Short Form Equipment Loan Agreement. No Comments Imported Loan Loan Loan Equipment: Fill & Download for Free

Yes and no, and somewhat no, but at least 50% yes.Honestly, it depends on what rural areas we’re talking about, and for what reasons those areas are ignored, if they are.I’m from one of those rural areas. The heart of flyover country. And of Trump Territory.I’m not a Democrat, but I am a Never-Trumper, and in the opinions of most of the folks where I’m from, that puts me on the left somewhere between Lenin and Chairman Mao. I’m one of the people who is trying to have these conversations with neighbors.Their number one complaint? They’re ignored and forgotten until they throw a brick through the window like Trump. People pay attention to them now. But they feel like Democrats, who are almost uniformly city people in their estimation, either ignore them entirely or look down on them patronizingly and condescendingly and refuse to listen to them.It’s not that they are opposed to progressivism. It’s that they feel humiliated.Democrats forget this at their own peril.Let me try to explain.First, understand the actually progressive history of rural areas.There’s an accepted notion that rural areas are just inherently backwaters resistant to change and so they vote conservatively, and always have.As Ira Gershwin once wrote, it ain’t necessarily so.The Progressive movement of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was primarily led by rural Midwesterners, particularly areas like Minnesota and Wisconsin. There’s a lot of this state with murals of Fightin’ Bob LaFollette on them. The Republican Party was an activist, progressive party for much of its history. That legacy does still live on in places like rural Wisconsin.It wasn’t just the sin and vice values voters, either, who voted progressively for the temperance movement. Organizations such as the Grange were certainly big into ethics and morality, but they were also focused on raising the quality of rural life, including rural electrification and road infrastructure, improved rural schools, and promoting agricultural efficiency.4-H clubs instituted competitions for youth to come up with more inventive ways to improve rural living and agricultural yields. My grandfather won a state soil judging competition. These organizations celebrated modernization and change.These were states that were leaders in creating public elementary, secondary, and higher educational institutions that were free or cheap for residents. UW-Madison created a “short course” college program for farmers to learn better agricultural practices at a bare-bones cost. Both of my grandfathers had degrees through that program. Even when my parents were going to undergraduate at a state school, their tuition was $100 per semester.These voters were concerned with democratic reforms, as well. It was rural progressives that pushed for reforms such as the referendum, the recall, the ballot initiative, the direct popular election of senators, and the civil service. They were concerned with income inequality, and pushed for reforms such as the progressive income tax and ending the laissez faire attitude towards corporate regulations. It was rural progressives that picked up McClure’s Magazine in droves, thanks to a reduced rate for delivery due to the U.S. Post Office and a good price for groundbreaking investigative journalism. And in reading McClure’s, they learned about how stacked the deck was for big business, and pushed for reforms to even the playing field.Even where there was traditionalist pushback, these progressive reformers were generally wildly successful in rural areas until only relatively recently in history.That said, those rural progressives were never particularly welcoming to immigrants, particularly those of color, and had a skeptical attitude towards civil rights at best. Women’s suffrage was a mixed bag among rural progressives, which is particularly ironic considering that women were some of the most vocal in pushing the temperance movement and the women’s vote was essential in delivering the 21st Amendment, a major Progressive Movement platform plank.And they were plenty hostile to urban dwellers, who they saw as decadent, impractical, elitist, snobbish, and out of touch with rural life. Rural progressives blamed urban big-business conservatives for monopolies and unfair trade practices that essentially controlled milk and grain and meat prices.Rural progressives tended to be Republicans. Urban progressives tended to be Democrats. The same basic fault line was present 120 years ago as continues to be present today: the urban-rural divide, and a resentment of city folks by the rural folks.Second, understand the more recent history of liberal (and even conservative) politics and its impact on rural America.Rural America has been beaten to hell, especially in recent years.Cities make up 5% of the country, but dominate in population and especially culture. Name the last television show that positively and fairly portrayed modern rural life. I’ll wait. Can you think of one? The few that even touch on the topic portray rural life as backwaters full of serial killers and dumb accents, or stupid and naive.You remember when the news covered the hundreds of people and $125 billion dollars in damage to rural Mississippi when Hurricane Katrina rolled through, right? Oh, maybe not, because it never got covered in lieu of talking about New Orleans. NOLA is culturally important. Waveland… not so much. Anyone who is not from within 100 miles of it, point to it on a map. Right now. Without using Google. I