• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama compares Ho Chi Minh with the founding fathers

John Hinckley, Jr., was inspired by Jodi Foster, too.

I doubt those who admire her make that a talking point, though.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Fox News takes a dim view of his statements:



Mother Jones takes a different view:



What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think there is no indication of comparing HCM to the founders. Having the admiration of someone does not mean they are like that person. If I say that I'm a fan of Eric Clapton, am I comparing myself to him? If Clapton inspired me to play guitar, is that comparing? If I say I played with Clapton once... but later he came to my house and kicked my ass and burned it down... is that comparing?

I got nothing more from this than an odd historical fact coming up in conversation with asian dignitaries, with an eye to "glad you're back on the road to world citizen".

How often are you guys going to let FOX news make you look like fools before you catch on?
 
Someone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but when I was a young man back in the 70's I'd had several discussions with educators knowledgeable about South-East Asia regarding this subject.

As I recall, Ho Chi Minh was a socialist who did admire American ideals developed during the American Revolution, and he initially thought this would cause the USA to support his efforts to liberate Vietnam from French rule. He had been fighting the Japanese all throughout the occupation during WWII, getting aid and support from all sources, US, Brits and Communists.

Being Vietnamese he had a healthy distrust of China, since the Chinese have historically had designs on Indochina. He turned to the USA during the closing period of WWII seeking assistance with independence for Indochina. The French wanted a return of their colonial rights, and our government thought it better to side with France rather than upset them over Indochina. Many U.S. leaders considered socialism too close to communism for comfort, so we refused to help Ho Chi Minh and he was forced to turn to the U.S.S.R. and his hereditary enemies the Chinese. The rest is history.

I think this is more reflective of the situation as it happened, rather than merely labeling him a "commie" and holding a grudge over the Vietnam War.
 
Last edited:
Rainman05 said:
Because it reformed itself. Starting from the late 1980s they embarked on a similar reform process to that of China. It's still a single party state, with the communist party being said party, but it abandoned the economic side of communist doctrine... or has begun to abandon it, in favor for a capitalist one. But the political and social parts of communism are still well in place in the country.It's like a mini-China.

Capitalism is not the antithesis of communism. Capitalism has only an economic component to it. Communism has a political, economic and social component.
Click to expand...

Which, according to our government when we were fighting those dangerous Communists, would have led them to spread Communism to the rest of SE Asia and impose a dictatorship there.

Instead, it was the armies of Vietnam that got rid of a real bad guy, Pol Pot, after we recognized the Khymer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia.

Interesting bit if history, eh?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Which, according to our government when we were fighting those dangerous Communists, would have led them to spread Communism to the rest of SE Asia and impose a dictatorship there.

Instead, it was the armies of Vietnam that got rid of a real bad guy, Pol Pot, after we recognized the Khymer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia.

Interesting bit if history, eh?
Click to expand...

Dude. North vietnam fought on the side of the khmer rouge. South vietnam fought with the USA and Cambogian forces against north vietnam, china and the khmer rouge.
Again, south vietnam good. North vietnam bad. Like South and North Korea. One is bad, the other is good at starcraft.
 
Rainman05 said:
Dude. North vietnam fought on the side of the khmer rouge. South vietnam fought with the USA and Cambogian forces against north vietnam, china and the khmer rouge.
Again, south vietnam good. North vietnam bad. Like South and North Korea. One is bad, the other is good at starcraft.
Click to expand...


Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking reality. OR you like to pick and choose the bits that support your thesis.

1969 to 1973 US bombing raids on the Ho Chi Minh trail which ran thru Laos and Cambodia resulted in the deaths of an estimated 150,000 Cambodians, mostly peasant farmers, along with thousands of NVA troops and the destruction of their military supplies. Pol Pot took control in Cambodia in 1975, just about the same time the US pulled out of Vietnam. By 1978, Pot had become so paranoid that he began executing anyone in the Communist Party who expressed any sympathy toward Vietnam. January 1979, Vietnam invaded and threw Pol Pot out of power.

