General Vang Pao Arrested????

ceda_lee

sarNie OldFart
So because he started a peace initiative and the UN still said "not enough evidence," then it was right for him to use violence to solve this? It seems like you're using that as an excuse for him doing what he did. You know who he sounds like? Bush. Bush claimed Iraq had WMD, but when the UN said "not enough evidence," he went in anyway. But then again, if VP had succeded in creating mayhem, then maybe it might've worked out well. After all, look how friendly the Sunni and the Shiites are with each other. I'm sure the Lao and Hmong people will coexist peacefully after that too. I mean, just cause many innocent Laotians will die in the attacks doesn't mean that the Lao people will retaliate.

So I guess maybe VP shouldn't really be convicted. After all, he's just looking up to what our leaders have done.
I never said it was right for him to use violence...I asked, what do you suppose he should do after all those peaceful attempts???
 

ceda_lee

sarNie OldFart
I say, he should've kept trying. Instead, he's a loser.
He gave up way too quickly and decided he should
do something about it himself, something illegal.
He should keep trying...dragging time along while Hmong ppl are dying??? Seriously, we all are saying that it wasn't right for him to plot his violent plan...but I think trying over and over again isn't the best option either...

Now looking at it...whatever's done is done...but I would like to ask, What could he have done differently???
 

pajlavender

sarNie Egg
You know, there's many people who have tried to do something about the genocide in Laos but have anyone tried helping? No, I haven't heard anyone reaching out to help the Hmong! They are getting tortured violently and can't even go out to find food due to fear of the communist. They are starving and sickly but there is no help for them. GVP is trying to do something to open up others eyes that there are still people back there who is still suffering. He is getting old and don't know when he'll leave this world so he wants to reach out and try to help those who are helpless in Laos. If no ones willing to listen and help than maybe this will do it. There's many who said GVP just up and left all those people....well, if they didn't want to come...what can he do? There's many Hmong who refused to come to the USA until now. Ask your parents...your grandparents probably didn't want to come when the USA open there doors to the HMONG! You can't just forget about those left behind just because you are at a better place. It's very sad...think about it, if you were the ones suffering, wouldn't you want to be helped. It's not his fault that he left....he is only human...he had to protect himself and his family. Someone said that because he begged the US to come over here....well, be glad he did cause you wouldn't want to be suffering there right now. These are my thoughts....think what you guys wanna think!!!
 

rukD2B

Bai Yang [♥] Fong T. Xiong
He should keep trying...dragging time along while Hmong ppl are dying??? Seriously, we all are saying that it wasn't right for him to plot his violent plan...but I think trying over and over again isn't the best option either...

Now looking at it...whatever's done is done...but I would like to ask, What could he have done differently???
Yes, whatever's done is done. So it doesn't matter.

But what he have done differently? That doesn't
matter. The thing is, he's still killing people too
if he attacks Laos. If you guys see Laos as bad
and torturing the Hmongs, then if VP does this,
that makes him just as bad.
 

suesan

sarNie Egg
You know, there's many people who have tried to do something about the genocide in Laos but have anyone tried helping? No, I haven't heard anyone reaching out to help the Hmong! They are getting tortured violently and can't even go out to find food due to fear of the communist. They are starving and sickly but there is no help for them. GVP is trying to do something to open up others eyes that there are still people back there who is still suffering. He is getting old and don't know when he'll leave this world so he wants to reach out and try to help those who are helpless in Laos. If no ones willing to listen and help than maybe this will do it. There's many who said GVP just up and left all those people....well, if they didn't want to come...what can he do? There's many Hmong who refused to come to the USA until now. Ask your parents...your grandparents probably didn't want to come when the USA open there doors to the HMONG! You can't just forget about those left behind just because you are at a better place. It's very sad...think about it, if you were the ones suffering, wouldn't you want to be helped. It's not his fault that he left....he is only human...he had to protect himself and his family. Someone said that because he begged the US to come over here....well, be glad he did cause you wouldn't want to be suffering there right now. These are my thoughts....think what you guys wanna think!!!

