VIETNAM SHOULD BAN EATING DOGS, CATS AND WILD ANIMALS......Re: It's a dog's life in Vietnam

I was always embarassed when I saw continuous one following the other
Dog Meat selling stands in Vietnam, Vietnam now produces excess of
rice that can be used to raise pigm chicken, water fowls raising so
need of protein should not be a consideration.

This is as difficult to stop than stopping Vietnamese to smoke
cigarette, South Korea succeeded in driving dog selling restaurants
into discreet back rooms in back alleys where nothing can be seen from
street.

When the older generation die down, Vietnam will be Dog Eating Free

VIETNAM TIENLEN !



"nijesnimax" wrote in message news:...
> "Minh Duc" wrote in message
> news:7d293701.0308032056.1dd22745@posting.google.c om...
> > Giu+~a hai ngu+o+`i, nha` va(n So+n Nam va` GS Tra^`n Ngo.c The^m,
> > thi` nha` va(n So+n Nam ddu'ng ho+n .
>
>

EL DUMB SH*T is wrong again!

To the rest of the world, Vietnam has a few other things far more
embarassing, even repulsive, than eating dogs and cats, which I think
any race would do when they are hungry enough.

The most embarassing/repulsive thing in Vietnam today is the
Vietnamese Communist Party which unfairly claims supremacy in
everything in Vietnam, maintains an absolute monopoly in power, abuses
all other political parties and independent individuals, and condones
horrible corruption and abuse of power by its party members! This lack
of fairness to let the best win is the main cause of the demise of
everything in Vietnam and in all other Communist countries!

The next embarassing thing is the horrible poverty created by the
incompetent and corrupt VCP, which causes total loss of human dignity
and all moral rectitude among the average people.

The next embarassing/repulsive thing is people like you who claims to
be knowledgeable, but who shamelssly support the VC tyrants against
the common people, and all those who are cowardly enough to accept
their lack of rights to freedom and dignity under the Communist Party!

VIETTHIET

el_chinoboatconscience@yahoo.com (EL CHINO) wrote in message news:<2b8b88c2.0308040445.2ecd18ed@posting.google.com>...
> I was always embarassed when I saw continuous one following the other
> Dog Meat selling stands in Vietnam, Vietnam now produces excess of
> rice that can be used to raise pigm chicken, water fowls raising so
> need of protein should not be a consideration.
>
> This is as difficult to stop than stopping Vietnamese to smoke
> cigarette, South Korea succeeded in driving dog selling restaurants
> into discreet back rooms in back alleys where nothing can be seen from
> street.
>
> When the older generation die down, Vietnam will be Dog Eating Free
>
> VIETNAM TIENLEN !
>
>
>
> "nijesnimax" wrote in message news:...
> > "Minh Duc" wrote in message
> > news:7d293701.0308032056.1dd22745@posting.google.c om...
> > > Giu+~a hai ngu+o+`i, nha` va(n So+n Nam va` GS Tra^`n Ngo.c The^m,
> > > thi` nha` va(n So+n Nam ddu'ng ho+n .
> >
> >

EL DUMB SH*T is wrong again!

To the rest of the world, Vietnam has a few other things far more
embarassing, even repulsive, than eating dogs and cats, which I think
any race would do when they are hungry enough.

The most embarassing/repulsive thing in Vietnam today is the
Vietnamese Communist Party which unfairly claims supremacy in
everything in Vietnam, maintains an absolute monopoly in power, abuses
all other political parties and independent individuals, and condones
horrible corruption and abuse of power by its party members! This lack
of fairness to let the best win is the main cause of the demise of
everything in Vietnam and in all other Communist countries!

The next embarassing thing is the horrible poverty created by the
incompetent and corrupt VCP, which causes total loss of human dignity
and all moral rectitude among the average people.

The next embarassing/repulsive thing is people like you who claims to
be knowledgeable, but who shamelssly support the VC tyrants against
the common people, and all those who are cowardly enough to accept
their lack of rights to freedom and dignity under the Communist Party!

