hard.
Yeah, Iran is a real world class player all right. I think they
have a few speed boats... probably make it across the Gulf with those.
And if not America, then Israel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 07:54:00 PM |
|
|
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
No one said that the Iranian President is such a great guy....He
isn't...he resembles the Iranian version of the American Neo-con. One
thing about the Iranians....they won't start a war...but they sure as
hell have the staying power that the U.S. does not have.
And if you think all Iran has is a few speed boats, then you are even
more woefully ignorant than I thought. Iran could easily close the
Straits of Hormuz if it suited their interests....If they're attacked
by America or Israel, it just may. They have a very strong Navy, and
have the ability to easily sink U.S. aircraft carriers in the
region...and to mine the Gulf so effectively as to virtually end Oil
Shipments.
And another thing....r u really Anonymous Bud...or r u just borrowing
his Personality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 10:51:38 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> Spat the Words
And another thing....r u really Anonymous Bud...or r u just borrowing
his Personality?
Nah. Never Anonymous Bud is some chick who lives in San Diego.
I've tried talking to her before but she's not too talkative.
Be aware that San Diego has one of the largest concentrations
of US military personnel anywhere in the US (maybe the eastern
seaboard has some larger, like Norfolk, Virginia), so she is
undoubtedly influenced by her daily contacts. I, on the other
hand live in Denver, Colorado, so try to keep it straight will
ya ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 10:14:41 PM |
|
|
On 6 Mar 2006 17:54:00 -0800, "eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
No one said that the Iranian President is such a great guy....He
isn't...he resembles the Iranian version of the American Neo-con.
He's scarier. He believes the Mahdi is already here.
One
thing about the Iranians....they won't start a war...but they sure as
hell have the staying power that the U.S. does not have.
The US hasn't fought an all out war since WW2. Politicians keep
deciding military goals and restrictions. Not necessarily a bad
thing, but the problem *seems* to be that "The other side" wages all
out war.
And if you think all Iran has is a few speed boats, then you are even
more woefully ignorant than I thought. Iran could easily close the
Straits of Hormuz if it suited their interests....If they're attacked
by America or Israel, it just may. They have a very strong Navy,
Well, strongest in the area, but I'd cut out the word very.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm
and
have the ability to easily sink U.S. aircraft carriers in the
region...and to mine the Gulf so effectively as to virtually end Oil
Shipments.
We can only hope that the US or Israel don't use nukes. Using nukes to
resolve this impasse makes their use "legitimate"
And another thing....r u really Anonymous Bud...or r u just borrowing
his Personality?
--
"FOR I HAVE BECOME VENGEANCE AND YOU WILL FEEL THE WRATH"
"YOUR DOOM IS WRITTEN IN THE STARS...."
"THE DREADED NAME HAS BEEN REVEALED...YOUR DOOM IS NEAR..."
DM in meltdown mode, February 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 10:45:23 PM |
|
|
Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> Spat the
Words
On 6 Mar 2006 17:54:00 -0800, "eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
No one said that the Iranian President is such a great guy....He
isn't...he resembles the Iranian version of the American Neo-con.
He's scarier. He believes the Mahdi is already here.
One
thing about the Iranians....they won't start a war...but they sure as
hell have the staying power that the U.S. does not have.
The US hasn't fought an all out war since WW2. Politicians keep
deciding military goals and restrictions. Not necessarily a bad
thing, but the problem *seems* to be that "The other side" wages all
out war.
And if you think all Iran has is a few speed boats, then you are even
more woefully ignorant than I thought. Iran could easily close the
Straits of Hormuz if it suited their interests....If they're attacked
by America or Israel, it just may. They have a very strong Navy,
Well, strongest in the area, but I'd cut out the word very.
What are you talking about, they've got 3 destroyers ! That's
easily a match for any of the US's 8 carrier battle fleets.
Now, how many F22's does it take to kill an Iranian destroyer ?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm
and
have the ability to easily sink U.S. aircraft carriers in the
region...and to mine the Gulf so effectively as to virtually end Oil
Shipments.
We can only hope that the US or Israel don't use nukes. Using nukes to
resolve this impasse makes their use "legitimate"
I don't think even Bush is stupid enough to use nukes. That truly
would be the beginning of the end.
And another thing....r u really Anonymous Bud...or r u just borrowing
his Personality?
--
"FOR I HAVE BECOME VENGEANCE AND YOU WILL FEEL THE WRATH"
"YOUR DOOM IS WRITTEN IN THE STARS...."
"THE DREADED NAME HAS BEEN REVEALED...YOUR DOOM IS NEAR..."