I totaly agree with you. I just don't understand why some people are so dislike him..these people who dislike him are only thinking about themselvs..they didn't even care what was happening to their own people...I think these people to travel to the jungle in Laos to see with their own eyes to prove that there are still so many hmong people are being torture. Seeing on movies just not enough for them. Just because they are lucky enough to be here in the US, that doesn't mean they are American people...No matter what, they have to realize that we are not American people, even though most of us are US citizen, we will always be hmong to end...Do something right for our own people is not a crime..
 

ceda_lee

sarNie OldFart
I totaly agree with you. I just don't understand why some people are so dislike him..these people who dislike him are only thinking about themselvs..they didn't even care what was happening to their own people...I think these people to travel to the jungle in Laos to see with their own eyes to prove that there are still so many hmong people are being torture. Seeing on movies just not enough for them. Just because they are lucky enough to be here in the US, that doesn't mean they are American people...No matter what, they have to realize that we are not American people, even though most of us are US citizen, we will always be hmong to end...Do something right for our own people is not a crime..
All I have to say tonight is...in the end, you are what you are!
 

marduk

Sarnie Clown!
I never said it was right for him to use violence...I asked, what do you suppose he should do after all those peaceful attempts???

Good question... I'm curious to hear Marduk's answer too.
Ok, you may not have said "let's use violence," but I don't understand how this is not condoning violence?

He should keep trying...dragging time along while Hmong ppl are dying??? Seriously, we all are saying that it wasn't right for him to plot his violent plan...but I think trying over and over again isn't the best option either...

Now looking at it...whatever's done is done...but I would like to ask, What could he have done differently???
Like I said, you might not be saying it explicitly, but this is pretty much condoning his actions. It brings in the argument of him having no other choice.

I'll get to what other options he had in a moment, but i would like to start off with these statements on history first. Many of you have stated that it's not right that the U.S. is turning its back on the hmong after all they did for us during the "secret war." The idea of debt and reparations come into play. Just how long does a debt last? And how much does the U.S. owe the hmongs? Before that, I'll include some history stuff so that we can be on the same page in regards to debating this.

In the 60s and 70s, the U.S. was concerned with preventing the spread of communism, so it was using any means possible. This led to essentially an unspoken war between the U.S. and the USSR fought in SE Asia. The Geneva Conference established Laos as a neutral country. In an article in another thread on SW, this statement was given by a Vang Pao supporter...

"Vang Pao is being set up," thundered Conway, who now lives in Chico. "He's charged with violating the Neutrality Act, but wasn't Laos neutral when we invaded?" she asked, referring to 1961, when the CIA chose Vang Pao to recruit and lead a secret army against communist forces in superior numbers.

That argument is completely irrelevant to its supporting logic. It reminds me of some people in here. Her statement is Vang Pao is being set up. Her support for that statement is "He's charged with violating the Netrality Act, but wasn't Laos neutral when we invaded?" Those two statements cannot be combined. The fact that we ourselves might be hypocrites does not support the statement that Vang Pao was set up. According to the laws, he is STILL violating the Neutrality Act.

However, the truth of the matter is that Laos was never really a neutral country. North Vietnamese forces were operating within southeastern Laos. That alone, would not be enough reason for the U.S. to do anything since Laos would still be neutral with just border problems. However, a sizable Lao population (The Pathet Lao) started working with the North Vietnamese. This involved Laos and means that they're not neutral, despite what the Geneva Conference established. So to disrupt these operations without direct military involvement, the CIA enlisted the help of the Hmong tribesmen. Thus, the situation between the Pathet Lao and the Royalist were at a standstill with the Hmong helping the Royal army. However, the Pathet Lao had the help of the North Vietnamese. Many agreements were attempted so that the Vietnamese will get out of Laos, but that wasn't happening.

The important point from this though, is that without the Hmong, the Royalist would quickly be defeated. So yes, they were very crucial as allies to the U.S. However, their choice to help was still their choice. I'm not saying we don't owe them, but it's still their choice. And as their allies, we win and lose together. If we win, then the hmong would benefit. If we lose, we would try to do whatever we can to help.

So that's the premise we were left with. Obviously we lost and as allies, the U.S. were supposed to help the hmong. As a result, many hmong refugees came into the U.S. Many hmong were still left behind in Laos and in refugee camps in Thailand though. So the big question here is how much do we owe the hmongs and how can we repay them? Are we (and by we, I mean the U.S.) supposed to gather all the hmong in the world and bring them to the U.S.? Or are we supposed to go back to Laos and help the hmong left behind? See, the thing about losing a war is that you can't go back to the country where you just lost the war in and tell them what to do. The U.S. tried to make amends by bringing over as many hmongs as they can. As for completely determining what will happen to the hmong left behind, that is something they cannot have control over.