dare you. Tell me where it is.And yet, Waveland, Biloxi, and surrounding areas suffered substantially more catastrophic damage than the French Quarter did.Infrastructure in rural areas is no longer funded or maintained. Basic things city folk take for granted just don’t exist in rural areas, or if it does, it’s not reliable. Roads, even electricity sometimes can be shaky because it’s not maintained, because the county probably can’t afford it.Rural people generally have to do their own water, including wastewater treatment. You know how much a mound system costs, especially when you have to dig it up every ten years and replace it? You know much it costs to dig a new well if the old one is contaminated? Tens of thousands of dollars. Based on my current city water bill, which is high for the area I’m in, it would take me over sixty years to pay for the cost that my neighbors from where I grew up just put in to dig a new well and replace their septic system to sell their house.And that’s for government services; private ones? Forget about them.It’s not profitable to deliver packages to the ass-end of nowhere, for example. If my in-laws want to order something on Amazon, it’ll get delivered as far as their P.O. Box in town, anywhere from 30–45 minutes travel away depending on road conditions. The Postal Service only goes as far as a turnaround on part of the minimum maintenance road they’re on, five miles away.You want high speed internet? Your only option is satellite or maybe a cell hotspot, both of which are metered, limited connections, so no Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, YouTube… anything that consumes more data than basic email. And depending on your television market, you might not even be able to get satellite where you area, even if you don’t want cable with it and just want the internet. Why? Because that’s how the contracts are structured with satellite providers, who really want you to buy the satellite TV.A lot of these communities were built around a single or maybe two industries. Where I grew up, your options were pretty much dairy and crop farming or manufacturing. Both of which are utterly dying. Automation is taking over manufacturing, and giant agribusiness and factory dairies are the only way to survive anymore. My grandfather used to break even at $18/hundredweight for milk. (What, you think farmers sell it by the gallon?) That was twenty-five years ago. It’s up right now from recent years, at just over $18 per hundredweight for November 2019 contracts.Plus crop prices suck right now. You have to get more per acre every year just to break even. A couple bad years in a row and you’re just screwed. So, when some guy from Madison comes along and tells you that you have to put a line fence back that’s going to cost you five grand in lost crop, it hurts.You know why there have been more small farm foreclosures in the past five to ten years than ever? That’s why.There is a not-unfounded belief and understanding that free trade agreements and globalization has caused this.Fine, Democrats tell them. Just move. Go to the city. Unemployment is down right now: get a new job! You can sell the land and go do something else?But right there’s the real kick to the balls: where are you going to go if you want to leave and how are you going to get there?This, right here, is why the suicide rate in my home area has doubled to tripled, particularly among youth and farmers.Where are you going to go?Move to the city, like the urban liberals say we should? That’s what Democrats keep telling my people. Just move. Just move to Madison or Milwaukee because there’s plenty of jobs.Right, because most of my people have $2500 to throw at a security deposit and first and last month’s rent on a cheap place.Sell the land and the stuff on it? To whom? Some giant agribusiness corporation who will happily buy you out… for pennies on the dollar of the assessed value of your land and equipment? It’s not like the other small guy around the corner has the cash to buy your acreage and your cows and your aging equipment.Almost all of that property is mortgaged to hell anyway, because every bad year, every time that milk prices and crop prices are down, you had to take out another loan and refinance the old debt. Crop insurance is enough to maybe keep you from folding for one year. So, you end up taking out a loan against the value of the farm. Again.If the bank will give it to you. Credit is getting progressively tighter because things are leveraged more and more. You can’t sell the farm and fixtures and equipment and livestock for what it’s worth, or even what the debt on it is, because nobody will buy it for that. You’re stuck, because you’ll still lose your shirt when the bank comes after you for the remainder. And the bank might cut you off at any time. Or raise the interest rates.There are no good options.It can be really crushing. It’s why people drink themselves to death, or get into harder stuff. They’re trying to numb the pain half the time. And then you get a drug conviction or a DUI, and now you’re even less employable, and next thing you know, you’re stuck on welfare like the people that the media you listen to tells you are lazy and undeserving.It’s humiliating.And then they turn on the antenna TV and watch the national nightly news and hear the national message of Democrats on every nationally-broadcast television show and media outlet: they’re white, so they’re privileged.And they immediately think, “Fuck that shit,” because it sure doesn’t feel like a privilege to exist where and how they do in what feels like and is the