Doctor Fate wrote:Ho Chi Minh was a nice man?

No, he was not. Who said that he was? Who said anything more than that he had (and this is a matter of record) cited the Declaration of Independence?

You seem to deal only in extremes - one can either throw brickbats, or one can praise, but nothing in between.

No one argued against normalization of relations with Vietnam. It's about Ho.

Rubbish. It's about Obama. Any other President could do exactly the same and you'd not bat an eye-lid. Well, any Republican one could, at least.

(Tom - so when you opposed Bush's fiscal policies, that included refusing your tax cuts, right?)

GMTom wrote:I had no "big" issue with the patriot act from the start and still have little issue with it so you would not have seen anything from me.

well, yes, I seem to recall you also condone torture so I'm not hugely surprised.

But how about the liberals here and everywhere else who DID have a problem with it under Bush but suddenly are now quiet? They were hopping mad with it under Bush but now barely make a sound!

Apart from all the complaining on the internet.

And Bush, I was NEVER accepting of his fiscal position, nope, never was.

It was a throwaway before, but I re-iterate the point - I assume you were vocally opposed to the tax cuts that helped to exacerbate the fiscal position? And the War in Iraq that soaked up billions?

Only I don't remember seeing it at the time.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Ho Chi Minh was a nice man?

No, he was not. Who said that he was? Who said anything more than that he had (and this is a matter of record) cited the Declaration of Independence?

You seem to deal only in extremes - one can either throw brickbats, or one can praise, but nothing in between.

Put a sock in it.

I was responding to the dribble rickyp had posted. He shifted the field of play, so I felt free to ask whatever I liked. We went from "Did Obama compliment Ho?" to " The normalization of affairs between the US and Viet nam has been going on for several decades." It was rubbish.

No one argued against normalization of relations with Vietnam. It's about Ho.

Rubbish. It's about Obama. Any other President could do exactly the same and you'd not bat an eye-lid. Well, any Republican one could, at least.

No Republican would do what Obama did.

(Tom - so when you opposed Bush's fiscal policies, that included refusing your tax cuts, right?)

Just like all the liberal fat-cats who pay extra without demanding everyone else do so . . . oh wait, there are none of those.

Doctor Fate wrote:Put a sock in it.

Magnanimous as ever, DF. Which charm school did you graduate from again?

I was responding to the dribble rickyp had posted. He shifted the field of play, so I felt free to ask whatever I liked. We went from "Did Obama compliment Ho?" to " The normalization of affairs between the US and Viet nam has been going on for several decades." It was rubbish.

Well, first of all, I've not seen that Obama did compliment Ho. And as it was part of a meeting between the US and Vietnam, which is involved in the process of normalising relations, I'm not sure why you think it 'rubbish'. Looks to me more like placing things into context.

Talking to the leader of the Vietnamese is part of the normalisation. Talking about something they have in common (and a struggle for independence from a European colonial power is a point of commonality) is not beyond the pale. Mentioning the name of a revolutionary leader in Vietnam, and what they'd said about the revolutionary leaders in the USA is not the same as lauding him or excusing anything else he ever did.

No one argued against normalization of relations with Vietnam. It's about Ho.

Rubbish. It's about Obama. Any other President could do exactly the same and you'd not bat an eye-lid. Well, any Republican one could, at least.

No Republican would do what Obama did.

Nixon in China, meeting up with mass-murderer Mao? I guess chatting with a killer of tens of millions is better than chatting about the killer of perhaps a million. Please don't employ the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on that one, it's embarrassing.

What about having joint military exercises with the Vietnamese - Is that more or less of an insult to fallen US troops than a comment about a discussion? The first took place in 2007.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Put a sock in it.

Magnanimous as ever, DF. Which charm school did you graduate from again?

I was responding to the dribble rickyp had posted. He shifted the field of play, so I felt free to ask whatever I liked. We went from "Did Obama compliment Ho?" to " The normalization of affairs between the US and Viet nam has been going on for several decades." It was rubbish.

Well, first of all, I've not seen that Obama did compliment Ho. And as it was part of a meeting between the US and Vietnam, which is involved in the process of normalising relations, I'm not sure why you think it 'rubbish'. Looks to me more like placing things into context.

Talking to the leader of the Vietnamese is part of the normalisation. Talking about something they have in common (and a struggle for independence from a European colonial power is a point of commonality) is not beyond the pale. Mentioning the name of a revolutionary leader in Vietnam, and what they'd said about the revolutionary leaders in the USA is not the same as lauding him or excusing anything else he ever did.

No one argued against normalization of relations with Vietnam. It's about Ho.