So now, fast forward to the present. Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that the U.S. knows that the Hmong genocide is occurring. By the way, I completely agree that the genocide is occurring, but that's not the focus of the argument here. We're not debating whether it's real or not. The question here, is WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT? So like I said, let's assume the U.S. knows about this. The part that will be hard to swallow is that we must think bigger in terms of being a world power now. Don't bring in Iraq for this argument either. We're dealing with our relationship to Laos. We lost the war. We have no jurisdiction over what's going on in Laos. The UN have stated there is not enough evidence that genocide is occurring. As a country that is currently on friendly terms with Laos, we CANNOT accuse them of genocide when the UN said there is not enough evidence. So while we owe the Hmong, we cannot just invade Laos and pull out the hmongs in the forest.

Now concerning Vang Pao and the other 10. As refugees, Vang Pao and the others were given U.S. citizenship for their role in helping us during the secret war. As citizens, they are bestowed with all rights of a U.S. citizen ALONG with all rules and regulations. As a U.S. citizen, if Laos demand that Vang Pao be handed over to face punishment for laws he had broken while in Laos, the U.S. would not have to turn him over. That is because he is a U.S. citizen. Along with this privilege, he was also subjected to many different laws. One is that YOU CANNOT ATTACK A COUNTRY WITH WHICH THE U.S. IS CURRENTLY ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH. Now, this point is still in contention. Is he guilty or innocent? Did he mean to completely take down the gov't or did he just want to ship weapons to protect the hmongs in the forests? First off, I'm just going to go by the evidence that are presented so far. This is for the sake of this argument. Second, many assumptions will be made so that I can argue whether what he did was right or wrong IF THE SCENARIO HAS BEEN PLAYED OUT LIKE WHAT THE AGENT HAS CLAIMED. So in other words, if the agent is lying, my arguments would still be valid for this action and is not reflective of Vang Pao.

The documents provided by the agent claims that Vang Pao heads the organization called Neo Hom, which is dedicated to overthrowing the communist government in Laos so that the hmong can return. Like I said before, we have already lost the war. So an American citizen should not be thinking about overthrowing a government or returning to another country, especially one we are at peace with. He accepted this when he became an american citizen. What he still claims by being a part of Neo Hom is that he's part of another army that is loyal to another country. When you swear in as a U.S. citizen, one of the oaths is that your loyalty lies only with the U.S., not another country. Second, he had been shown to purchase mass amount of weapons which I'm sure is illegal by itself, irregardless of what he plans to do with them. And finally, these plans to overthrow the Lao government have been documented and that right there breaks the neutrality act.

So from a legal standpoint, he SHOULD NOT have done what he did. Now here's the most crucial point of this argument though. Was he right, on a personal standpoint, to do what he did? Did he really have no other choices? The main point of contention is that he has already tried many peaceful outlets, and thus, with no reaction, he was forced to do what he did. The justification for this is that by killing a group of people, he would save the hmong people in Laos. Now this argument can sometime be valid in the case of war and collateral damage. For example, in the Art of War, if you completely defeat an enemy and assimilate them into your kingdom so that they'll live peacefully under your laws, then it's worth it to kill and do what you have to do to achieve your goal. Looking at it from this standpoint, would he be justified killing that many innocent people? I don't think so. Assuming his plan succeeded, he did purchase a lot of weapons, but it's not enough to completely subjugate the old Lao regime. At most, he'll create chaos and anarchy. The situation for the hmong will also get worst. I do not think he would have succeeded at putting the hmong in a position of power. And if they're not in a position of power, do you think the Lao people will be grateful to the hmong for "liberating them" from the communist regime? Personally (and this is now an opinion), I think more racial clashes will occur and Laos will fall into a cataclysm of violence.

A second justification for Vang Pao might be that even if he doesn't succeed, which is almost a guarantee, he can at least draw attention to the plight of the hmong. Personally, I also think this is a poor decision if that is the case. If he had succeeded in pulling off an attack, then chaos will ensue. And as I've stated, I think the hmong will still be worst off in Laos because at that point, even the hmong living in the Lao society will be persecuted. Now since he didn't succeed, we can also see the outcome. I haven't seen anything positive come out of this except that it made the hmong people look even worst, especially after the Chai Vang case. So with the two outcomes, I still see no justification for Vang Pao doing what he did.

Finally, we want to talk about "better" alternatives. I've written somewhere before that violence is not the key to a stable society and unlike certain people, I mean it. Some believe that when you have no option, a revolution can only occur at the hands of violence. This was shown in that one movie "V is for Vendetta." However, I only remember two cases where revolutions led to a better outcome. I'm sure there are more, but I can only remember two. The first is the American Revolution. Immediately after, the U.S. was established and it remain relatively stable. Even then, it wasn't always good as we went through a Civil War. The second is the French Revolution and the dissolution of the monarchy. The one key factor that I believe makes these cases special is that the revolution did not occur as a result of disputes between races. However, even then you might have issues, as can be seen with the Maoist Revolution in China. For years after that, you have bloodshed and even loss of civil rights.