DM in meltdown mode, February 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ4MCBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
07 Mar 2006 01:11:09 AM |
|
|
Dumbo doesn't make those decisions -- his Gerbil Masters do }:-(
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
============
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
06 Mar 2006 11:47:37 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
08 Mar 2006 07:35:03 AM |
|
|
I guess if Losers like u were in charge....America could have lost
another 60,000 men for nothing. Ura Scumbag.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton:World must confront Iran |
07 Mar 2006 09:22:59 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
07 Mar 2006 11:03:56 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton:World must confront Iran |
08 Mar 2006 05:04:07 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
08 Mar 2006 08:56:34 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton:World must confront Iran |
09 Mar 2006 12:28:33 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else. I don't
suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
09 Mar 2006 10:59:34 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
10 Mar 2006 04:07:17 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Not so different here in the US. Gov't workers get paid well.
Gov't elite take far more pay than they really earn or need.
US military don't make great pay (except for the career lifers)
but are generally well cared for. Everyone else fends for
themselves, taxes are high relative to what the lower class
earns and taxes have increased for this class under Bush relative
to what they earn. Not so different from North Korea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
10 Mar 2006 11:53:06 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Not so different here in the US. Gov't workers get paid well.
Gov't elite take far more pay than they really earn or need.
US military don't make great pay (except for the career lifers)
but are generally well cared for. Everyone else fends for
themselves, taxes are high relative to what the lower class
earns and taxes have increased for this class under Bush relative
to what they earn. Not so different from North Korea.
Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton:World must confront Iran |
11 Mar 2006 01:22:43 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
The difference is, they were Koreans in Korean and
and Vietnamese in Vietnam. It's a whole different
thing when other governments from other countries
start trying to force their opinions there.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Hmmmm ... exactly which part of "part" are you
having problems with, exactly?
9-9
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
11 Mar 2006 02:10:22 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
The difference is, they were Koreans in Korean and
and Vietnamese in Vietnam. It's a whole different
thing when other governments from other countries
start trying to force their opinions there.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Hmmmm ... exactly which part of "part" are you
having problems with, exactly?
9-9
The part where you blame us instead of giving us credit for sending
them food.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton:World must confront Iran |
11 Mar 2006 02:40:26 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
The difference is, they were Koreans in Korean and
and Vietnamese in Vietnam. It's a whole different
thing when other governments from other countries
start trying to force their opinions there.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Hmmmm ... exactly which part of "part" are you
having problems with, exactly?
9-9
The part where you blame us instead of giving us credit for sending
them food.
Why did they need food in the first place?
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
11 Mar 2006 07:07:00 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
The difference is, they were Koreans in Korean and
and Vietnamese in Vietnam. It's a whole different
thing when other governments from other countries
start trying to force their opinions there.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Hmmmm ... exactly which part of "part" are you
having problems with, exactly?
9-9
The part where you blame us instead of giving us credit for sending
them food.
Why did they need food in the first place?
Because they live under a failing system of government called
Communism. The same thing is happening in the North of Vietnam. It is
the prosperous, productive people of South Vietnam that are propping up
the entirety of Vietnam, because the North Vietnamese were smart enough
to give them some freedom to practice free enterprise after first
making the mistake of collectivizing them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton:World must confront Iran |
12 Mar 2006 09:06:48 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
The difference is, they were Koreans in Korean and
and Vietnamese in Vietnam. It's a whole different
thing when other governments from other countries
start trying to force their opinions there.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Hmmmm ... exactly which part of "part" are you
having problems with, exactly?
9-9
The part where you blame us instead of giving us credit for sending
them food.
Why did they need food in the first place?
Because they live under a failing system of government called
Communism. The same thing is happening in the North of Vietnam. It is
the prosperous, productive people of South Vietnam that are propping up
the entirety of Vietnam, because the North Vietnamese were smart enough
to give them some freedom to practice free enterprise after first
making the mistake of collectivizing them.
Why did the collapse of Communism lead to a failed
economy in NK?
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
12 Mar 2006 05:59:58 PM |
|
|
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Why did they need food in the first place?
Because they live under a failing system of government called
Communism. The same thing is happening in the North of Vietnam. It is
the prosperous, productive people of South Vietnam that are propping up
the entirety of Vietnam, because the North Vietnamese were smart enough
to give them some freedom to practice free enterprise after first
making the mistake of collectivizing them.
Why did the collapse of Communism lead to a failed
economy in NK?
I'll take a wild stab. Was it because of the economic sanctions ?
What do I win ?
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton: World must confront Iran |
13 Mar 2006 12:02:56 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
The difference is, they were Koreans in Korean and
and Vietnamese in Vietnam. It's a whole different
thing when other governments from other countries
start trying to force their opinions there.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Hmmmm ... exactly which part of "part" are you
having problems with, exactly?
9-9
The part where you blame us instead of giving us credit for sending
them food.
Why did they need food in the first place?
Because they live under a failing system of government called
Communism. The same thing is happening in the North of Vietnam. It is
the prosperous, productive people of South Vietnam that are propping up
the entirety of Vietnam, because the North Vietnamese were smart enough
to give them some freedom to practice free enterprise after first
making the mistake of collectivizing them.
Why did the collapse of Communism lead to a failed
economy in NK?
Because Communism is a failed concept in the real world. And blaming us
for the failure of Communism is silly. Why should Communism have to
rely on capitalism to survive? Why should capitalism have to prop up
Communism? Although that's exactly what's happening in Vietnam, where
the more capitalist South is propping up the Communist North. Communism
is a tragic joke that was perpetrated on mankind. Really sad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III News, Monday, April 6th, 2006 AD.......Bolton:World must confront Iran |
13 Mar 2006 05:45:52 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Vietnam was a "world class" player too. Vietnam defeated America, and
the costs of that war had deleterious effects on the economy for years.
Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic Party defeated us. The North
Vietnamese Communists agreed to the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, the US
ended its involvement, and the South Vietnamese government continued to
exist just as South Korea exists to this day. The difference between
Korea and Vietnam is this: In December of 1974, the Democratically
controlled Congress ended any further funding and support for South
Vietnam, and interim President Ford did not have the political will
(after the Nixon pardon) to fight the Democrats' abandonment of the
free people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese Communists saw our
lack of resolve, and invaded South Vietnam and quickly overran it. The
Paris Peace Accord called for the US to aid South Vietnam in the event
of a Communist invasion, but the US looked the other way. And that's
why we "lost" the Vietnam War. This is not spin, this is fact.
LOL - what are you, some kind of RepubliBot PR
flack?!? Nobody cares who the majority was in
Congress 30 years ago!!!
I was explaining to eric that Vietnam did not defeat us, the Democratic
Party defeated us. I thought it was pertinent to my point that the
Democrats controlled Congress when they defeated us.
It was the United States that was defeated,
because (1)we were stupid to remain after France
decided to leave and (2) the American public
finally got fed up with the nonsense going on in
Nam and voted in people who promised to get us out
of there.
Nonsense? Then it logically follows that you would have also
disapproved of our involvement in Korea. Would you be happier if South
Korea had been obliterated, and that entire peninsula was North Korea?
I'd be happier if we didn't continually insist on
knowing what's best for everyone else.
In the case of Korea and Vietnam, that would be the Communists who
insisted they knew what's best for everyone else (in their respective
Souths). We and our allies defended the free people of the South (in
both cases), because the free people of the South asked for help. And
in both cases, the North has remained economically stagnant while the
South has prospered. There MUST be a reason for that.
The difference is, they were Koreans in Korean and
and Vietnamese in Vietnam. It's a whole different
thing when other governments from other countries
start trying to force their opinions there.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that part of the
reason that NK is in such bad shape is because of
our anti-Communist policies, even while we've
supported dictators .....
Of course you'd figure a way to blame us for the horrific conditions in
NK. In fact, we've been shipping them food trying to keep the
population from starving. And the NK government makes sure the first
people to be fed are the military, while peasants in the countryside
are neglected. What a wonderful workers utopia they have there! <that
was *sarcasm* in case it wasn't obvious>
Hmmmm ... exactly which part of "part" are you
having problems with, exactly?
9-9
The part where you blame us instead of giving us credit for sending
them food.
Why did they need food in the first place?
Because they live under a failing system of government called
Communism. The same thing is happening in the North of Vietnam. It is
the prosperous, productive people of South Vietnam that are propping up
the entirety of Vietnam, because the North Vietnamese were smart enough
to give them some freedom to practice free enterprise after first
making the mistake of collectivizing them.
Why did the collapse of Communism lead to a failed
economy in NK?
Because Communism is a failed concept in the real world.
China and Vietnam seem to be doing just fine.
And blaming us
for the failure of Communism is silly.
Did I say that? No - that's your projection (from
God only knows where!).
Why should Communism have to
rely on capitalism to survive? Why should capitalism have to prop up
Communism? Although that's exactly what's happening in Vietnam, where
the more capitalist South is propping up the Communist North. Communism
is a tragic joke that was perpetrated on mankind. Really sad.
And off the deep end you go, with no response.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
World War III NEWS, Thursday, April 6th, 2006 AD....Iran Test-Fires 'Top Secret' Missile
World War III NEWS, Friday, May 5th, 2006 AD....Iran military plays down threat to strike Israel
WORLD WAR III NEWS, Monday, April 10th, 2006 AD......Iran attack would be 'nuts'
WORLD WAR III NEWS, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2006...US WILL HIT IRAN IF TALKS FAIL
World War III **NEWS** Thursday, 1st June, 2006.....ENDGAME IN IRAN
World War III NEWS,Thursday, April 27th, 2006 AD.....Iran threatens global retaliation if US attacks
|
|