VIETTHIET



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
el_chinoboatconscience@yahoo.com (EL CHINO) wrote in message news:<2b8b88c2.0308040445.2ecd18ed@posting.google.com>...
> I was always embarassed when I saw continuous one following the other
> Dog Meat selling stands in Vietnam, Vietnam now produces excess of
> rice that can be used to raise pigm chicken, water fowls raising so
> need of protein should not be a consideration.
>
> This is as difficult to stop than stopping Vietnamese to smoke
> cigarette, South Korea succeeded in driving dog selling restaurants
> into discreet back rooms in back alleys where nothing can be seen from
> street.
>
> When the older generation die down, Vietnam will be Dog Eating Free
>
> VIETNAM TIENLEN !
>
>
>
> "nijesnimax" wrote in message news:...
> > "Minh Duc" wrote in message
> > news:7d293701.0308032056.1dd22745@posting.google.c om...
> > > Giu+~a hai ngu+o+`i, nha` va(n So+n Nam va` GS Tra^`n Ngo.c The^m,
> > > thi` nha` va(n So+n Nam ddu'ng ho+n .
> >
> >

You are right this time, comrade HBUI.

Your friend EL CHINO is just a stupid, lying little coward, who would
stoop very low to kiss the VC tyrant's anus for selfish gains.

EL has no shame about kissing the VC's anus, much less about eating
dogs!

VIETTHIET


hbui99@msn.com (hbui) wrote in message news:<568b7889.0308041717.ca24942@posting.google.com>...
> el_chinoboatconscience@yahoo.com (EL CHINO) wrote in message news:<2b8b88c2.0308040445.2ecd18ed@posting.google.com>...
> > I was always embarassed when I saw continuous one following the other
> > Dog Meat selling stands in Vietnam, Vietnam now produces excess of
> > rice that can be used to raise pigm chicken, water fowls raising so
> > need of protein should not be a consideration.
> >
> > This is as difficult to stop than stopping Vietnamese to smoke
> > cigarette, South Korea succeeded in driving dog selling restaurants
> > into discreet back rooms in back alleys where nothing can be seen from
> > street.
> >
> > When the older generation die down, Vietnam will be Dog Eating Free
> >
> > VIETNAM TIENLEN !
>
> In Western cultures, particularly in the US, people give to horses
> more love, more care and more esteem than they do to dogs.
> During the cowboys time in the Old West, horses were put on a social
> level almost as high as men's (white men social level off course). At
> that time, people certainly gave to a horse more respect than they did
> to a Negro, to an Indian or to a Chinese coolie.
> The lives of those who stole dogs were spared but those who were
> caught stealing horses were hung without merci.
>
> Nevertheless, Americans as well as Europeans have been eating horses
> since Adam and Eve came to Earth and they continue to eat horse ever
> since without any shame, regret or culpability.
> Horse is not as popular as beef. One can't find horse at McDonald's or
> Denny's but horse can be found on the menu of high-end restaurants and
> in most exclusive Clubs throughout the USA.
> Why should Vietnamese feel shameful eating dogs?
>
>
>
> > "nijesnimax" wrote in message news:...
> > > "Minh Duc" wrote in message
> > > news:7d293701.0308032056.1dd22745@posting.google.c om...
> > > > Giu+~a hai ngu+o+`i, nha` va(n So+n Nam va` GS Tra^`n Ngo.c The^m,
> > > > thi` nha` va(n So+n Nam ddu'ng ho+n .
> > >
> > >

Be nice to him. He in charge of Vietnams 250 Trillion Billion Satellite
program for the Playboy Ch.