These are my reasons why I did not believe Vang Pao made the best decision. I personally don't like the communist gov't in Laos, but I did not see his option as the best. The result could only have made things worst as you can see from the numerous situations I've described before. So with that, I personally would choose that he NOT attempt to overthrow the Lao government. Now some of you might think that I would then choose the "wait" option since the choice is mistakenly believed to be an either/or type choice. I HIGHLY disagree with this thinking. Obviously, the biggest option that pops out at people is protesting so that you can make the world more aware of the plight of the hmong. This option, I'm sure, is also known by many as the "just waiting" option. In fact, many might call it the pussy way out. Yet compared to the scenarios that I just described, LESS PEOPLE WOULD DIE AS A RESULT OF THIS OPTION. Currently, you have a good amount of hmong assimilated into the northern Lao society in Luang Prabang and other places. You don't want to make things worst for them. Thus, peaceful protest is still THE NUMBER 1 OPTION.

Martin Luther King Jr. never believed in using violence to established civil rights. Why? Because he knew that would just make things worst for black people. Others disagreed with him and groups such as the Black Panther was formed. Just from this example, you saw that members of the Black Panther were met with violence just as strong. Another great example is Gandhi. He helped free his people from British rule through non-violent resistance. And then there's Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. She definitely disagrees with the current government of Burma. And if she gives the word, her followers everywhere will probably use violence as a way of undermining the government. Yet she tells them not to. These three are just some of the people who believed hard enough in using non-violence to establish a better society for their people. Yes, it'll take time, and that is something the hmong don't have when they're getting persecuted in the Lao jungle. However, when faced with the ALTERNATIVE OF CHAOS, MAYHEM, and all the scenarios I previously described that would result from Vang Pao carrying out his violence, then PEACEFUL PROTEST IS THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

Now what methods could he have used? The guy was ready to spend 9 million dollars on weapons. Do you know how much propoganda can be bought with that money? You can make documentaries, pass out flyers, create information centers, and many other things to get out the word that the hmong are being persecuted. Every year, Neo Hom sends people to hmongs asking them for money to support their cause. People give up these money believing that if Lao was retaken, they would be given nice positions within the new government (I have a source for this claim so if you want it, let me know). With the money that is raised every year that is earmarked towards this "revolution," so much more can be done in terms of putting word out there that the hmong needs help. Don't tell me that scientology can make people believe that emotions come from aliens, yet hmong people can't convince people that they're being persecuted. Before these past two years, I know of MANY americans who didn't even know who the hmong were. Worst though, is that after this year and the Chai Vang case, many americans now are aware of the hmong people...and it's not in a positive light.

And finally, a lot of this is going to take patience. But like I've said, the other alternative (which is what Vang Pao chose) does not help the hmong people as a group. Vang Pao failed in his mission and now things don't look too good for the hmong people. If he had succeeded, life still wouldn't be better for the hmong people and for reasons I've already stated, I believe it might've actually been worst. So for the people that asked if there was a better alternative, I want to say YES, THERE IS.

Many other alternatives were better than the one Vang Pao chose. I gave an example above and history has given even more. However, if you're still not convinced, then let me know and I'll try to make the plan even more concrete. I might even call it something just as cool as Operation Popcorn.
 

anti-hmong

sarNie Hatchling
haha...wow mardie...that's some essay you've got there...but will people actually read and understand it?...i highly doubt it...you've made some valid points and i agree with them but don't forget that these people can barely make sense grammatically...you're making too much sense for them to understand...lol...and they are way too stuck on their "VP is a hero" crap...therefore, he can't do no wrong
 

marduk

Sarnie Clown!
haha...wow mardie...that's some essay you've got there...but will people actually read and understand it?...i highly doubt it...you've made some valid points and i agree with them but don't forget that these people can barely make sense grammatically...you're making too much sense for them to understand...lol...and they are way too stuck on their "VP is a hero" crap...therefore, he can't do no wrong
I actually think he is a hero. However, his decision on this one was wrong. But I still believe he was a hero to his people, just not God-like.
 

