Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’d go back to Aug 17, 1964 and make sure the Gulf of Tonkin resolution— which started us into the Vietnam was— was never signed. That was a tragedy on so many levels, both domestic, internationally, and for many folks, individually. It led directly to Nixon, Watergate, and an ongoing distrust of politicians, resulted in thousands of vets who emerged physically and mentally sick (some of whom are homeless on our streets now), created huge rifts in our
social fabric that are still with us, and weakened the nation in the eyes of foreign enemies. I think America would be a much better place now if we hadn’t fought in Nam.
If you want to use post WW II Indochina as a point for change, better off starting immediately at war end and in China.
Roosevelt, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek agreed that Indochina should be put into UN trusteeship towards independence. After Roosevelt died and Truman took over, there was no reason for Truman to deviate, after all, the US was never a colonial power in Asia. Then Ho Chi Minh and Jean Sainteny made an agreement that France would recognize the Viet Minh as power in Viet Nam and that Viet Nam would be a semi-autonomous member in the French Union, in return, the Viet Minh would support France's return to Viet Nam. Basically, France and the Viet Minh stabbed the US in the back.
Once the Viet Minh eliminated the other nationalists, they turned on France. By that time, Mao won the Chinese civil war and answered Ho's call for assistance. The rest is history, as they said.
The critical point is not the Ho-Sainteny Agreement but the Chinese civil war. Remove the Chinese communists and the Ho-Sainteny Agreement would collapse under US pressure.
I saw Halifax [Lord Halifax, British ambassador to the United States] last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country-thirty million inhabitants for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.
As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek [of China] and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of IndoChina.
Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of Indo-China is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of IndoChina are entitled to something better than that.
Britain would not openly support France's return to Indochina because if Chiang Kai-shek won the Chinese civil war, there would be open civil war between the four allies: Britain and France against the US and China. At that time, the US Navy was the only power on the waters and would have been able to quash all colonialist return to Asia.
Make sure the Chinese civil war turn the other way, and the alternative world would be much different than we know of this one.
That requires strength of character and great courage to engage in direct up close and personal confrontation that way. Mano a mano. But a stick that you point from a distance and squeeze a little trigger on it to kill things? Pfft. That doesn't call for courage, it is rather cowardly, lazy and weak.
.
Courage includes a steep price for being so.
Some version of the crossbow or other stored energy weapon would have taken the place of the bullet had firearms not been invented.
if there was a way to prevent slavery in the early 1600
As a black man, I disagree.
There are 50 million current African Americans that would have been born in Africa, or not at all, if it wasn’t for the importation of 200K Africans sold by African chiefs. No other developed country on earth has a 13% black population.
If you don’t like America that’s fine, but I do. And slavery has the ironic silver lining of making me a modern American. And last I checked, I haven’t seen any mass exodus of 50 million black Americans trying to go to Liberia. (A place in Africa designated for black Americans to return to).
Maybe in another world I’m born a rich white or Asian man, but in this world I was born black. And there’s no other country where being born black has the same amount of opportunities as America.
There are 50 million current African Americans that would have been born in Africa, or not at all, if it wasn’t for the importation of 200K Africans sold by African chiefs. No other developed country on earth has a 13% black population.
If you don’t like America that’s fine, but I do. And slavery has the ironic silver lining of making me a modern American. And last I checked, I haven’t seen any mass exodus of 50 million black Americans trying to go to Liberia. (A place in Africa designated for black Americans to return to).
Maybe in another world I’m born a rich white or Asian man, but in this world I was born black. And there’s no other country where being born black has the same amount of opportunities as America.
It's nice to see a black man expressing his appreciation for this country rather than with a victim mentality and resentment over past racism. Has racism towards blacks disappeared completely? Of course not but as the saying goes "we've come a long ways, baby".
Kudos to blacks like you that have made something of their lives and took advantage of the opportunities that this country has offered you rather than sitting around whining, living off the public dole with a big chip on your shoulder.
I’d go back to Aug 17, 1964 and make sure the Gulf of Tonkin resolution— which started us into the Vietnam was— was never signed. That was a tragedy on so many levels, both domestic, internationally, and for many folks, individually. It led directly to Nixon, Watergate, and an ongoing distrust of politicians, resulted in thousands of vets who emerged physically and mentally sick (some of whom are homeless on our streets now), created huge rifts in our
social fabric that are still with us, and weakened the nation in the eyes of foreign enemies. I think America would be a much better place now if we hadn’t fought in Nam.
uhm.. we were in Vietnam since 1954 assisting the French.
we had combat troops there since 1957, our first loss of life was 1957
and what started Vietnam was the splitting up of the country by FDR, Churchill, and Stalin in 1945
so if you wanted to stop a Vietnam war/conflict.... you need to go back and tell FDR, not to give in to Stalin's demands and stupidly split 3 countries in half (Korea, Vietnam, and Germany)
I would have these white men include women, and every other minority, in the Constitution to give them the same rights these men had.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and when I meet Thomas Jefferson, I'ma compel him to include women in the sequel!"--Angelica Schuyler, "Hamilton"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