Another little bit of history that the raving anti-Communists know little of is the centuries long animosity between Vietnam and China. An animosity that result in a nasty little conflict in 1979. China-Vietnam Border War, 30 Years Later - Photo Essays - TIME

Ho Chi Minh might have been forced into a more radical version of socialism/communism simply because the United States refused to help him at the end of WWII owing to the paranoia of certain people in the US government about communism. Then there was the small matter of the 1955 referendum that was supposed to take place under the auspices of the United Nations following the final withdrawal of French forces from Vietnam. For some strange reason, the hand-picked (by the US) new leader of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, won over 98% of the votes cast - nevermind the little matter that every voter in Saigon seemed to have voted twice - and yet another "antiCommunist" ruler was put in power.
 
shrubnose said:
I was opposed to the USA's involvement in the 1991 Iraq War because I did not believe that the war would do a damn thing to help the USA. And it didn't.

I'm not going to get into a conversation about the morality of the war.
Click to expand...

Are you related to Jeanette Rankin?
 
Rainman05 said:
I don't understand what you're getting at? The US involvement in Vietnam had nothing to do with France. It was to support anti-communist forces fighting against the communist forces. The communist forces being North vietnam and the anti-communist being Not-north vietnam (South vietnam).

Ho chin Mingh was a moron. You need to understand this. Even with no real French military presence, he failed to conquer and take all of what was then French Indochina or even what was considered to be traditionally Vietnam regions. Because he was incompetent. And to compensate for his incompetence, he built a huge cult of personality around him.
Click to expand...
No fan of Ho am I, but if he was such a moron, he would not have played the US to a stalemate for roughly ten years.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Fox News takes a dim view of his statements:
Mother Jones takes a different view:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

This was an offensive statement he NEVER would have made while running for office or in his first term. His far left lune nature has truly surfaced and we can expect more of the same. He cares less about what the majority feel is best for the country. Rather more about himself and those who believe his nonsense and agree with his speeches about the "phoney scandals"... which in fact are getting closer and closer to the White House.

As a disabled Vietnam, his Ho Chi Minh statement disgusts me. I'm sure most all other Viet Vets feel the same. Not to mention the families of those killed there.

His ratings are dropping and can only get worse as he continues tell those who call him out... to go **** themselves.

IMO... His legacy will be of one of the worst and most divisive presidents to ever occupy the oval office.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Fox News takes a dim view of his statements:
Click to expand...


How embarrassing! Really, for both the president to try and make Ho Chi Minh into some kind of admirer of Thomas Jefferson's words and to make matters worse is the reaction of the Conservative party making this into some kind of red scare. Simply wacky. And to continue this bunk, having it covered in the MSM as some kind of news worthy issue of the day. Great job Fox News!

I think Obama was holding Ho Chi Minh as some kind of forefather admirer with the current Vietnam leader because of Vietnam's recent acceptance to expand its public private partnership laws to allow more sectors to benefit from this method of finance which is all part and parcel of the bilateral trade agreements with the US (BTA). Naturally, Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave to know his name is being grossly misused but I suppose the public has to perceive Vietnam as American as apple pie or better yet one of our forefathers. Obama just forgot to use the American flag but I'm sure the new McDonalds franchises opening up in that country will do just fine as a representation of good old fashion American values.
 
Compatibilist said:
This was an offensive statement he NEVER would have made while running for office or in his first term. His far left lune nature has truly surfaced and we can expect more of the same. He cares less about what the majority feel is best for the country. Rather more about himself and those who believe his nonsense and agree with his speeches about the "phoney scandals"... which in fact are getting closer and closer to the White House.

As a disabled Vietnam, his Ho Chi Minh statement disgusts me. I'm sure most all other Viet Vets feel the same. Not to mention the families of those killed there.

His ratings are dropping and can only get worse as he continues tell those who call him out... to go **** themselves.

IMO... His legacy will be of one of the worst and most divisive presidents to ever occupy the oval office.
Click to expand...
Your post clearly illustrates you have not read the thread. You should do so, there are some very good posts in this thread. Those posts will also make you realize your outrage here is baseless.
 
specklebang said:
Apparently I hold Bush Sr, in higher regard than you do. We didn't need to deal with Hussein then and we didn't need to deal with him in 2003 but Bush Jr. found a way to make billions for his friends.
Click to expand...


