Vietnam.

kaiser wrote:

Hindsight doesn't change the motives as I pointed out in my previous post.

 

I should point out kaiser that I find debating you enjoyable.
People can disagree without being disagreeable

 

I see,i study Utopian,or rather, dystopian ideals in literature class and find it immensely interesting. Does anyone in this forum share that view?

Anyway, yes Grieg it was your opinion. I never said it wasn't. But still it should be as objective as possible,calling communism a poison is just the same as saying God is the opium of the masses(did i get that right)

Regarding your last reply,then why in the name of everything good did we argue for in the first place? I certainly wasn't generalising. So our viewpoints are the same. And may i ask,how old are you Grieg(this is an honest question and not an insult)

 

The feeling is mutual mate. And did i mention that this is a better revision for my exams than reading my notes?

 

And my arguments are mainly regarding the hindsights and a matter of should or should not.Lol. It appears we're in the wrong track. The motives were good on the US side i suppose. But still,no offense, it sure does seem heavy-handed.

 

kaiser wrote:

I disagree. An opinion can be biased and be valid. Bias oftentimes makes perfect sense. Provided the bias is based on good data.


Regarding your last reply,then why in the name of everything good did we argue for in the first place? I certainly wasn't generalising. So our viewpoints are the same.

Not exactly. You did say:

and

It doesn't insult me to ask. I'm 52.

 

So your old enough to be my Grandpa. and your kids old enough to be my dad.,well maybe not.

Anyway, yes i did say them. But the US did train up Ho and his gang and then abandon them when it came to decolonising isn't it? And tho the US didn't sign the Geneva treaty,they had AGREED to abide by it. and the decisions of John Foster Dulles to prevent such an election would be deemed as the breaking of a promise or taking back on their word,not very nice for a nation like the States isn't it?

 

kaiser wrote:

Maybe you should return to studying for your exam for awhile..your arguments are degenerating

The generalization was

not the specific case of Ho you mention.

also you accused the US of lying in the earler post not reneging on an undeclared agreement...big difference.

 

Perhaps i should, but i do not see how it is degenrating. Those are clear facts.

Undeclared agreement? i hardly think so. They didn't fulfill their promise when they say they will agree to abide by it ain't it? Now that's a big difference too.

 

kaiser wrote:

You do know what a generalization is?

the statement

is so clearly an overly broad generalization that I shouldn't have to point it out multiple times.

If they didn't sign the elections clause then it is undeclared. What signed agreement are you referring to?

 

And i believe i did apologise for that remark days ago. You do know how to live and let live?lol.

No offense,but though it is legal not to abide by the agreement since they didn't sign it,but taking back their word is bad call for the integrity of any nation isn't it? It's a moral question

 

Who said they gave their word?
BTW-Was it moral for the North Vietnamese to invade the South 2 years after signing a treaty stating that they wouldn't?

 

Lol, and was it moral for the South not to hold elections? We can go on and on like kids. But yes i do believe there';s a good reason for the invasion,the South had not honoured its word.

My notes and Cambridge seems to agree the US gave their word.

 

This is turning into bickering. You made the statement a few posts back that since you hadn't made any generalizations then we agreed.
I merely pointed out that you had made an overly broad and unsupportable generalization.

 

Then why did the North sign the agreement in Paris stating that they wouldn't invade? When and how did the South break the Paris agreement?

You are claiming that the US and the South signed the elections clause of the agreement?

 

As um..fruitful as this debate is I must go.
Duty calls.
I will resume at a later date.

 

No i they didn't sign but gave their word.

The South was supposed to hold elections but didn't. Alhough they did not sign,but the UN had failed to deliver their agreement and it is therefore understandable that the North invaded

 

Was the North also supposed to hold elections?

If so did they?
(Real elections, not 'oh look, the Communist guy won! What a surprise!' elections)

 

As far as I know, the elections should have taken place in the whole country at the same time, but the south refused.

 

kaiser wrote:

Gave their word how exactly? The reason for written, signed agreements is so that no ambiguity remains regarding the agreement. That a true meeting of minds occurred.
The fact that they did not sign on to that clause means that they were not bound by it. No "gentleman's agreement" is worth the paper that it (isn't )written on. In diplomacy there are no gentlemen.

We have already discussed and established that the Communists could not be trusted to hold free and fair elections. When I gave you the opportunity to provide an example when they had done so you could only mention the Bolsheviks and how they diregarded the free elections because they lost, which only reinforced the idea that Communists don't bargain in good faith and they do not hold free and fair elections.

It is tiresome to have to cover the same ground multiple times though.