Do you not also base your opinions on the same thing? We all are influenced by such things, and form our views through hear-say, books, education, experiences, whatever. I'm no different from you, and like you said I cannot assume you know what you're talking about and you can't assume I don't know what I'm talking about, or vice versa. We're just different.
I'm aware of Obama and Oprah being the exceptions to the rule, and in that lies the problem. I still think biologically, psychologically, black people, Asians, whoever are capable of anything. However, we do not all necessarily receive the same opportunities, and that is where the differences often lie.
I think it's completely untrue that nobody lives a rural, underdeveloped lifestyle by choice; that is a huge generalization. I have no doubt that there are many tribes where if we started giving them Ipads and cars they would tell us to get the hell out and leave them be. Some people would argue that these tribes simply haven't been exposed to the luxuries of life, and thus don't know any better than their primitive ways. But how about the homeless people on the streets of San Francisco, where I now live? They know what they could have if they applied themselves, but they choose that nomadic, homeless lifestyle. These people aren't so incapable of intelligent thought that they don't know what they're missing out on.
Once again, as I said before IQ is not the golden determination of intelligence, and I refuse to use those tests as a way to judge between different races. Those tests have all sorts of strange questions, ones that people in the ghetto or who live certain lifestyles around the world might not understand or have the same answers that a person in a developed society would have. A villager may know how to skin a rabbit, while I do not. I may know how to use a library database, while they do not. That doesn't reflect intelligence.
I do not believe it was right to spit on the soldiers who returned, though I would appreciate if you didn't single out the Bay Area and San Francisco as a bunch of disrespectful piles of garbage. Nor should you ever, ever include me in a group that would spit on or disrespect a single human being on this Earth. Frankly, you don't know me, as I don't know you. This is where I've grown up, and though there are some extreme views we are often very respectful and intelligent. I don't care if you disagree with liberal viewpoints, that's perfectly fine, as I disagree with some too, but you have to show them respect, as they have to show you respect. Calling them "liberhoids" or "libbies" and all that junk is completely unproductive. (Not saying you do this, but many people posting do.)
That being said, let's not pretend there were not great atrocities committed by our troops. Let's also never forget the crimes committed by the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, and Khmer Rouge. I'm aware of the story of boat people, as I grew up with their children. They came to America because America OFFERED to take them in in order to gain sympathy for the U.S. government's operations in Vietnam. America had specific programs aimed at bringing over Vietnamese refugees, spreading them all throughout the country.
How different are they really though? Ho Chi Minh's followers? They felt they could solve problems with violence, as do we. Are we to judge right and wrong in Vietnam by who committed MORE atrocities? Hypothetically, if our troops committed 20% of civilian deaths (a random number) and the Viet Cong committed 80%, are we really on the moral high ground? I think the Vietnamese villagers wouldn't want either one of us there and just want to be left alone.
We're all the same. We are all victims of this ideology that this world will be a better place if we just kill the right people. Personally, I actually liked Ho Chi Minh, as a leader anyways, not necessarily his actions or the nefarious killings of his followers and such. The man just wanted independence in Vietnam, and a unified Vietnam. I agree with the ends, not so much the means. All in all, the Diem regime in South Vietnam supported by the U.S. government was no better though. They did things just as bad as the North Vietnamese.
And Trayvon Martin is a whole other story, but he was just a young kid caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not jumping on that bandwagon of support for him, but I do feel that Zimmerman was guilty of SOME crime. I just do not feel rioting and breaking windows is the right way of expressing my feelings. However, some people in this world know no other way of making their voices heard, and resort to things like that to get attention. Terrorists are the same way. We must not condone the rioters in Oakland and elsewhere, but try to understand them, just as we must try to understand all crime in this world and the underlying factors.
Obviously I have been around much longer than you, and have obviously read and studied a much more diverse body of information than you have. I have a much better understanding how the system works in the liberal controlled world. The major media is virtually all controlled by leftist liberals. They edit what is seen on the news, what is printed not only in the press, but what is placed in all the textbooks that are placed in most puplic schools, such as they are in CA. The liberal progressives will crow about how diverse they are, but conservative and Christian viewpoints or leadship are not hardly tolerated.
