Pattern Recognition

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . there arn't a million at a pop risking very likely death to boat away from here.>>

As a percentage of the general population, the boat people are barely a blip. Considering that the Vietnamese lost 2 million dead in their national struggle against foreign occupation, those lousy scum who had collaborated with the American invaders against their own countrymen had much to fear.  It is no surprise to anyone that they would want to risk their sorry ass at sea rather than face the righteous vengeance of their own people for their treasonous actions.

The boat people were right to flee.  In the wake of the Allied invasion of France, some 40,000 French collaborators with the Nazi occupation lost their lives to the French Resistance, executed on street corners and in public squares.  Had they been able to flee to a safe refuge by boat, I'm sure they would have done so, but I hardly think that their desperate flight by sea would have found anyone credulous or foolish enough to take it as proof that the end of the Nazi occupation had been a catastrophe for the French people.

[Plane]

<< . . . there arn't a million at a pop risking very likely death to boat away from here.>>

As a percentage of the general population, the boat people are barely a blip. Considering that the Vietnamese lost 2 million dead in their national struggle against foreign occupation, those lousy scum who had collaborated with the American invaders against their own countrymen had much to fear.  It is no surprise to anyone that they would want to risk their sorry ass at sea rather than face the righteous vengeance of their own people for their treasonous actions.

The boat people were right to flee.  In the wake of the Allied invasion of France, some 40,000 French collaborators with the Nazi occupation lost their lives to the French Resistance, executed on street corners and in public squares.  Had they been able to flee to a safe refuge by boat, I'm sure they would have done so, but I hardly think that their desperate flight by sea would have found anyone credulous or foolish enough to take it as proof that the end of the Nazi occupation had been a catastrophe for the French people.

How can there be a rightiousness in vengence that decimates ones own people?

Many people have died for Communisms sake ,Communism not being deserveing of a single one of these.

As I have recently been told dieing for a looseing cause is being a smuck.

[Michael Tee]

<<How can there be a rightiousness in vengence that decimates ones own people?>>

Nobody "decimated" anyone.  Unless I'm missing some basic math skill, the 40,000 French collaborators executed by the French Resistance after the Liberation were not a tenth of the population; I'm pretty sure there were more than 400,000 French men and women in 1944, and I'm pretty sure that the number of treasonous scum found amongst the Vietnamese people was nowhere near a tenth of the population either.  So, historically speaking, I think we have to find another word than "decimate" unless it's agreed to be some kind of metaphor for what really happened.

What is righteous about one's own people executing the enemies of the people among them?  Maybe if you were a Vietnamese whose relatives were tortured to death by the Americans in Operation Phoenix or crippled for life by their incarceration in the "Tiger Cages" or napalmed by U.S. aircraft, or massacred in pits at My Lai, you would not have to ask such a dopey question when those collaborators who supported the American invaders and their puppets were finally brought forward to face the people's justice.  But I think most people understood who exactly were fleeing from the righteous vengeance of the Vietnamese people and why they were doing so.  Very few people were taken in by the corporate  MSM's absurd claims of "Boat People" seeking "freedom" in the West.  All actions have consequences, they were attempting to escape the consequences of theirs.  Unfortunately, many of them succeeded.

<<Many people have died for Communisms sake ,Communism not being deserveing of a single one of these.>>

You have your opinion and the martyrs have theirs.  They believed in a cause and died for it.  Did the cause later betray their faith?  Possibly.  But that doesn't mean that the cause was bad, only that it had been taken over by bad people.  Look at how many times America has fallen short of the ideals of those who died for it.  Doesn't mean that America was not deserving of a single life of those who fell.  Your judgments are remarkably one-sided and prejudiced, blindly, so that you don't even see the bias there.

<<As I have recently been told dieing for a looseing cause is being a smuck.>>

What I said was that dying for an unjust and immoral cause is being a schmuck.  Those who died in the invasions and occupations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, died in immoral, unjust and illegal causes and are therefore schmucks.

[BT]

What I said was that dying for an unjust and immoral cause is being a schmuck.  Those who died in the invasions and occupations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, died in immoral, unjust and illegal causes and are therefore schmucks.

Schmuckiness apparently is widespread. The Chinese who died in Korea and the Soviets who died in Hungary and Czechoslovakia as well as the Cubans in Angola all meet that criteria.

[Michael Tee]

Chinese died in Korea to prevent the takeover of a fellow socialist state by American imperialism. 

Red Army troops killed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were a tiny handful, not even worth discussing.  More American soldiers die every year in non-combat operations.Many of the Hungarian rebels were fascist anti-Semites, and the Red Army was doing God's work in killing them off.  You should read the Soviet White Book, a multi-volume work detailing the atrocities committed by the Hungarian fascist movement in 1956, but unfortunately this is never gonna be made availabhle to the American public.     

Angola was a battle on behalf of socialist revolutionaries against stooges backed by white racist South Africans and the U.S.A. - - every Cuban soldier who fell there died a hero in the fight against racism and fascism.

[BT]

Chinese died in Korea to prevent the takeover of a fellow socialist state by American imperialism. 

Red Army troops killed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were a tiny handful, not even worth discussing.  More American soldiers die every year in non-combat operations.Many of the Hungarian rebels were fascist anti-Semites, and the Red Army was doing God's work in killing them off.  You should read the Soviet White Book, a multi-volume work detailing the atrocities committed by the Hungarian fascist movement in 1956, but unfortunately this is never gonna be made availabhle to the American public.     

Angola was a battle on behalf of socialist revolutionaries against stooges backed by white racist South Africans and the U.S.A. - - every Cuban soldier who fell there died a hero in the fight against racism and fascism.

So i guess unjust, illegal and immoral are in the yes of the beholder and subjective at best.