Rubbish. It's about Obama. Any other President could do exactly the same and you'd not bat an eye-lid. Well, any Republican one could, at least.

No Republican would do what Obama did.

Nixon in China, meeting up with mass-murderer Mao? I guess chatting with a killer of tens of millions is better than chatting about the killer of perhaps a million. Please don't employ the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on that one, it's embarrassing.

What about having joint military exercises with the Vietnamese - Is that more or less of an insult to fallen US troops than a comment about a discussion? The first took place in 2007.

None of that has anything to do with whether Ho was inspired by our Founders. He says he was; the evidence says he was lying. You may believe him. It's your right.

I don't know that it has been shown that Ho Chi Minh was lying when he said he had been inspired by the Founders . He was trying to found an independent country out of a colony of France (the U.s. was founded in a rebellion against a colonial power). So it would not be surprising that he would look to the U.S for inspiration. He was dealing with the fact that the French thought the Vietnamese were inferior and not able to govern themselves, so the words of equality and universal things would have been inspirational. He could have been inspired by them to a certain extent and become a brutal dictatator--those two notions are not necessarily contradictorily. In 1919 he was part of a Vietnamese group, citing the Declaration of Independence, that petitioned Woodrow Wilson to have the French give up colonial rule in France. It is not clear that at this time Ho Chi Minh (interesting that he lived in the US for 1912-1913 and Great Britain from 1913-1917 or perhaps 1919) had become a Communist. I do not doubt that Hi Chi Minh looked at The Declaration if Independence and saw language that was against colonialization. The fact that he used brutal measures as a Communist leader/dictator does not the change the fact that as a young man he could have read the Declaration of Independence and saw words of universal rights and equality that contradicted French rule of Vietnam.

freeman - of course it hasn't. There are plenty of examples of people who were inspired by the American Independence movement but who were later dictators or responsible for the deaths of many. Bolivar and Robespierre are obvious early examples.

It should be a point of pride that America has inspired so many to throw off colonial masters.

fate

Nixon in China, meeting up with mass-murderer Mao? I guess chatting with a killer of tens of millions is better than chatting about the killer of perhaps a million. Please don't employ the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on that one, it's embarrassing

Well, how about shaking hands and trading with Saddam Hussein.
Financing the Death Squads in Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador...partly by trading with the enemy..(Iran).
The context of what you complain about : Obama politely listening to a Vietnamese politician ...
is dwarfed by the comparison with genuine involvement by Americvan Presidents with various dubious character and actual involvement in various democidal acts.
If you did not suffer so completely from Obama Derangement Syndrome you might recognize the scale. Or perhaps your memory is entirely selective when it comes to the historical record?

Your historical understanding of VietNam could obviously use a little remedial work too. The US had plenty of opportunities to take the side of Ho and later the Viet Minh before they became a fundamentally Communist organization but chose to ignore Ho's direct pleas. What was originally a war of national liberation became Communist only because the US chose the side of the colonial powers, and later replaced them. That the current Vietnamese politicians still allude to the inspirational power of the US revolution despite this history is actually rather remarkable. It seems they are able to separate the ideal from actual experience and understand the difference.

He joined in a group of Vietnamese nationalists in Paris whose leaders were Phan Chu Trinh and Phan Văn Trường, bearing a new name Nguyễn Ái Quốc (“Nguyễn the Patriot”). Following World War I, the group petitioned for recognition of the civil rights of the Vietnamese people in French Indochina to the Western powers at the Versailles peace talks, but was ignored.[11] Citing the language and the spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, they expected U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to help remove the French colonial rule from Vietnam and ensure the formation of a new, nationalist government. Although they were unable to obtain consideration at Versailles, the failure further radicalized Nguyễn, while also making him a symbol of the anti-colonial movement at home in Vietnam.[12

]

rickyp wrote:fate

Nixon in China, meeting up with mass-murderer Mao? I guess chatting with a killer of tens of millions is better than chatting about the killer of perhaps a million. Please don't employ the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on that one, it's embarrassing

Well, how about shaking hands and trading with Saddam Hussein.
Financing the Death Squads in Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador...partly by trading with the enemy..(Iran).

Nice argument . . . I guess . . . but you're not arguing against me. I didn't say what you quote me as saying.

The context of what you complain about : Obama politely listening to a Vietnamese politician ...
is dwarfed by the comparison with genuine involvement by Americvan Presidents with various dubious character and actual involvement in various democidal acts.

No, Obama listening was fine. Obama speaking was something else. And, stop engaging in "whataboutery."

If you did not suffer so completely from Obama Derangement Syndrome you might recognize the scale. Or perhaps your memory is entirely selective when it comes to the historical record?