"VIET THIET" wrote in message news:a9efa7b5.0308041405.4e033d96@posting.google.c om...
> EL DUMB SH*T is wrong again!
>
> To the rest of the world, Vietnam has a few other things far more
> embarassing, even repulsive, than eating dogs and cats, which I think
> any race would do when they are hungry enough.
>
> The most embarassing/repulsive thing in Vietnam today is the
> Vietnamese Communist Party which unfairly claims supremacy in
> everything in Vietnam, maintains an absolute monopoly in power, abuses
> all other political parties and independent individuals, and condones
> horrible corruption and abuse of power by its party members! This lack
> of fairness to let the best win is the main cause of the demise of
> everything in Vietnam and in all other Communist countries!
>
> The next embarassing thing is the horrible poverty created by the
> incompetent and corrupt VCP, which causes total loss of human dignity
> and all moral rectitude among the average people.
>
> The next embarassing/repulsive thing is people like you who claims to
> be knowledgeable, but who shamelssly support the VC tyrants against
> the common people, and all those who are cowardly enough to accept
> their lack of rights to freedom and dignity under the Communist Party!
>
> VIETTHIET
>
> el_chinoboatconscience@yahoo.com (EL CHINO) wrote in message news:<2b8b88c2.0308040445.2ecd18ed@posting.google.com>...
> > I was always embarassed when I saw continuous one following the other
> > Dog Meat selling stands in Vietnam, Vietnam now produces excess of
> > rice that can be used to raise pigm chicken, water fowls raising so
> > need of protein should not be a consideration.
> >
> > This is as difficult to stop than stopping Vietnamese to smoke
> > cigarette, South Korea succeeded in driving dog selling restaurants
> > into discreet back rooms in back alleys where nothing can be seen from
> > street.
> >
> > When the older generation die down, Vietnam will be Dog Eating Free
> >
> > VIETNAM TIENLEN !
> >
> >
> >
> > "nijesnimax" wrote in message news:...
> > > "Minh Duc" wrote in message
> > > news:7d293701.0308032056.1dd22745@posting.google.c om...
> > > > Giu+~a hai ngu+o+`i, nha` va(n So+n Nam va` GS Tra^`n Ngo.c The^m,
> > > > thi` nha` va(n So+n Nam ddu'ng ho+n .
> > >
> > >

VIETTHIET00@YAHOO.COM (VIET THIET) wrote in message news:...

[snipped]

> The next embarassing thing is the horrible poverty created by the
> incompetent and corrupt VCP, which causes total loss of human dignity
> and all moral rectitude among the average people.

I've asked you this several times in the last couple years, and have
not gotten a satisfactory answer.

The Vietnamese government did not asked to be embargoed after the war.
On the contrary, they tried to join ASEAN and tried to get loans from
the IMF and World Bank.

1) What do you think Vietnam's average GNP growth rate was from 1982
to today (hint: the economy accelerated after Doi Moi, growth didn't
begin then)?

2) Under conditions of involuntary embargo, what *would* have been the
growth rate from 1982-current if whatever policies you favor were in
place?

I stipulate to 2 things -- a) that the economic policies from 1976-80
were astoundingly awful b) that GNP growth is not the only, or even
most important criteria by which a government should be evaluated.
Nevertheless, you repeatedly claim that the Vietnamese government has
been an economic failure, and you never say only in the early post-war
years, so you must be talking about the entire record. So, let's see
some facts supporting your claim. How fast did they grow since 1982,
how fast could they have grown realistically? These are straight
forward questions. If you have never read such data, then you should
be cautious about making such sweeping statements until you have.

Dear Brian,

I am sorry for not knowing you have been waiting for answers on this
subject. Since I don't make a living as an economist, I can only
answer your quations based on my empirical observations of the
economic situations in Vietnam, with personal comparisons between now
and during the war in the 70's.

My position is that the 7% growth rate between 1985 until 1998 is not
much to call home about. The main reason was that between 1975 and
1985, the VC's collectivization policy was a disastrous failure. It
collapsed the entire economy, taking the entire population of a large
rice-growing country to the brink of mass starvation. It should not
take much effort to register growth in the double digit range coming
up from a totally wrecked economy, mass starvation, or is it?

The GDP per capita in 1985, before Doi Moi was probably $40 if anybody
in the world cared to measure. I read some reports that it grew to
$157 in 1991. The point is, growth rate in the 5-7% per-annum range
back from mass starvation and a completely collapsed economy is
nothing to be proud about!

My personal observations after touring all over Vietnam from cities to
country side is that, presently the people of Vietnam is much poorer
off, even compared to the period when the VC's were waging a war of
terrorism througout Vietnam during the 70's. Of course the population
has doubled into 80 millions while the arable land mass remain the
same (we are not even talking about the territories the VC's stole
from Laos and Cambodia).

The relative poverty is shown by the cramped housing, the ratios of
beggars, peddlars, prostitutes, unattended children found on the
street, and circumstantial clues like the absence of domestic produces
like sea foods, fruits, vegeatbles etc... which appear to be exported
for hard currencies. The variety, availability and affordability of
basic food items appear very good in 2000, due to my observations that
people in isolated areas were able to assemble quick meals with pork,
chicken, beef, vegetables ingredients etc...

The relative poverty is shown in the scarcity of finished goods, like
building materials etc...In most other cities besides Saigon and
Hanoi, you only have to travel a few miles from the center whenmost of
the housing are just tiny mud and thatched huts, made from local
natural materials. That's another aspects of poverty.

If you have any reliable economic data to show, I would be happy to
correlate them to reality, and to compare them to other contemporary
countries!

VIETTHIET


**********************
bkt90@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote in message news:<66dc0679.0308061928.4a70597b@posting.google.com>...
> VIETTHIET00@YAHOO.COM (VIET THIET) wrote in message news:...
>
> [snipped]
>
> > The next embarassing thing is the horrible poverty created by the
> > incompetent and corrupt VCP, which causes total loss of human dignity
> > and all moral rectitude among the average people.
>
> I've asked you this several times in the last couple years, and have
> not gotten a satisfactory answer.
>
> The Vietnamese government did not asked to be embargoed after the war.
> On the contrary, they tried to join ASEAN and tried to get loans from
> the IMF and World Bank.
>
> 1) What do you think Vietnam's average GNP growth rate was from 1982
> to today (hint: the economy accelerated after Doi Moi, growth didn't
> begin then)?
>
> 2) Under conditions of involuntary embargo, what *would* have been the
> growth rate from 1982-current if whatever policies you favor were in
> place?
>
> I stipulate to 2 things -- a) that the economic policies from 1976-80
> were astoundingly awful b) that GNP growth is not the only, or even
> most important criteria by which a government should be evaluated.
> Nevertheless, you repeatedly claim that the Vietnamese government has
> been an economic failure, and you never say only in the early post-war
> years, so you must be talking about the entire record. So, let's see
> some facts supporting your claim. How fast did they grow since 1982,
> how fast could they have grown realistically? These are straight
> forward questions. If you have never read such data, then you should
> be cautious about making such sweeping statements until you have.

VIETTHIET00@YAHOO.COM (VIET THIET) wrote in message news:...



> My position is that the 7% growth rate between 1985 until 1998 is not
> much to call home about. The main reason was that between 1975 and
> 1985, the VC's collectivization policy was a disastrous failure. It
> collapsed the entire economy, taking the entire population of a large
> rice-growing country to the brink of mass starvation. It should not
> take much effort to register growth in the double digit range coming
> up from a totally wrecked economy, mass starvation, or is it?

I have criticisms of the distribution of the benefit of the growth,
the composition of it, its long term sustainability, and the
corruption it brings with it; yet as far as output growth, it is
impressive by comparative standards.

As I mentioned in the previous post. The economy was *not* totally
wrecked at the time Doi Moi was implemented. Industrial output had
been growing rapidly for years. True, agricultural output was not
growing fast in the 1980s. Yet it's hard to blame collectivization.
The South, for the most part, was not collectivized because of ardent
resistance of peasants. By the early 1980s, the VCP mostly gave up.
One major reason why agricultural output in the 1980s wasn't as fast
as in the late 1980s and 1990s was low increases in inputs and slow
agricultural technology advances. This was related to the embargo and
the costs of war with the Khmer Rouge. The major VCP contribution to
slow agricultural growth in the 1980s was probably restrictions on
local autonomy that were eased after Doi Moi, leading to
diversification.

> The GDP per capita in 1985, before Doi Moi was probably $40 if anybody
> in the world cared to measure. I read some reports that it grew to
> $157 in 1991.

USD conversion of developing country living standards are dubious,
when viewed in absolute terms (and purchasing power parity measures,
the alternative, have their own flaws), but they can capture change.

> The point is, growth rate in the 5-7% per-annum range
> back from mass starvation and a completely collapsed economy is
> nothing to be proud about!

There was no mass starvation. There wasn't even that at the nadir of
the late 1970s disaster, and things had improved in the 1980s. Food
availability was inadequate to prevent rural malnutrition, but that
was solved very soon after the reforms, and the easing of the war and
the embargo.

It's true, an economy can grow at a misleadingly fast pace if good
policies are adopted at the bottom of a recession or depression --
meaning, the economy's previous capacity was underused, and they are
re-employed quickly. That is not the case in Vietnam by the time of
Doi Moi, at least not to the degree you are suggesting. Even if it
were, the growth wouldn't last nearly as long as it has. By the way,
what has been happening in the Vietnamese economy since 2000? I
haven't followed recent developments.

It's true, in general, that at the lower stages of industrialization
there is greater growth potential (for various reasons: external
technology borrowing, room for improving underdeveloped human
resources, immature sectors), so if interested, you should compare
Vietnam's performance to other countries when they were in that stage.
If you do, you'll find Vietnam's performance is pretty good, in terms
of output growth.


> My personal observations after touring all over Vietnam from cities to
> country side is that, presently the people of Vietnam is much poorer
> off, even compared to the period when the VC's were waging a war of
> terrorism througout Vietnam during the 70's.

And what were their alternatives to this "war of terrorism" (the
terror was mutual actually)? Electoral competition?

Anyway, the comparison is unfair. The US injected massive amounts of
money into South Vietnam, and after that, Vietnam faced embargo and
denial of normal int'l loans, as well as aggression from two
neighbors. Further, I already stipulate that the late 1970s economic
policies were horrible, and would have disrupted the economy even in
ideal circumstances. I am only contesting your description of the
VCP's growth record after that. The situation under the RVN is not
comparable to what options and capabilities the Vietnamese government
faced in 1982.

> Of course the population
> has doubled into 80 millions while the arable land mass remain the
> same

Correct

> The relative poverty is shown by the cramped housing, the ratios of
> beggars, peddlars, prostitutes, unattended children found on the
> street, and circumstantial clues like the absence of domestic produces
> like sea foods, fruits, vegeatbles etc... which appear to be exported
> for hard currencies. The variety, availability and affordability of
> basic food items appear very good in 2000, due to my observations that
> people in isolated areas were able to assemble quick meals with pork,
> chicken, beef, vegetables ingredients etc...

relative to what? In lists of health/vital stat measurements, Vietnam
has for a long time ranked higher on those lists than in per-capita
income, which is a good sign. This means they are achieving the same
health/vital stats as richer countries. However, because of the high
degree of inequality today, this pattern might end.

> The relative poverty is shown in the scarcity of finished goods, like
> building materials etc...In most other cities besides Saigon and
> Hanoi, you only have to travel a few miles from the center when most of
> the housing are just tiny mud and thatched huts, made from local
> natural materials. That's another aspects of poverty.

The question is not the absolute level of poverty, but how fast has
poverty been eased since the early 1980s, and how does that compare to
other countries at similar phases? Vietnam's performance is inferior
to Taiwan's under Chiang-Kai-Shek (the fastest grower/poverty reducer
in world history as far as I know), South Korea's under Park Chung
Hee, Malaysia's under Mahathir, and China's under Deng. Yet it is
comparable to Indonesia under Suharto, Thailand under the various
generals, Meiji Japan. It is superior to the Philippines under Marcos
and since, India under Nehru and Indira Ghandi, and all of Latin
America. The growth rate/poverty reduction performance is also
superior to the United States in the 19th century! Yet that's
misleading because what was impressive about US economic growth was
not its speed, but its incredible long term sustainability, which
Vietnam has yet to prove.

"jupiterean" wrote in message news:...

> I just wonder how they came up with this index for VN. Economic statistics
> are still considered state secrets and generally inaccessible, aren't they ?
>
> Besides, in a system where bureaucrats are notorious for false reporting to
> impress their superiors, are these numbers really reliable? Just take a look
> around the country and anybody can see the severe income disparity between
> urban and rural areas, between people with connections (either with the
> government or with overseas Viets) and those with none. Those numbers on
> paper cannot beat observed reality.
>
> JoJ

The government publishes economic information. Economists at the
World Bank or elsewhere check it for plausibility, both for internal
logic and how consisent it is with other sources of information, such
as trade data, observation, interviews about whether incomes are
rising or falling, etc. It is fairly easy to fudge the numbers,
inflating them a bit. It is very difficult to completely fabricate
non-existent output growth. An extreme level of secrecy is necessary
for that, I mean North Korea level secrecy. And even with them
certain vague trends can be guessed at.

