Q. Now we try to avoid civilian populations and such, but we should have learned from Korea and Vietnam that civilians aren't always civilians, and can be human bombs, or even carry guns. As loath as I am to say it, I think we may need to examine our Rules of Engagement. Who agrees?
Lord Britain, I understand what you're saying, and even agree in principle, but as I said before, sometimes "civilians" aren't civilians, and you have to think of your fellow servicepeople first.
and brucec, another popular saying is, "beg forgiveness, not permission.
Lord Britain, I understand what you're saying, and even agree in principle, but as I said before, sometimes "civilians" aren't civilians, and you have to think of your fellow servicepeople first.
and brucec, another popular saying is, "beg forgiveness, not permission.
A. You are right to a degree. The Rules of Engagement can lose the war for you and we DID see that in Vietnam, I was there and we did have targets that were a tremendous threat to our troops that we were not permitted to bomb -I saw pictures of thousands of trucks lined up on the docks in Haiphong harbor that would be used to transport men and material into South Vietnam to fight our troops and we were not allowed to bomb them. According to the ROE, Haiphong Harbor was off-limits to our Air Force. The ROE said we couldn't attack North Vietnamese aircraft on the ground, we had to wait until they were in the air! The ROE said we couldn't bomb their airports! That said, you must have ROE, Someone has to have a hand on the controls and you would hope the person with that hand knew a little about fighting a war, not like the current occupant or his buddies. Aside from the humanitarian reasons for the ROE, you have to limit the damage to innocent civilians and their property or you make more enemies than you kill. And yes, the ROE is not something etched in stone, it needs to be constantly revised, again. by someone who knows the way wars are fought, not someone in an armchair back in Washington who managed to avoid the combat zone.
How can the us government stop the merchandise which imported from another country?
Q. Right now most merchandise make from another country.such as China ,India, Mexico and Vietnam. American people do not have a job. We (American) must think about that.We should not buy every thing which make in China.The US president and government must increase really high tax for imports merchandise.
A. Look at NAFTA Data:
Canadians bought in 2009 per person from America: $5,986 USD
Americans bought in 2009 per person from Canada: $730 USD
Mexicans bought in 2009 per person from America: $1,159 USD
Americans bought in 2009 per person from Mexico: $570 USD
USA buys oil and parts (Made by Low wage jobs) and sell high end products (Made by High Salary Jobs). It looks like NAFTA is pretty good for America.
The only reason the "USA Trade Balance" is negative with these 2 countries is because USA has 3 times the population of Mexico and 10 times the population of Canada. More People buy More. Simple Math!
If you put Taxes on Canadian and Mexican Products they will do the same on American Products. One of the reasons American Products are competitive in Canada and Mexico is because of NAFTA. They will start buying European.
On the other Hand look at the China Data:
Americans bought in 2009 per person from China: $956 USD
Chinese bought in 2009 per person from America: $51 USD
Why is that? China is a closed Economy. China does not allow imports or tax them heavily. Typically companies will not risk their intellectual property by putting plants in China, but Chinese Domestic Market is so huge that they want a piece of it, so instead of making the "High End Products" in USA or Europe and exporting to China, they go and put the plant in China.
Because US Government gets Corporate Tax and borrows money from China, it let China Bully him.
But Worse!!! Look at the European Data:
European Union bought in 2009 per person from America: $440 USD
Americans bought in 2009 per person from the EU: $909 USD.
Why are we buying from Europe? Are we less educated?? Is their labor more cheap? Aren't they a socialist region? Those are "High Paying Jobs" sent to Europe! Those are the ones we need, not the ones lost to Canada and Mexico.
Hell Mexican Tourists expend more Money in USA than the Europeans...
Canadians bought in 2009 per person from America: $5,986 USD
Americans bought in 2009 per person from Canada: $730 USD
Mexicans bought in 2009 per person from America: $1,159 USD
Americans bought in 2009 per person from Mexico: $570 USD
USA buys oil and parts (Made by Low wage jobs) and sell high end products (Made by High Salary Jobs). It looks like NAFTA is pretty good for America.