[Michael Tee]

<<So i guess unjust, illegal and immoral are in the yes of the beholder and subjective at best. >>

You wish!  It would excuse every fucking crime and atrocity that your country has committed since the end of the Second World War.

Unfortunately for you, there are binding legal treaties, such as the Charter of the UN, the UN Convention Against Torture and Cruel and Unusual Punishment, the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Prisoners, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of the Organization of American States among others, to which reference can be had in case of doubt.

But yes, there is a subjective element here - - most legal scholars of reputable standing would have to interpret those treaties in a way that the U.S.A. would be found in violation of all of them, whereas eminent legal scholars such as John Yoo have different opinions, probably that the U.S. has violated none of them.  There is an International Court of Justice to whose jurisdiction the U.S. has stubbornly refused to submit, which could easily resolve such differences of opinion.

Personally, the refusal of the U.S. to submit its version of conflicting interpretations of international law to a court which the U.S. itself took a leading role in founding, tells me all I need to know about the validity of the U.S. position with regard to any and all alleged violations of law by the U.S.  There is nothing at all "subjective" about the injustice, immorality or illegality of the U.S. actions over the past 65 years, just a disgraceful perversion of the law or outright defiance, masked over poorly by the shyster opinions of a few government hack lawyers without even the fig-leaf of a submission to the World Court for a final determination.

[BT]

Perhaps you can remind me as to when the Soviets went before the world court for Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Chinese for their invasion of Korea.

[sirs]

Ahh, but BT, they were "justified" in those actions.  No need to take anything to the World Court....they were trying to stamp out those evil imperialist Americans and their puppet takeovers.  Didn't you get the memo?

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps you can remind me as to when the Soviets went before the world court for Hungary and Czechoslovakia . . . >>

So at least you admit that the U.S. invasions of Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic and Panama (to name but a few) were as criminal and immoral as you consider the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia to have been?

<< . . . and the Chinese for their invasion of Korea. >>

Same response, plus which I'm not sure they didn't actually step into Korea at the invitation of the North Korean government whose forces were unable to prevent the American invaders from driving through their country to the Chinese border.

[BT]

So at least you admit that the U.S. invasions of Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic and Panama (to name but a few) were as criminal and immoral as you consider the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia to have been?

I admit nothing. You are the one who set the bar of appearing before the world court to ascertain legitimacy.

I'm just wondering if that would be a universal requirement or only for those governments you disapprove of.

Same response, plus which I'm not sure they didn't actually step into Korea at the invitation of the North Korean government whose forces were unable to prevent the American invaders from driving through their country to the Chinese border.

If being invited bestows legitimacy, the the US involvement in Viet Nam was as legitimate as it can get. South Viet Nam was a member of the South Asian Treaty Organization, modeled after NATO.

[sirs]

Same response, plus which I'm not sure they didn't actually step into Korea at the invitation of the North Korean government whose forces were unable to prevent the American invaders from driving through their country to the Chinese border.

If being invited bestows legitimacy, the the US involvement in Viet Nam was as legitimate as it can get. South Viet Nam was a member of the South Asian Treaty Organization, modeled after NATO.

D'oh       

[Plane]

Chinese died in Korea to prevent the takeover of a fellow socialist state by American imperialism. 

Socialist state survived mission accomplished

Korean people decimated several times mission accomplished.


People of Korea enslaved , starved kept in state of ignorance inside of large prison mission accomplished.

Large number  of Chineese draftees die in complete smuckhood  mission____________?


As Soviet state is worth more than any number of persons?

[Michael Tee]

<<I admit nothing. You are the one who set the bar of appearing before the world court to ascertain legitimacy.>>

Fair enough.  You don't draw any adverse inference against a country that refuses to submit its actions to the World Court's scrutiny because none of the big players will do that.  However of all the big players, it is the U.S.A. only that pats itself endlessly on the back for its devotion to the rule of law and it was the U.S.A. that took the lead in the founding of the World Court.   Therefore I find it particularly suspicious that this one country, supposedly so devoted to the Rule of Law, exempts its own action from the scrutiny of the court that it itself took the lead in founding.

<<I'm just wondering if that would be a universal requirement or only for those governments you disapprove of.>>

Nope, just the hypocritical bullshit U.S.A.. for the reasons stated above.


<<If being invited bestows legitimacy, the the US involvement in Viet Nam was as legitimate as it can get. South Viet Nam was a member of the South Asian Treaty Organization, modeled after NATO.>>

South-East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an organization bought and paid for by the U.S.A. and could confer no legitimacy on any government.  South Vietnam was not created as a country, but as one of two zones of Viet Nam, the north half of which had a democratically elected Communist government led by Ho Chi Minh, and the south half of which was, by the treaty that created it, obligated to hold elections within a stated period of the separation, for national leadership.  The U.S. government took over the sponsorship of the southern government from the French and encouraged it NOT to hold free elections, on the grounds frankly admitted by Eisenhower, that in a free election, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote.  With U.S. backing the former French puppets then declared themselves an independent nation and attempted to repress the will of their own people for unification with the north, ultimately of course failing spectacularly.  They were never a legitimate nation, membership in an organization of U.S. puppet states and collaborators could not confer legitimacy upon them and there was no way that any invitation they extended could have any legitimacy at all, particularly when the invitation was to the very power that had backed it and encouraged it not to hold the elections that the founding treaty obligated them to hold.

[BT]

Funny how legitimacy comes and goes. Take for example Iraq, a sovereign country illegally invaded by the US, except that is was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the British and its existence was dependent on the sponsor states to whom it sold its oil. So how did we illegally invade an illegitamate state whose existence was determined by the stroke of a pen, much like Viet Nam .