If you did not suffer so completely from Doctor Fate Derangement Syndrome you might notice your quote was from someone else and not me. Please pay the receptionist on your way out.

Your historical understanding of VietNam could obviously use a little remedial work too. The US had plenty of opportunities to take the side of Ho and later the Viet Minh before they became a fundamentally Communist organization but chose to ignore Ho's direct pleas.

Your historical understanding is funny. No mention of the Cold War.

Ho was a Communist before Vietnam declared its independence.

Please do try to be coherent.

What was originally a war of national liberation became Communist only because the US chose the side of the colonial powers, and later replaced them.

Just wrong.

Việt Minh (About this sound listen; abbreviated from Việt Nam Ðộc Lập Ðồng Minh Hội, English "League for the Independence of Vietnam") was a communist national independence coalition formed at Pac Bo on May 19, 1941.

If you're going to pretend to be a history prof, do try to have a clue.

Thanks.

Now, please make sure to schedule a follow-up, won't you? There's a good lad.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nice argument . . . I guess . . . but you're not arguing against me. I didn't say what you quote me as saying.

No, it was me. Ricky - please actually read stuff, huh? It helps a bit.

No, Obama listening was fine. Obama speaking was something else. And, stop engaging in "whataboutery."

Hmm. While you did not write the words ricky quoted, you did say

No Republican would do what Obama did.

, and that is what I was responding to. If you are going to open the door on what Republican Presidents would do, don't get precious when someone responds. It's not "whataboutery" if you invite the comparison.

Nixon not only met Mao, he lauded Franco as a solid ally (we all remember how he stood with us against Fascism? Oh, no, he was a fascist dictator himself who at least didn't join the Axis during WWII but didn't help us either). As well as the famous quote from just after Franco's death "General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States. He earned worldwide respect for Spain through firmness and fairness." there was this fawning speech in 1970: Toasts of the President and General Francisco Franco of Spain at a State Dinner in Madrid

No mention of the Coup he lead in 1936, the brutal civil war that it spawned, the executions during and immediately after it, with the "White Terror" leading to the deaths of 200,000 civilians. And how does that respect the memory of the 700 Americans who died defending the Republic?

Here's Nixon being nice to Communist dictator Tito (who at least was on our side in WWII - as was Ho Chi Minh, but not Franco): Remarks of Welcome to President Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia

Bored of Nixon? yeah, well, I can see why Republicans might want to disown him. Here's Ronald Reagan on a guy who earlier this year was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice." - source

Wikipedia wrote:In 1982, an Amnesty International report estimated that over 10,000 indigenous Guatemalans and peasant farmers were killed from March to July of that year, and that 100,000 rural villagers were forced to flee their homes. According to more recent estimates, tens of thousands of non-combatants were killed by the regime's death squads in the subsequent eighteen months. At the height of the bloodshed under Ríos Montt, reports put the number of killings and disappearances at more than 3,000 per month.

Presidents of all colours have lauded murderers when it suits US interests. And they have done so far more clearly than Obama mentioning Ho Chi Minh.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nice argument . . . I guess . . . but you're not arguing against me. I didn't say what you quote me as saying.

No, it was me. Ricky - please actually read stuff, huh? It helps a bit.

No, Obama listening was fine. Obama speaking was something else. And, stop engaging in "whataboutery."

Hmm. While you did not write the words ricky quoted, you did say

No Republican would do what Obama did.

, and that is what I was responding to. If you are going to open the door on what Republican Presidents would do, don't get precious when someone responds. It's not "whataboutery" if you invite the comparison.

Right. I invited comparison with GOP Presidents discussing Ho.

I think I'm on solid ground.

Nixon not only met Mao, he lauded Franco as a solid ally (we all remember how he stood with us against Fascism?

It is "whataboutery." This has nothing to do with Ho Chi Minh.

Furthermore, again, one has to look at the times in which things are said. In the midst of the Cold War, many "allies" of dubious repute were kept for "the big picture." Whether that was good or not is a whole different kettle of fish than talking about Ho being inspired by the American Revolution now.

For example, if you were in a history class and an exam asked for an essay on "comparing and contrasting" what Nixon said about Franco and what Obama said about Ho, you would need about 15 cushions to make that bank shot.

That is why your point is "whataboutery."

Doctor Fate wrote:Right. I invited comparison with GOP Presidents discussing Ho.

I think I'm on solid ground.

Because Ho is somehow unique? Because while they may say nice stuff about Franco, Mao, Tito or Montt, those guys are in some way clearly different?

Nixon not only met Mao, he lauded Franco as a solid ally (we all remember how he stood with us against Fascism?