bv83

sarNie Egg
haha...wow mardie...that's some essay you've got there...but will people actually read and understand it?...i highly doubt it...you've made some valid points and i agree with them but don't forget that these people can barely make sense grammatically...you're making too much sense for them to understand...lol...and they are way too stuck on their "VP is a hero" crap...therefore, he can't do no wrong
LOL... "he CAN'T do NO wrong?" Funny how you bashed about Hmongs not making sense grammatically when you can't make sense of the LANGUAGE yourself. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hint: two negatives=positive). Didn't you learn that in GRADE school? I'm sure you secured a HIGH SCHOOL diploma, if not at least an ASSOCIATES Degree, right? Oh wait... Nowadays, a Bachelors Degree is ONLY equivalent to a High School Diploma, duh! Even if you can't make it to GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL, AT LEAST aim for that Bachelors! :tease: LOL.
 

ceda_lee

sarNie OldFart
Since when did this topic became an English course? Do we really need to be grammatically correct to comprehend what one's trying to convey?

Geez...correct my grammars if you must!
 

ceda_lee

sarNie OldFart
haha...damn that was a lot to read! You made PERFECT sense, although I'll have to say that I disagree on some points. And thanks for the little history lesson. I'll be back to comment.
 

natty

Chubs
LOL... "he CAN'T do NO wrong?" Funny how you bashed about Hmongs not making sense grammatically when you can't make sense of the LANGUAGE yourself. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hint: two negatives=positive). Didn't you learn that in GRADE school? I'm sure you secured a HIGH SCHOOL diploma, if not at least an ASSOCIATES Degree, right? Oh wait... Nowadays, a Bachelors Degree is ONLY equivalent to a High School Diploma, duh! Even if you can't make it to GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL, AT LEAST aim for that Bachelors! :tease: LOL.

hahaha some people think the know everything.. what a joke..
 

triANGgo

lekie_lucious
what? this arguement thingy about VP is stilll going on...... some of the comments are so bogus.. this thread so needs to get closed!! u know why?? cause

1. everyone's just repeating the same info...... *yawns* BORING.... no offense

2. too much BASHING between sarnies.... why cant we all just get along :)

3. (okay brainfart.. i kinda forgot #3) shss pa... i know umm anyways....

4. please if u dont want another 6 page essay to read on this thread then shss ur mouth..... cause i know monkey boy's still got more to say...lol

5. last but not least i believe that if the poor man's innocent, then he'll be safe..... but if he's not... lol his ass would be right where it's suppose to be..... |Y|(o_O)|Y| <------- that's right behind bars or even worser... DUN DUN DUN!!!!
 

rukD2B

Bai Yang [♥] Fong T. Xiong
LOL... "he CAN'T do NO wrong?" Funny how you bashed about Hmongs not making sense grammatically when you can't make sense of the LANGUAGE yourself. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hint: two negatives=positive). Didn't you learn that in GRADE school? I'm sure you secured a HIGH SCHOOL diploma, if not at least an ASSOCIATES Degree, right? Oh wait... Nowadays, a Bachelors Degree is ONLY equivalent to a High School Diploma, duh! Even if you can't make it to GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL, AT LEAST aim for that Bachelors! :tease: LOL.
Ha, ha, ha. Make me laugh my butt off. Go make a thread about the comparison
between a High school diploma and a Bachelor's degree, will you? Ha, ha. Geez,
whatever happened to the "no bashing"? You're pointing out Marduk's grammar
errors - well, go back and check yours too. It's ever funnier than your post.
Sorry if you got offended. In my opinion, you sort of deserved it. No bashing!

Wee!! Go Marduk, go Marduk! LOLs. Dude, that was long. LOLs. But, I agree with
you all the way. There are other options, yes. I'm glad you decided to post it too.
But I agree with Lek, these VP-related threads need to get deleted, or closed.
They're beginning to start a lot of bullsh*t on Sarnworld. And like Will Smith said,
"I'm sorry, I'm allergic to bullsh*t." Seriously, everyone needs to stop bashing
each other. I feel like I'm one of them. Agh, now I feel guilty. However, the lady
that said that one the news article, she was very contradicting - it confused me.

Oh well, let's see what will happen next. This sort of reminds me of a lakorn.
Let's wait for next week's episode! LOLs. *Yawns.

I'm bored.

---Joey
 

KEdoubleNY

sarNie Adult
what? this arguement thingy about VP is stilll going on...... some of the comments are so bogus.. this thread so needs to get closed!! u know why?? cause

1. everyone's just repeating the same info...... *yawns* BORING.... no offense

2. too much BASHING between sarnies.... why cant we all just get along :)

3. (okay brainfart.. i kinda forgot #3) shss pa... i know umm anyways....

4. please if u dont want another 6 page essay to read on this thread then shss ur mouth..... cause i know monkey boy's still got more to say...lol

5. last but not least i believe that if the poor man's innocent, then he'll be safe..... but if he's not... lol his ass would be right where it's suppose to be..... |Y|(o_O)|Y| <------- that's right behind bars or even worser... DUN DUN DUN!!!!
FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF PRESS 'Khoun Nou Lek' :tease: :tease: :tease:
 

suesan

sarNie Egg
Ok, you may not have said "let's use violence," but I don't understand how this is not condoning violence?
Like I said, you might not be saying it explicitly, but this is pretty much condoning his actions. It brings in the argument of him having no other choice.

I'll get to what other options he had in a moment, but i would like to start off with these statements on history first. Many of you have stated that it's not right that the U.S. is turning its back on the hmong after all they did for us during the "secret war." The idea of debt and reparations come into play. Just how long does a debt last? And how much does the U.S. owe the hmongs? Before that, I'll include some history stuff so that we can be on the same page in regards to debating this.

In the 60s and 70s, the U.S. was concerned with preventing the spread of communism, so it was using any means possible. This led to essentially an unspoken war between the U.S. and the USSR fought in SE Asia. The Geneva Conference established Laos as a neutral country. In an article in another thread on SW, this statement was given by a Vang Pao supporter...

"Vang Pao is being set up," thundered Conway, who now lives in Chico. "He's charged with violating the Neutrality Act, but wasn't Laos neutral when we invaded?" she asked, referring to 1961, when the CIA chose Vang Pao to recruit and lead a secret army against communist forces in superior numbers.

That argument is completely irrelevant to its supporting logic. It reminds me of some people in here. Her statement is Vang Pao is being set up. Her support for that statement is "He's charged with violating the Netrality Act, but wasn't Laos neutral when we invaded?" Those two statements cannot be combined. The fact that we ourselves might be hypocrites does not support the statement that Vang Pao was set up. According to the laws, he is STILL violating the Neutrality Act.

However, the truth of the matter is that Laos was never really a neutral country. North Vietnamese forces were operating within southeastern Laos. That alone, would not be enough reason for the U.S. to do anything since Laos would still be neutral with just border problems. However, a sizable Lao population (The Pathet Lao) started working with the North Vietnamese. This involved Laos and means that they're not neutral, despite what the Geneva Conference established. So to disrupt these operations without direct military involvement, the CIA enlisted the help of the Hmong tribesmen. Thus, the situation between the Pathet Lao and the Royalist were at a standstill with the Hmong helping the Royal army. However, the Pathet Lao had the help of the North Vietnamese. Many agreements were attempted so that the Vietnamese will get out of Laos, but that wasn't happening.

The important point from this though, is that without the Hmong, the Royalist would quickly be defeated. So yes, they were very crucial as allies to the U.S. However, their choice to help was still their choice. I'm not saying we don't owe them, but it's still their choice. And as their allies, we win and lose together. If we win, then the hmong would benefit. If we lose, we would try to do whatever we can to help.

So that's the premise we were left with. Obviously we lost and as allies, the U.S. were supposed to help the hmong. As a result, many hmong refugees came into the U.S. Many hmong were still left behind in Laos and in refugee camps in Thailand though. So the big question here is how much do we owe the hmongs and how can we repay them? Are we (and by we, I mean the U.S.) supposed to gather all the hmong in the world and bring them to the U.S.? Or are we supposed to go back to Laos and help the hmong left behind? See, the thing about losing a war is that you can't go back to the country where you just lost the war in and tell them what to do. The U.S. tried to make amends by bringing over as many hmongs as they can. As for completely determining what will happen to the hmong left behind, that is something they cannot have control over.

So now, fast forward to the present. Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that the U.S. knows that the Hmong genocide is occurring. By the way, I completely agree that the genocide is occurring, but that's not the focus of the argument here. We're not debating whether it's real or not. The question here, is WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT? So like I said, let's assume the U.S. knows about this. The part that will be hard to swallow is that we must think bigger in terms of being a world power now. Don't bring in Iraq for this argument either. We're dealing with our relationship to Laos. We lost the war. We have no jurisdiction over what's going on in Laos. The UN have stated there is not enough evidence that genocide is occurring. As a country that is currently on friendly terms with Laos, we CANNOT accuse them of genocide when the UN said there is not enough evidence. So while we owe the Hmong, we cannot just invade Laos and pull out the hmongs in the forest.

Now concerning Vang Pao and the other 10. As refugees, Vang Pao and the others were given U.S. citizenship for their role in helping us during the secret war. As citizens, they are bestowed with all rights of a U.S. citizen ALONG with all rules and regulations. As a U.S. citizen, if Laos demand that Vang Pao be handed over to face punishment for laws he had broken while in Laos, the U.S. would not have to turn him over. That is because he is a U.S. citizen. Along with this privilege, he was also subjected to many different laws. One is that YOU CANNOT ATTACK A COUNTRY WITH WHICH THE U.S. IS CURRENTLY ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH. Now, this point is still in contention. Is he guilty or innocent? Did he mean to completely take down the gov't or did he just want to ship weapons to protect the hmongs in the forests? First off, I'm just going to go by the evidence that are presented so far. This is for the sake of this argument. Second, many assumptions will be made so that I can argue whether what he did was right or wrong IF THE SCENARIO HAS BEEN PLAYED OUT LIKE WHAT THE AGENT HAS CLAIMED. So in other words, if the agent is lying, my arguments would still be valid for this action and is not reflective of Vang Pao.

The documents provided by the agent claims that Vang Pao heads the organization called Neo Hom, which is dedicated to overthrowing the communist government in Laos so that the hmong can return. Like I said before, we have already lost the war. So an American citizen should not be thinking about overthrowing a government or returning to another country, especially one we are at peace with. He accepted this when he became an american citizen. What he still claims by being a part of Neo Hom is that he's part of another army that is loyal to another country. When you swear in as a U.S. citizen, one of the oaths is that your loyalty lies only with the U.S., not another country. Second, he had been shown to purchase mass amount of weapons which I'm sure is illegal by itself, irregardless of what he plans to do with them. And finally, these plans to overthrow the Lao government have been documented and that right there breaks the neutrality act.

So from a legal standpoint, he SHOULD NOT have done what he did. Now here's the most crucial point of this argument though. Was he right, on a personal standpoint, to do what he did? Did he really have no other choices? The main point of contention is that he has already tried many peaceful outlets, and thus, with no reaction, he was forced to do what he did. The justification for this is that by killing a group of people, he would save the hmong people in Laos. Now this argument can sometime be valid in the case of war and collateral damage. For example, in the Art of War, if you completely defeat an enemy and assimilate them into your kingdom so that they'll live peacefully under your laws, then it's worth it to kill and do what you have to do to achieve your goal. Looking at it from this standpoint, would he be justified killing that many innocent people? I don't think so. Assuming his plan succeeded, he did purchase a lot of weapons, but it's not enough to completely subjugate the old Lao regime. At most, he'll create chaos and anarchy. The situation for the hmong will also get worst. I do not think he would have succeeded at putting the hmong in a position of power. And if they're not in a position of power, do you think the Lao people will be grateful to the hmong for "liberating them" from the communist regime? Personally (and this is now an opinion), I think more racial clashes will occur and Laos will fall into a cataclysm of violence.

A second justification for Vang Pao might be that even if he doesn't succeed, which is almost a guarantee, he can at least draw attention to the plight of the hmong. Personally, I also think this is a poor decision if that is the case. If he had succeeded in pulling off an attack, then chaos will ensue. And as I've stated, I think the hmong will still be worst off in Laos because at that point, even the hmong living in the Lao society will be persecuted. Now since he didn't succeed, we can also see the outcome. I haven't seen anything positive come out of this except that it made the hmong people look even worst, especially after the Chai Vang case. So with the two outcomes, I still see no justification for Vang Pao doing what he did.

Finally, we want to talk about "better" alternatives. I've written somewhere before that violence is not the key to a stable society and unlike certain people, I mean it. Some believe that when you have no option, a revolution can only occur at the hands of violence. This was shown in that one movie "V is for Vendetta." However, I only remember two cases where revolutions led to a better outcome. I'm sure there are more, but I can only remember two. The first is the American Revolution. Immediately after, the U.S. was established and it remain relatively stable. Even then, it wasn't always good as we went through a Civil War. The second is the French Revolution and the dissolution of the monarchy. The one key factor that I believe makes these cases special is that the revolution did not occur as a result of disputes between races. However, even then you might have issues, as can be seen with the Maoist Revolution in China. For years after that, you have bloodshed and even loss of civil rights.