margins of society in a lot of ways.Now, I’ve written at length about how that’s not what privilege means, but that’s not terribly well explained by Democrats to rural people, believe me. Certainly not to my people.And that brings me around to where Democrats are failing at speaking Ruralese right now.It’s worth listening to the complaints of rural voices. Really listen, not take what they say at face value or impose an urban understanding of the rural consciousness.I’m deeply frustrated with some of the answers to this question, which say Bullock is wrong because Democrats do work hard in those areas, but are shouted down because of white fear and nostalgia and that they really like authoritarianism because who doesn’t love a lack of choice and women git back in the kitchen and Jesus Haploid Christ, this is why you people are turning off my people.You know why they’re scared of multiculturalism? It’s not because they believe white people are superior. It isn’t. It’s because they probably lost a job, or knew someone who did, to an affirmative action hire. We can have a legitimate, honest discussion about whether or not that’s good or bad, but if you continue to ignore the fact that happened, you’re going to lose them. As they say in my part of the country, “don’t piss in my face and tell me it’s raining.”*Edit: I want to clarify, after thinking about it a bit on my way home, that this is a very regional-specific take and rural areas may be very distinct in this regard. The pocket of rural America that I’m from is relatively close to a bunch of moderately urban areas and within two hours of three different medium-metro areas. As a result, there is a lot more diversity. There is also a much different tradition to the area. The racism that exists is largely implicit bias and subconscious racism, not overt KKK-style terrorism. That’s not necessarily great, but it’s important to realize that it’s a much different form of racism and fear of multiculturalism than “Jews will not replace us.”There are other pockets of rural America that are a lot different, and are overtly racist. And those pockets are not isolated to certain parts of the country that have a tradition for that. St. Cloud, Minnesota has an appalling number of Confederate flags in the windows of homes and pickup trucks. There was an honest-to-God white pride rally earlier this year. An anti-hate listening session and anti-hate walk had to be called off because of legitimate threats and people who where threatening to hold a protest. A protest against people trying to end bigotry and prejudice. In central Minnesota.I have had some truly horrifying conversations with people that I otherwise respect, who have adopted an almost casual racism, and this has increased in the last three to five years. It’s clear when I press them on it that they don’t understand what they’re saying, and are repeating talking points in many circumstances. But it is alarming, and should be taken seriously.End edit.They don’t fear progress. I call shenanigans on this. Remember, they were the very ones looking for progress a century ago. They absolutely still do want progress.But the progress offered up by progressives is largely delivered with a side of “fuck your present existence; you better just learn how to do something else, and move to the city.” As explained above, even if that were what my people wanted, it’s not an option.Democrats aren’t offering them progress that helps them.What’s the modern equivalent of rural electrification and paved roads? What’s the modern equivalent of rebuilding rural America? What’s the Democratic plan for saving family farms, or easing the transition away from them? What’s the Democratic plan for stopping the slow, relentless march of Wal-Marts destroying the general store?Medicare-for-All? That’s great… if you’re anywhere near a hospital or your local one didn’t already fold. Student loan forgiveness? Awesome… except, probably nobody in your family or workplace went to college, needed to, or will be working in public service.What progress are you offering them?They just like authoritarianism? Horseshit. That is utter horseshit. I call shenanigans on this up, down, left, right, and sideways.You know what the biggest gripe that my people have is? That other people are coming in and telling them what to do who don’t know anything about the subject. They didn’t vote for Trump because he promised them less democracy. They voted for Trump because he’s a one-man government wrecking crew. The fact that he’s destroying the federal government, deregulating the daylights out of everything, sparking chaos on the world order, all of that’s a feature to them, not a bug. They don’t love him because they want someone who will tell them what to do; they love him because they think somehow he’s going to get rid of all the people telling them what to do.They just love nostalgia? Again, I call shenanigans. You know why my people have at least some degree of wanting to go backwards in time? Because at least two generations ago, they could survive on what we had.That’s what made “Make America Great Again” both so enticing to some and horrifying to others. It’s a meaningless glittering generality that allows anyone to impose just about anything on it. Most of my people associated it with a heyday when at least a guy could support a family of four on a regular wage. The fact that it was also a time when being anything but a white guy sucked donkey balls just doesn’t cross their mind.Yes, yes, I hear you screaming in the back right now about how that’s the problem. That’s a selfish attitude. Their mindset is “fuck you, I got mine.”And it is. Oh, hell yes it is. Most of them won’t admit it out loud, but it is. They’ll fight it because these are close-knit communities that look after their own. They’re not selfish when it comes to taking care of the people they know. But outside of that? The rest of the country? They don’t know those folks and don’t care to.But if you’re a Democrat trying to reach these people, take a step back and ask why that is.Yes, many of them are privileged in ways that they don’t understand. That’s a piece of it, sure. But it’s a lot deeper than that.I would like to think that a lot of the progressive voices on here who are constantly attacked over their identity and actually consistently marginalized would have some empathy here. I’m not saying sympathy. But empathy at least.Again, as I’ve written before:It’s disheartening the amount of time I have had to spend trying to convince urban and coastal progressives that the people I grew up with are not just bigoted, racist, homophobic, uneducated Republican slaves to Fox News. That we’re not just a lost cause to progressive policies.When I try to talk to urban progressives about learning to speak Ruralese and understanding rural values, do you know what I get? Scoffs. “What values? Like racism, illiteracy, and superstition?”No, Karen. We’d like to feel safe in our homes and actually get ahead from an honest day’s hard work for once. Probably the same as you.When I tell my urban counterparts that my people feel like their way of life is dying, do you know how many of them smile and say, “Good!”Now, I’m not going to pretend that rural ways of life are always idyllic or healthy. There are destructive generational issues that have haunted rural life. Alcoholism isn’t really viewed as a problem so much as kind of the norm. Case races with Bud Light or Coors are part of living here. There are lots of people trapped in abusive, destructive relationships because they got married young and had a couple kids before they really had life figured out. Egalitarianism for women is not awesome in some parts of rural America. Being gay or trans could be a death sentence, though it’s better than it used to be in most parts of rural America now.. . .There is plenty of hypocrisy and ugly to rural living.But there is also a lot of beautiful to it. There will be a meal train and a card signed by the entire community with whatever cash people could scrape into the hat if someone gets sick or someone dies. Move into a new house and someone will be around shortly with a casserole or hotdish for the oven. We’ll hold benefit nights for a family that lost a house to pick up the slack from the insurance, donate our gently used toys and children’s clothing to a less fortunate local family, or show up in crews with chainsaws and ropes to clean up the trees that come down in a storm. We’ll patch up the roof of the pole shed for the neighbor or rope up the cows that got out through the hole in the fence for each other. We’ll plow or blow each others’ driveways out in the winter, especially if it’s old man Holler who’s like 170 and the crazy fool would probably try do it and kill himself trying if someone didn’t.A farmer in Central Minnesota lately had cancer bad enough that he couldn’t harvest his corn crop, so all the other farmers in the area pitched in, brought their combines over, and brought it in for him.Folks care about each other out here.I was always taught as a kid that we had to look out for each other, because God knows nobody else will.Still think that our backwards ways are all without merit?And then there’s the whole “you’re voting against your interests!” thing. I’ll admit, I used to think that, as well. The 2016 election and subsequent conversations and reading honestly changed my mind on that.The people in my home area feel like liberals are elitist and condescending to rural voters. The most recognition my home area has received from Hollywood lately is Making a Murderer. (Side note, that was several counties over from where I grew up. That’s a whole different part of the state.)Democrats are not asking questions of my people. They’re not listening. They don’t even have to agree, they just have to make my people feel heard.If you can’t offer them something better, at least give them a good explanation as to why, and why that at least still is important to the values you both share.I love this little clip from The West Wing, where Jed Bartlett faces a dairy farmer who was angry about a vote Bartlett took in Congress on dairy prices that look money out of his pocket and hurt him. The farmer is mad about it, and wants to know why Bartlett voted that way, because the farmer is seriously considering not voting for Bartlett for president.What did Bartlett do? He owned it. He spoke to a shared value: we take care of our own, and we should be making the world better for our kids. And what does that have to do with the price of milk? Bartlett explains that voting for that bill would have made it harder for poor kids to afford it.You know what? My people can probably get behind that.But better yet: include them in the solutions. Maybe there could have been a better idea out there for how not to screw the farmers and still get milk to kids in poverty. My people are pretty creative, actually. You’d be amazed at how smart they can be, how inventive, how far they can stretch resources.So, I think Bullock is right, to an extent, that Democrats simply don’t campaign or message in a lot of those areas, at least not on issues that my people care about, or in eliciting their help in fixing