It is "whataboutery." This has nothing to do with Ho Chi Minh.

Lauding communist dictators is pretty much of a piece.

Furthermore, again, one has to look at the times in which things are said. In the midst of the Cold War, many "allies" of dubious repute were kept for "the big picture." Whether that was good or not is a whole different kettle of fish than talking about Ho being inspired by the American Revolution now.

Ah, so It Was OK In The Cold War.

Of course, it appears not to have crossed your mind that making friends with Vietnam now, a country that is reforming itself, has normalised trade relations and is increasing trade with the US, which shares concerns about China and regional terrorism, and which for the region has quite a pro-US population... might be about some 'bigger picture'.

For example, if you were in a history class and an exam asked for an essay on "comparing and contrasting" what Nixon said about Franco and what Obama said about Ho, you would need about 15 cushions to make that bank shot.

. Yep, because Nixon actually complimented the guy. All Obama did was talk about Ho, and we don't know what he actually said in that meeting.

All you are doing is demonstrating is the weakness of Obama's 'crime' over Ho, when you seek to make light of Nixon lauding openly a pal of Hitler and Mussolini.

That is why your point is "whataboutery."

This whole thread is an exercise in futility, frankly. You and the other people whipping up some innocuous comment into a big deal are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Turns out that for all kinds of reasons, Presidents (Dem or Rep) have said nice things about nasty people - far nicer and much more clearly complimentary than "we talked about....", but hey..

Obama did something, therefore it must be wrong.

danivon wrote:Because Ho is somehow unique? Because while they may say nice stuff about Franco, Mao, Tito or Montt, those guys are in some way clearly different?

Yes.

If I am wrong, please demonstrate that any of those were said to be inspired by the American Revolution by a Republican President.

This thread was very specific. You are simply trying to rescue rickyp from himself, which is quite admirable (he's incapable of doing so himself--as he repeatedly demonstrates). However, I did not start this thread to analyze the history of the United States and her sordid allies.

Lauding communist dictators is pretty much of a piece.

The time in which such comments are made matters.For example: if Obama had said those things in the 1960's, he'd been seen as a Jane Fonda-like radical.

Ah, so It Was OK In The Cold War.

I did not say that.

Of course, it appears not to have crossed your mind that making friends with Vietnam now, a country that is reforming itself, has normalised trade relations and is increasing trade with the US, which shares concerns about China and regional terrorism, and which for the region has quite a pro-US population... might be about some 'bigger picture'.

Which is fine, but nothing forced Obama to say what he did.

Please let me know when Obama gets a mutual defense treaty signed with Vietnam. That will be his first pro-America foreign policy accomplishment.

Yep, because Nixon actually complimented the guy. All Obama did was talk about Ho, and we don't know what he actually said in that meeting.

All you are doing is demonstrating is the weakness of Obama's 'crime' over Ho, when you seek to make light of Nixon lauding openly a pal of Hitler and Mussolini.

All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of the Cold War.

This whole thread is an exercise in futility, frankly. You and the other people whipping up some innocuous comment into a big deal are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Well then, what are you worried about?

Obama did something, therefore it must be wrong.

No, not quite. It's just that when he does something it inevitably turns out to be wrong.

I'm no cheerleader for Obama's foreign policy, which I think has been clumsy and counterproductive in a number of ways, but I honestly can't see any reason to get excited about this non-story. As others have pointed out in this thread, Ronald Reagan's administration sold arms to Iran so they could provide covert funding to murderous fascist death squads in Central America. Doesn't seem to prevent DF from kneeling at his altar, and we only need to look at the thread immediately below this one to see his views on Iran. The only difference (other than Reagan's actions being infinitely worse than Obama's words) would seem to be that Reagan did it in secret.

This is a ridiculous thread.

Sassenach wrote:This is a ridiculous thread.

It's funny.

You say that . . . but, you could not resist spending time on it. Danivon has wasted a lot of time.

Why?

From my original post, before the hijack attempts and whataboutery:

It's not the man; it's his policies and his worldview.

Obama's worldview is one in which the US is THE bad guy.

So, the reset button with Russia, the attempts to make peace with the Taliban, the dozens of offers to talk to Iran about their nuclear program (all rejected), the constant appeal to the UN, etc.

That's the point.

President Obama, "And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson."

I would love to read you all speculate about what parts of the DOI, the Constitution, and the writings of Jefferson, Ho found so moving. His means don't seem to have matched his inspiration, so maybe Ho said those things and . . . never meant them?

Yet, our President, this Man for the Ages, repeats it as if it is sacred writ. He has all the discernment of . . . well, a liberal whose sole accomplishment is duping people into believing he's a leader.