robin said:
GY seems to have conveniently missed this question....
If the freedom of the Vietnamese people was America's aim, why did Truman ignore Minh's plea in 1945 for good accord with US & Truman's support for independance from a Brutal French colonial rule ?
"After world war two was over, Ho Chi Minh describes that he and America still had very good relations "American friends". He was sad to see that they (Americans) had to leave so soon after the end of world war two seeing as they worked as a together in defeating the opposition. He new that on the departing of the Americans that relations between them would get harder "relations between you and us will be more difficult", as he knew what lied on the road ahead. Although the war was over their was really no joy for Ho Chi Minh as for his country did not get any happiness such as Britain and America, what he wanted was freedom for his country. However he knew that to get this they would still have to carry on fighting "still have to fight", this would be against the French as they wanted to take Indo-China back.
Ho Chi Minh looked forward till the day he would again be able to greet the Americans friends wherever it was "Indo-China or USA!". In previous sources the friendship between America and Ho Chi Minh has been described many times over during their fight together in world war two."
I haven't avoided this question. I haven't been paying attention to this thread. I didn't think I had anything else to say, so I unsubscribed from it. Apparently, I still don't.
"If the freedom of the Vietnamese people was America's aim, why did Truman ignore Minh's plea in 1945 for good accord with US & Truman's support for independance from a Brutal French colonial rule?"
This question is more of the same BS from you. This is not a legitimate question. It's the same old America bashing that we are all used to. Instead of debating all the factors, you merely wish to throw things in people's face as if you hold some superior state of existence and are not as dirty as the next guy who benefits from his government's doings. America goes through President's like the Brits go through cavities. Each President brings along his own administration and his own policies, which are based on American policy. After WWII, were we supposed to declare war on the French in Vietnam? How about the British in India? How about America declaring war on everyone of our allies whenever they screw up? Perhaps if we had a dictator or a monarchy instated for a prolonged period of time, our mundane details to our policies would be more consistent. Just like a dictatorship, democracy does have it's price.
Why do you always pull the obtuse stance when trying to argue? We were also "
friends" with the Russians to save your asses. How dare us have a cold war with them. We were also "
friends" with Saddam during his war with Iran and supplied him weapons. How dare us have a war against him after he decided to slaughter his own people with them and invade Kuwait. We were "
friends" with Afghanistan against the spread of communism. How dare us go to war against it's government later. How dare us go in and remove him from power a decade later. Nations do not have friends—at best, they have allies with a confluence of interests. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage. Welcome to diplomacy and politics. All nations practice it.
According to your logic, because we didn't help Vietnam at a certain time, we forefitted any right to help them later? Because we did not help the Kurds and the Iraqi people while they were being gassed, we forefitted any chance to help them later? If this is true, then during WWII, we didn't have any right to fight the Nazis, because we waited until later instead of getting involved earlier.