The only reason the "USA Trade Balance" is negative with these 2 countries is because USA has 3 times the population of Mexico and 10 times the population of Canada. More People buy More. Simple Math!
If you put Taxes on Canadian and Mexican Products they will do the same on American Products. One of the reasons American Products are competitive in Canada and Mexico is because of NAFTA. They will start buying European.
On the other Hand look at the China Data:
Americans bought in 2009 per person from China: $956 USD
Chinese bought in 2009 per person from America: $51 USD
Why is that? China is a closed Economy. China does not allow imports or tax them heavily. Typically companies will not risk their intellectual property by putting plants in China, but Chinese Domestic Market is so huge that they want a piece of it, so instead of making the "High End Products" in USA or Europe and exporting to China, they go and put the plant in China.
Because US Government gets Corporate Tax and borrows money from China, it let China Bully him.
But Worse!!! Look at the European Data:
European Union bought in 2009 per person from America: $440 USD
Americans bought in 2009 per person from the EU: $909 USD.
Why are we buying from Europe? Are we less educated?? Is their labor more cheap? Aren't they a socialist region? Those are "High Paying Jobs" sent to Europe! Those are the ones we need, not the ones lost to Canada and Mexico.
Hell Mexican Tourists expend more Money in USA than the Europeans...
When a country becomes communist why would it stop exporting products?
Q. I'm writing a global paper & I need to know why a country would stop exporting. Its about the vietnam war & why one of the reasons we went to war is to keep importing of vietnam resources.
A. Our desperate need to trade with the Republic of Vietnam is one of the many myths spread by the antiwar movement over the years as one of the alternative reasons for our involvement in Vietnam. Let�s stop and think about that for a second. In the late 1950s what was the main export from South Vietnam? Oil? No�. Gold? No�. Uranium? No�. What was this strategic product so important that the United States would go to war over it�.???? It was rice.
So, by this argument we went to war in Vietnam to ensure our continued supply of rice not be cut off. Uh�. No�. In fact, the United States produced so much rice we were a major exporter of the product too. What is wrong with this picture?
Despite being in the middle of a war South Vietnam�s economy grew during the whole war. North Vietnam�s economy, on the other hand, was at best stagnant. If it had not been for the economic support (as well as the weapons they were given) it would have collapsed.
After South Vietnam was occupied the Communists started their collectivization of the South�s economy. They seized the land, they either murdered or exiled the merchant class, they imprisoned and/or murdered the intelligence, and they seized all personal property. Millions of people were imprisoned and/or forced to flee for their lives, and �boat-people� were washing up on every beach in East Asia from Japan to Australia for the better part of the next decade.
South Vietnam�s economy collapsed and for years after the Communist takeover they did not export rice, they were forced to import it because the farmers had no incentive to grow it under the government program. So much for the �worker�s paradise� theory of Communism.
So, by this argument we went to war in Vietnam to ensure our continued supply of rice not be cut off. Uh�. No�. In fact, the United States produced so much rice we were a major exporter of the product too. What is wrong with this picture?
Despite being in the middle of a war South Vietnam�s economy grew during the whole war. North Vietnam�s economy, on the other hand, was at best stagnant. If it had not been for the economic support (as well as the weapons they were given) it would have collapsed.
After South Vietnam was occupied the Communists started their collectivization of the South�s economy. They seized the land, they either murdered or exiled the merchant class, they imprisoned and/or murdered the intelligence, and they seized all personal property. Millions of people were imprisoned and/or forced to flee for their lives, and �boat-people� were washing up on every beach in East Asia from Japan to Australia for the better part of the next decade.
South Vietnam�s economy collapsed and for years after the Communist takeover they did not export rice, they were forced to import it because the farmers had no incentive to grow it under the government program. So much for the �worker�s paradise� theory of Communism.
How one can get compensation for the lost property in Vietnam during war?
Q. Indian
Property belongs to my grand father who is no more
documents for the property available
Property belongs to my grand father who is no more
documents for the property available
A. Not possible!!!!!!!!!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment