Thread: Jobst
View Single Post
  #17  
Old September 1st 17, 02:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,350
Default Jobst

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:15:16 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/31/2017 6:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2017 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM,
wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm.* Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War
(Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW
Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in
Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush).* That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.

Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by
Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending
troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.

The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two
at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be
held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to
this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more
populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an
election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism
spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia.

The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as
Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged
election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his
brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong
Van Minh.

While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the
Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for
the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort.

Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been
held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist
government.

It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the
world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war
from Yugoslavia.

The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration
is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of
Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese
dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in
1979.


While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.

My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was
primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible
rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be
frank the North had won the war.

Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We
can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea.
Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I
guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the
common man as most of Asia does.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM:


Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in
heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely
revolt.

Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic,
pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment
proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it
is completely free.

Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over
80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and
about 90% of these resident households own their home.

Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has
increased by nearly 30%.

Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and
everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing
plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages
increased by 30% in the past three years.

Tell me more about " looking out for the common man".
--
Cheers,

John B.


OK, but we don't have your Rice Subsidy either.
We achieved our humongous debts without even giving away rice!


U.S. rice producers are heavily subsidized.
https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=rice.

But it goes beyond the actual cash subsidies. In California they also
receive non-cash subsidies of water. In a drought-prone state, the rice
farmers have water rights to grow a very thirsty crop.


Subsidizing agriculture, in some manner, in the U.S., dates back at
least to the 1920's, and even before that U.S. policies were aimed at
promoting farms and farming. See the Homestead act of 1862.

I remember, years ago when I was still in High School, visiting a
friend of my father's who may have been the largest potato grower in
New Hampshire at the time and being shown this huge pile of potatoes
all dyed green. We were told that financially, with the subsidy, it
was more profitable to not selling the potatoes then to selling them
on the open market :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home