Vietnam.

And i do remember telling you that the basis for the elections was that the election would be countrywide and most probably observed by the UN and US.

My example quoted that time was that the communist DID hold a true election and then regretted it....The reason why i quoted that was to show you there was a chance that the communist held and DID hold free elections .

Now i would predict that you would tell me that the North might regret and invade anyway.But like all things hypothethical,we can only guess. And since it hadn't hppen,there's no telling what might happen.

Of course you can argue that the South,even when it held free elections, might have wo or that the war might still have been inevitable.should that happen,i do agree that the North was the guilty party then.

Yes there is no gentlemen in diplomancy.However,i do believe that it will harm the goodwill and relations of two countries. Like i said,they gave their word to the Un or whoever was the intervening party(would love clarifications on this) and like you said,not on paper.So how am i supposed to give you the proof that you want?A voice record?

Now Grieg,i am not out to thrash the South or the States or that great ideology we call Democracy. However,in the south where democracy is thought to prevail,why would free elections be prevented? shouldn't democracy accept communism if that was what the people want(now i realise that's a big if).since the whole idea about democracy is basically free and equal societies isn't it? Capitalism was then never a major ideal of democracy. I would say that it was the banks,industries that fought the war rather then(this is debatable).

Besides,you hav said that communism led only to bankrupcy,may i then suggest China? Yes China mixed in democratic ideals,but it has prospered had it not? And Vietnam communism look to China rather than Russia,in the long run it might...just MIGHT succeed.These are hypothethical and yo can choose to ignore this or debate over it.

Oh and yes,it is tiresome to cover old grounds...but you did chose to bring up the lying part that we had dropped ain't it?

 

kaiser wrote:

I cannot belive that you are unable to see how silly is your example of the Bolsheviks holding elections and then ignoring the results. Can you not se that if one party (the stronger one) is free to set aside the election if they don't like the results then it is not a free and fair election. Casting votes is only one part of holding a free and fair election. The votes must also be counted and then the issue ( or candidate) that wins the election must prevail. Otherwise the election wasn't free and fair. No offense but If you fail to grasp this most basic comcept then there is no point in continuing this debate.

If there is no record then how can you know this? Presumably you weren't there to hear it with your ears so your claim must come from some other source, which you should reveal.

Sorry i can make no sense out of this. You are confusing a political system, Democracy (incorrect since democracy was not the goal..a form of democratic government was the goal) with an economic system, Capitalism. They are related in some very fundamental ways however when you say that Capitalism was never a major ideal of Democracy it is unclear what you are trying to say. Capitalism thrives where a democratic
form of government prevails and cannot work except in a very limited way in the absence of political freedom but it does not therefore follow that Capitalism should be an ideal of Democracy.

It has prospered in direct proportion to the degree of Capitalism it has permitted. Before it loosened up and began to embrace Capitalism (though it has a long ways to go in the area of political freedom which is needed if Capitalism is to flourish) it was a very poor country.
When I was a child I we were told by our mothers to eat everything on our plates and to waste nothing but instead we should think of (and pity) the poor starving Chinese. It has not been that long since famine and hunger was common in China.

 

You are making me wonder if my standard of english have indeed fallen.What i am simply trying to say was,this was a direct reponse to your claims that there had not been a free election under communism.During which i quoted the much disputed elections. It was unfair since the results of the elections was not upheld,that i must concede.But what i am trying to say rather is that it was a free election before the breaking of that good faith by the bolsdheviks.Therefore,communists are capable of holding free elections,but whether they choose to uphold the results,is another thing though it is important they do.Do you get me Grieg?

Which,in conclusion,would simply mean,if the South had held elections and won but that the North betrayed the confidence,then yes,the north deserved to get their butts whooped.

To which i must say that it came from the notes in which i studied.And those notes are provided by my lecturers.And that those information have been examined for the last few decades under the Cambridge system.

Then i must apologise.Let me get something straight first. A democratic system does allow for the rights and creation of parties isn't it? And as a democractic country under a democratic system,the country should not be able to violate the political rights and sovereinty of a country?

Isn't tat what i was saying in my previous post?That China would open up and so usher in success?(arguably)
And i did said at the end that this was of course hypothethical that Vietnam,which it has to a certain extent , follow China's route ?Now that i say it,how silly of me to say it's hypothethical when it has happened.
I have nothing against capitalism,in fact i like money. But communism at it's purest is impossible which then,should allow for more modified forms of communism. Afterall,isn't the democratic system adaptable?(You realise this is off topic but what the heck....)

And of course,famines were common only until recently in Southeast asia..Which makes me grateful for my government

 

it seems that in sinapore they might be teaching a rather whitewashed veiw of communism.all communist regiemes have always been totalitarian ,repressive and mostly murderous to their own citizens.many hundreds of thousands of chinese,eastern european,russian,cambodian ,cuban and vietnamese have perished trying to flee thier various "utopias".they are pretty much happy to flee to anywhere to escape their benevolent comrades.we in america did our best to stop these wonderful peoples liberation armys from winning anymore real estate,anywhere in the world.we ,in our own self intrest,propped up dictators and kings and sheiks we saw this as the lesser of the two evils.much as we helped stalin and chang kai shek.to stop hitler and the ija.the fact that the viets hate the chinese means little to us.the viets also hate the thais and cambodians and the montenyards and the huomonge...if the viet cong carrie ak47s and wear red stars,we got it pretty well figured out who is runnin them.as it turned out viet nam was a bad gamble for the u.s.,we didnt know that in 1965.oh well ,win some lose some....isnt it wonderful for the rest of the world that the silly yanks were willing to spill their blood and treasure to contain the peace loving commisars.