These are my reasons why I did not believe Vang Pao made the best decision. I personally don't like the communist gov't in Laos, but I did not see his option as the best. The result could only have made things worst as you can see from the numerous situations I've described before. So with that, I personally would choose that he NOT attempt to overthrow the Lao government. Now some of you might think that I would then choose the "wait" option since the choice is mistakenly believed to be an either/or type choice. I HIGHLY disagree with this thinking. Obviously, the biggest option that pops out at people is protesting so that you can make the world more aware of the plight of the hmong. This option, I'm sure, is also known by many as the "just waiting" option. In fact, many might call it the pussy way out. Yet compared to the scenarios that I just described, LESS PEOPLE WOULD DIE AS A RESULT OF THIS OPTION. Currently, you have a good amount of hmong assimilated into the northern Lao society in Luang Prabang and other places. You don't want to make things worst for them. Thus, peaceful protest is still THE NUMBER 1 OPTION.

Martin Luther King Jr. never believed in using violence to established civil rights. Why? Because he knew that would just make things worst for black people. Others disagreed with him and groups such as the Black Panther was formed. Just from this example, you saw that members of the Black Panther were met with violence just as strong. Another great example is Gandhi. He helped free his people from British rule through non-violent resistance. And then there's Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. She definitely disagrees with the current government of Burma. And if she gives the word, her followers everywhere will probably use violence as a way of undermining the government. Yet she tells them not to. These three are just some of the people who believed hard enough in using non-violence to establish a better society for their people. Yes, it'll take time, and that is something the hmong don't have when they're getting persecuted in the Lao jungle. However, when faced with the ALTERNATIVE OF CHAOS, MAYHEM, and all the scenarios I previously described that would result from Vang Pao carrying out his violence, then PEACEFUL PROTEST IS THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

Now what methods could he have used? The guy was ready to spend 9 million dollars on weapons. Do you know how much propoganda can be bought with that money? You can make documentaries, pass out flyers, create information centers, and many other things to get out the word that the hmong are being persecuted. Every year, Neo Hom sends people to hmongs asking them for money to support their cause. People give up these money believing that if Lao was retaken, they would be given nice positions within the new government (I have a source for this claim so if you want it, let me know). With the money that is raised every year that is earmarked towards this "revolution," so much more can be done in terms of putting word out there that the hmong needs help. Don't tell me that scientology can make people believe that emotions come from aliens, yet hmong people can't convince people that they're being persecuted. Before these past two years, I know of MANY americans who didn't even know who the hmong were. Worst though, is that after this year and the Chai Vang case, many americans now are aware of the hmong people...and it's not in a positive light.

And finally, a lot of this is going to take patience. But like I've said, the other alternative (which is what Vang Pao chose) does not help the hmong people as a group. Vang Pao failed in his mission and now things don't look too good for the hmong people. If he had succeeded, life still wouldn't be better for the hmong people and for reasons I've already stated, I believe it might've actually been worst. So for the people that asked if there was a better alternative, I want to say YES, THERE IS.

Many other alternatives were better than the one Vang Pao chose. I gave an example above and history has given even more. However, if you're still not convinced, then let me know and I'll try to make the plan even more concrete. I might even call it something just as cool as Operation Popcorn.

YOU GAVE SOME GOOD EXAMPLE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE SEEKING PEACE FOR THEIR PEOPLE AND THEIR COUNTRY BY SAYING ALL THE POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT THEM...WHY DON'T YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES GENERAL VANG PAO HAVE ASKED AND BEGGED THE UN FOR THEIR HELPS. WHAT'S YOUR REASON FOR THEM TO SAYING THAT THE UN DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDANCE ABOUT THE GENOCIDE IN LAOS...DON'T YOU OR THEM SEE ALL THE VIDEOS ON HOW BAD THEY WERE BEEING TORTURED RIGHT NOW. JUST BECAUSE THE US ARE AT PEACE WITH LAOS DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO DENY EVERTHING THAT IS GOING ON TO THE HMONG PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. THE US WERE THE ONE WHO STARTED THIS AND BRING THE HMONG PEOPLE INTO THIS WAR. DON'T JUST THINK ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ONLY OKAY, WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEING TOO, EVERY LIVES COUNT. NO ONE DESERVE TO DIE. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE HMONG PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WEREN'T BE AT PEACE WITH LAOS. THE REASON WHY THE LAOS GOVERNMENT DIDN'T WANT TO CAUSE ANY PROBLM WITH THE US IS BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE ALL THOSE HMONG PEOPLE IN THE JUNGLE TO KILL. ONE LIVES OF ONE HMONG PERSON WORTH JUST LIKE ONE LIFE OF AN AMERICAN SOLDIER. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE AT PEACE WIT THE US SO THAT THE US CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP THE HMONG PEOPLE. AND THIS IS SAD BECUASE NOTHING IS BEING DONE FOR 30 YEAERS.....
 
Top