I try to hold all people of all groups to the same standards, even if I know some won't attain it. I don't give a free pass to Conservative Christian leader just because I like where he is coming from. As you should, by your admission of thinking someone like Ho Chi Mihn is "likable." If neo-communism is your religion, it requires much faith, like all the other religions. I would bet the limited information you have on Uncle Ho is from the far-Left. Really, if you are so hot about not being biased, you should judge Richard Nixon to the same moral standard as Uncle Ho. You judge a person's righteousness on his actioins and behavior. Giving communists a free pass is just what the liberal intelligentsia has been doing for 90 years. Anyway, because President Nixon didn't do any of the following makes him less savage, and a better person:
The terror had its real beginning when Red dictator Ho Chi Minh consolidated his power in the North. More than a year before his 1954 victory over the French, he launched a savage campaign against his own people. In virtually every North Vietnamese village, strong-arm squads assembled the populace to witness the “confessions” of landowners. As time went on, businessmen, intellectuals, school teachers, civic leaders — all who represented a potential source of future opposition — were also rounded up and forced to “confess” to “errors of thought.” There followed public “trials,” conviction and, in many cases, execution. People were shot, beheaded, beaten to death; some were tied up, thrown into open graves and covered with stones until they were crushed to death, Ho has renewed his terror in North Vietnam periodically. Between 50,000 and 100,000 are believed to have died in these blood-baths — in a coldly calculated effort to discipline the party and the masses. To be sure, few who escape Ho’s terror now seem likely to tempt his wrath. During the 1950s, however, he had to quell some sizeable uprisings in North Vietnam — most notably one that occurred in early November 1956, in the An province, which included Ho’s birthplace village of Nam Dan. So heavily had he taxed the region that the inhabitants finally banded together and refused to meet his price. Ho sent troops to collect, and then sent in an army division, shooting. About 6,000 unarmed villagers were killed. The survivors scattered, some escaping to the South. The slaughter went largely unnoticed by a world then preoccupied with the Soviet Union’s rape of Hungary
The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh
North Vietnam’s treatment of American airmen shot down and captured over North Vietnam was a subject of controversy and concern throughout the Vietnam War. From the very beginning of the war, North Vietnam’s stated position was that American prisoners captured in North Vietnam were “war criminals” who had committed crimes against the North Vietnamese people in the course of an illegal war of aggression and that therefore the American prisoners were not entitled to the privileges and rights granted to prisoners of war (POW) under the terms of the Geneva Convention. The North Vietnamese refused to provide the International Red Cross with the names of Americans who were being held prisoner in North Vietnam and did not allow regular inspection visits by the International Red Cross to ensure that the prisoners were being treated properly in accordance with the terms of the 1947 Geneva Convention on POWs.
e-Dossier No. 30 - Treatment of American POWs in North Vietnam | Wilson Center
I won't even cover the volumes of atrocities Mr. Stalin did, but our leftist media and leaders liked him so much better than Hitler, that almost all the savagery he ordered has been swept up under the rug.
Like Lenin, do you say, "The ends justify the means?"
Try not to ignore the diplomatic nature with which I place my comments. That is, I do not present anything as fact, and I admit I, as well as others, have my biases and that even if I do like SOME things about Ho Chi Minh, not whoever the hell "Uncle Ho" is, I do not agree with the violence. I am simply, like you said, holding everyone, and that includes the U.S., to the same standard. I am not some naive child who couldn't possibly know anything about the world. I have very, very much to learn, but I do not see Ho Chi Minh as a hero in the same way I don't see John F. Kennedy as a hero, or most presidents for that matter. They have some good ideas, and some bad ideas; their commonality is that they all believe committing violent acts in order to achieve peace, which I fundamentally disagree with.
Though I would hope that countries would respect things like the Geneva Convention, those laws on human rights and the rules of war only apply to signatories. I personally do not know whether Hanoi signed on to the treaty, but I seriously doubt a territory that few recognized as a sovereign, functioning area would be able to sign onto such a document. If you want to talk about morality, the United States never signed the Geneva Accord that prohibits indiscriminate bombing of an urban population. Thus, it is each country's decision how they want to handle prisoner's of war and rules of war. Though the United States indeed treats our prisoners quite well in our current wars (mostly), during Vietnam I have no doubt we crossed the line a number of different times.
My personal views on POWs are that it's silly to provide rules as to how they're treated. That may sound offensive to some of you, but what I mean is this. I HOPE they're treated humanely and kept in good condition. But realistically, why would our enemy logically care if they treat theire ENEMY well? This is war, and if in Vietnam we can just burn the hell out of half their country with Napalm, chemicals, and landmines, I think they can rough up some prisoners. Once again; same standard.
It seems to me you are too paranoid about liberal control of media outlets. For instance, CNN and MSNBC are quite liberal, especially MSNBC. However, Fox is notoriously more conservative, and many, MANY, people watch all of those networks. So I see no liberal bias, and if there is, that's more just a genuine social change than a bunch of "libs" behind the scenes pulling the strings; seems a bit elaborate. Once again, I'm not a liberal, and do not wish for you to lump me into that category, nor into a category with democrats.
For the record, I think Stalin was much worse than Hitler. If not just by the numbers (he killed millions more than Hitler), he was also hugely paranoid and committed incredible atrocities against his own people. I do not mean to say that you are wrong about your particular points, but you must not lump people into the same categories. There are very few absolute truths in this world, or absolute falsehoods. Not all liberals believe that Stalin was a good guy (in fact I've never met one).
And no, the ends do not justify the means. I was simply saying that I AGREE with the ends and disagree with the means. Thus, I meant just the opposite.
I'm curious though as to your dislike towards Communists. Is it because of the dictatorships you have witnessed throughout the years that "claim" they follow such an ideology, or is it the teachings themselves? I am not completely well-versed in the theory, but Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc. did not take their horrible actions directly out of the Karl Marx handbook as far as I know.
Try not to brag so much about your own accomplishments; a little humility goes a long way. I do not deny you have been around longer, or that you have probably done a lot of reading. But we often state opinions here, some backed up by facts and others backed up by bias. Thus, I would appreciate if you just state it plainly and avoid talking down to me or others. People don't particularly enjoy being belittled.