I doubt deliberate macroeconomic reporting fraud is a big factor (like
it was in the Brezhnev era Soviet Union), but there are possible
upward biases in the growth accounting method, for instance if prices
don't reflect true costs and values; a problem in all economies, but
more so in ones with a lot of state intervention in prices.

minhduc2001@MailandNews.com (Minh Duc) wrote in message news:<7d293701.0308081354.536728ef@posting.google.com>...

> Agricultural output did go down when the collectivization was applied.

In the North, in the late 1970s, agricultural growth, which had been
decent during the war (considering) slowed down to a crawl, but yields
did not fall if I remember some stats I saw once correctly (per capita
yields might have though). When the government tried to forcibly
collectivize the south, and abolish or greatly reduce market activity
generally it caused major agricultural crisis. But by the early
1980s, I'm saying that the VCP gave up on forcible collectivization,
having encountered lots of resistance. After that agricultural growth
did not go down any further, but started to improve slowly, then
improved rapidly after Doi Moi.

> When the government seized the lands, many peasants lost their lands
> and refused to work in cooperatives. Those who worked in cooperatives
> worked with half-hearted attitude. The embargo had litle effect on the
> agriculture because Vietnam still had the equipments and fertilizer
> provided from the communist bloc.

I would like to see some statistics on fertilizer application. I
don't know, but I bet it went up much faster after the reforms and
liberalization of the international environment. Also, seed
technology is a big factor.


> The whole world could see when China abandoned collectivization, the
> argricultural output increased sharply. It started in 1983, when one
> province of China allowed peasants to sell their havest on free
> market, the output was tripled. Dang Xiao Ping saw the good result and
> appoved other provinces to abandon collectivization.

This is a myth put forth by Deng's government to discredit Hua Guofeng
and his followers. It was, perhaps still is the conventional wisdom
among China experts, but has been discredited in a series of papers in
the last 5-10 years.

The surge in grain output in China was from 1978-1983 (the 1984 peak
year reported grain harvest improperly included released reserve
stocks). Breaking up collective farms was only experimental in a few
places from 1978-80; the overwhelming majority of villages still
farmed collectively. 1982 was the big year of transition out of
collective farms (a little before, a little after that). By this
time, the surge in grain yields had been going for 4 years and only
continued a year or two longer. The reason grain output was surging
was 1) high yield hybrid seeds had just come online 2) fertilizer
application soared, due to vastly increased trade and vastly increased
local production from 1970s investments 3) the government jacked up
grain prices very high to make up for decades of soaking the peasants
with confiscatory low prices 4) the government gave local areas
autonomy and freedom to market grain surpluses over their quotas 5)
except for 1980-81, the weather was especially good in these years.
Once you take all those factors into consideration, breaking up the
collectives has very little explanatory value for the 1981-83
decollectivization period.

There were huge increases in non-grain agricultural output as well,
but this also had little to do with decollectivization. Locals were
given the freedom to grow what they wanted, and the freedom to market
it, instead of being dictated to by the state. In areas where it was
appropriate, farmers shifted more labor and resources to higher value
crops. This increased their enthusiasm (thus their labor intensity)
and the value of the total output. This is explained by market
reforms and economic freedom, not dividing the land per se.

Also, Deng did not "approve" decollectivization in 1981-83, he
*ordered* it (see Jonathan Unger _The Transformation of Rural China_
2002). Cadres were threatened with bad political labels ("gang of
four element", backwards thinker, etc.) if they didn't comply. The
pressure was enormous. This is not to say decollectivization was
unpopular. It was indeed welcomed in most places (a good guess is
75%).

> The same thing
> happened in Vietnam. When peasants were allowed to work on their own
> land and sell their product on free market, they worked much much
> much... harder than when they were in cooperatives.

The decollectivization story is much more plausible for Vietnam than
for China. However, more so for North Vietnam, since like I said, in
the south a great many peasants had successfuly resisted VCP's forced
collectivization.