Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Either the French or Americans could have won in Vietnam. Vietnam was not a military conflict so much as a PR war. The insurgents got better PR in the home countries than the armies did. Giap did not win the war so much as hold on until the French and Americans gave up. However, a simplistic reading of the history would agree with you that both were driven out.
The French war was lost in Dien Bien Phu.The American war was lost in Washington.In both case, you can't deny it was a Vietnamese victory. Wars are not always won in battlefields.Is it a simplistic reading or these facts are not true ? Of course, there is a lot of explanations, analysis or excuses to explain this but facts are facts.
Mona Lisa was stolen, some people even tried to destroy it by throwing acid.About that patriotic Italian, he probably forgot that Mona Lisa painting was brought in France by Da Vinci himself when he joined King Francis I who hired him for the building of Chambord castle.
As I said : Walls trigger reactions and make a situation worse without resolving the cause. It's a non-sense.
Scout,Everybody is free to have its own opinion or belief, however it doesn't mean everybody must follow you.If you don't like Islam that's your problem and I respect it but save us from your sermon here. Thx
Meanwhile, under the command of Giap, both the French and the US were eventually driven out of Vietnam.
A mobile home would be helpful: no worries about hotels and flights anymore ! :)BTW what's the foreign language you are studying?
Regarding the final victory of the Vietcong in Vietnam wars, it seems that they started a new kind of warfare where battles din't only decide about the issue of the war but parallel battles were triggered at the same time: political, underground or resistance in enemy areas and guerrilla, sparkling a new way of fighting that could be extended to the Afghan resistance against the Soviet invasion and later, to the UN campaign in Afghanistan ??
They contributed to the slave trade.
What about the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans and most of Ancient Civilisations ? What about the triangular trade ?
I guess I have changed my thinking a little bit. I will go with my above, facts are objective but interpretation is subjective to a point. I still think we should strive to eliminate personal bias from historical judgment. That is my real sticking point. Subjective is not the same a biased.
I checked your link about thereligionofpeace.com :-[Who was talking about bias or eliminating it from historical judgment ?? When you look at that website, there is no author, no name, no reference nor objectivity …. but propaganda !If you are a real historian , don't you have to take your distance, avoid bias and eliminating it from historical judgment and seek objectivity…Did you ever wonder what is the difference between Islamism and Islamic ? 😉
Bertrand Russell made the following remarks into this controversy about who really destroyed the library:As a matter of fact, this library was frequently destroyed and frequently recreated. Its first destroyer was Julius Caesar, and its last antedated the Prophet.in Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics, Routledge: London, (1954), 1992.So people who destroyed that library are:Julius Caesar in 48 BCAurelian in the 3rd centuryTheodosius in 391Amr ibn al 'Aas in 642 (The first Western account of the book destruction was in 1663 and it was dismissed as a hoax or propaganda as early as 1713….)Why Romans are always absolved ?? 8)
Conditions that far predate NAFTA.
When you compare with the Canada-USA border, members of NAFTA just like Mexico, don't you wonder why it's so different? ::)BTW Nafta was signed in 1994, while the mexico-US wall was upgrated after the 9/11 attacks…I have a doubt !! California, Texas: where do these states initially come from ? We might have a chance to meet while harvesting in California during our summer job? 😀 (talking about incentive from the US to “wetbacks”)