No I like Bush Sr, and I like Bush Jr. If you dispense with all of the left wing false narratives and demonetization of Bush 43 and realize that most of the criticisms leveled against him were manufactured lies from the left you'll realize he was our last honest and moral President since his Dad.

The IRAQ War Nonsense ? Blood for Oil, lies about WMD ? Jesus man.............

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
 
People like Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong are vilified for one reason only ......they resist European colonialism. I say it again ..over and over to the spoon-fed American ideologs ...if Mao Zedong didn't fight for China .....that country today would look like South Africa ...instead of a nation poised on being a super power.

South Africa allowed colonialism to take root ....and rather than being a great nation they remain stuck in this spiral of bigotry and Apartheid system. A nation where 6% of these settlers of the population using guns to control the country's wealth and marginalize the original owners of the country. Very very sad situation .....compare that model to China now!!


The London Olympics last year was ssssooo telling how sad South Africa is. In the sprint relays .. a sport re-knowed for have black athletes...the South African team had 4 white runners .....AND ONE OF THEM LITERALLY HAD NO LEGS!!! What a sick joke that was.

And Mao had to no option during his reign but to weed out those willing to partner with foreigners to take over the country. Moa is a great leader in my view ... a man who not just led ...but literally took to the battle field to save his nation. China's prosperity today ...stand on his shoulders ...and no amount of phony revisionist history books and American propaganda can change that!!
 
Last edited:
Velvet Elvis said:
Do you actually "debate" anything, or just spew out these little bail-out one liners like a punk?
Click to expand...

Do you do anything other than draw comparisons between vaguely leftish politicians and Hitler
 
thinkforyoursel said:
People like Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong are vilified for one reason only ......they resist European colonialism. I say it again ..over and over to the spoon-fed American ideologs ...if Mao Zedong didn't fight for China .....that country today would look like South Africa ...instead of a nation poised on being a super power.

South Africa allowed colonialism to take root ....and rather than being a great nation they remain stuck in this spiral of bigotry and Apartheid system. A nation where 6% of these settlers of the population using guns to control the country's wealth and marginalize the original owners of the country. Very very sad situation .....compare that model to China now!!


The London Olympics last year was ssssooo telling how sad South Africa is. In the sprint relays .. a sport re-knowed for have black athletes...the South African team had 4 white runners .....AND ONE OF THEM LITERALLY HAD NO LEGS!!! What a sick joke that was.

And Mao had to no option during his reign but to weed out those willing to partner with foreigners to take over the country. Moa is a great leader in my view ... a man who not just led ...but literally took to the battle field to save his nation. China's prosperity today ...stand on his shoulders ...and no amount of phony revisionist history books and American propaganda can change that!!
Click to expand...

Well it appears Vietnam has sold out;)
 
Umm, I was just responding to your criticism of Bush 41. Please make up your mind. You're the one who made negative statements about him (I think you confused him with Clinton and your automatic hyper-partisan drive kicked in:))

Bush 41 was our last honest and moral President. Clinton was an effective President, albeit not so honest or moral. Bust 43 was the opposite of Bush 41. Obama, yes, well, we'll discuss him elsewhere.




Fenton said:
No I like Bush Sr, and I like Bush Jr. If you dispense with all of the left wing false narratives and demonetization of Bush 43 and realize that most of the criticisms leveled against him were manufactured lies from the left you'll realize he was our last honest and moral President since his Dad.

a
Click to expand...
 
Rainman05 said:
Dude. North vietnam fought on the side of the khmer rouge. South vietnam fought with the USA and Cambogian forces against north vietnam, china and the khmer rouge.
Again, south vietnam good. North vietnam bad. Like South and North Korea. One is bad, the other is good at starcraft.
Click to expand...

Dude: History good, mutability of the past bad.

The Khmer Rouge killed nearly two million Cambodians from 1975 to 1979, spreading like a virus from the jungles until they controlled the entire country, only to systematically dismantle and destroy it in the name of a Communist agrarian ideal. Today, more than 30 years after Vietnamese soldiers removed the Khmer Rouge from power, the first genocide trials will start — a bittersweet note of progress in an impoverished nation still struggling to rehabilitate its crippled economic and human resources.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom