Re: Iraq update

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 04:16:14 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

>
> "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133160375.534928.317290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>> >> > "South Vietnam" was a creation of the United States. There is a
>>> >> > reason
>>> >> > why the South refused to follow through with unifying elections in
>>> >> > '56
>>> >> > despite promising to do so after the Geneva Conference in 1954. The
>>> >> > reason is simple: the Viet Mihn would have won.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Ok...
>>> >>
>>> >> Now, for the $64,000 question-
>>> >>
>>> >> Why did the North never hold those elections either?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Because the South suspended them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The question was why didn't the NORTH ever hold them.
>>>
>>> Well...
>>>
>>
>> Obviously you can't read.
>>
>> Why are you such a fuckwit?
>
>
> Oh, I can read. Problem is that you have written nothing. If elections
> were such a big deal, why did the North never hold them?

_BECAUSE THEY NEEDED TO BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ONES IN THE SOUTH._

This was included in a post you replied to, do you even bother to read
posts you reply to?

> Why is the North
> in your mind the sole repository of Vietnamese nationalism? Why is it
> relevant that the South didn't hold them, but not relevant to you that the
> North didn't hold them either?

It isn't relevant that the North didn't hold them because: The reason
the North didn't hold them was because the South wasn't going to.


To make an analogy: You and your neighbour agree to do some task that
taks two people to do. If your neighbour later decides not to show up,
you share no blame for the job not being done even though you didn't do
anything either.

--
Phoenix

.