the problems we all collectively face in a way that also helps rural people.They’ll talk to you about those things. They absolutely will. Pull up a chair and let them complain? Everyone loves to bitch about the weather and the state of affairs.But they won’t respond to outsiders coming in to tell them what they “really need” or what their interests “really” are. You haven’t earned that.They might even be skeptical at first of why you’re asking them about it in the first place; they’ve learned the hard way that these kinds of discussions aren’t really about getting their input or knowledge, but to gather data for some report somewhere. There’s a lot of lost goodwill that’s going to take some serious time and effort to rebuild.But start asking them questions. Real questions, not pointed, closed, leading questions. Start listening to them.I think that’s where Bullock was going with what he was saying.Now, I’m sure I’m highly likely to get a bunch of people who will comment here “But WHY?! They aren’t suffering as much as we are suffering!”Are there people who are much more marginalized than my people? Hell yes.Are there people who have a lot less political power getting crapped on by my people? Hell yes.Is the perception of how much they receive from the government differ entirely from the reality? Hell yes and then some.All of that is true.Doesn’t matter.It doesn’t.This is how they feel about it.Telling them they shouldn’t feel that way is like telling a person who is depressed to just not feel sad. It doesn’t address the reasons why they feel that way, rational or otherwise.You have to start by affirming the fact that they feel that way and digging into why, or they will never listen to you.As my people say: “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got.”Keep that in mind as you approach strategy around rural voters in 2020, Democrats.This was long-ish and without pictures. Here you go.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and BNBR violation and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.Same with whining about these rules and something something free speech and censorship.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly

First, a brief period of Vietnamese history prior to the Vietnam War to help with my answer. Shortly after World War 2 ended the Cold War started. It was a war of ideology between the West and Communist Soviet Union plus their allies, initially the Eastern block and China (later joined by Vietnam and Cuba). In 1946, following the defeat of Japan, France tried to regain its control over Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) but it was opposed by the Viet Minh led by Ho Chi Minh, a Vietnamese Communist leader. Although the United States, influenced by Roosevelt’s the Atlantic Charter, openly disapproved of French efforts to regain control of colonies in Africa and Indochina, with the Cold War threatening, it supported the French government in fighting the Communist uprising in Vietnam.When the French was defeated in Dien Bien Phu by the Viet Minh in 1954, Vietnam was divided temporarily at parallel 17 whilst waiting for a general election to be held in 1956 in accordance with Geneva agreement. The North was lead by Ho Chi Minh whilst the South governed by the newly returned USA-exile Ngo Dinh Diem, a true anti-communist. After a rigged referendum in 1955, he proclaimed the creation of the Republic of Vietnam, with himself as president. No general election ever took place as president Diem, with approval from the US, refused to hold one in the South fearing a defeat as support for Ho Chi Minh’s communist government in the North was considered overwhelming, estimated to be more than 80%. North Vietnam was recognised by all the communist states as a legitimate government of Vietnam whilst the Republic of Vietnam was recognised by the US who began to assist south Vietnam with military assistance to fight North Vietnam. The National Liberation Front aka Vietcong , a South Vietnamese communist organisation aided by the North, initiated a guerrilla war against the South Vietnamese government in 1959. The US involvement began in 1960 to aid the South and the Vietnam War got underway. The main reason the US got involved was to prevent the spread of Communism into south Vietnam and neighbouring states.President Diem with President Eisenhower in late 1950sThere were so many reasons the Vietnamese defeated the Americans and I must admit as a north Vietnamese looking back to this period of Vietnamese history I still find it very difficult to pinpoint the exact reason. There were so many , all valid in their own right and perhaps all important. I will try to list them below in order of importance in my view.BeliefsThis, for me was one of the biggest reasons if not the biggest. Nowadays everyone who has a slightest interest in Vietnamese history would know that the Vietnam War was not a war of conquest or colonisation of Vietnam by the US. Nevertheless at the time, it was not that straight forward for the population of North Vietnamese and for those in the south who supported Communist North Vietnam such as the Vietcong or Vietcong or communist sympathisers. Whether it was a result of brilliant propaganda but the truth is every Vietnamese except for those allying themselves with Diem genuinely believed that the Americans were invading Vietnam with the aim to colonise it just like the French had done, and to enslave the Vietnamese; Diem and his supporters were just “ban nuoc” individuals , selling out their own country for their personal gains. After 80 years under French rules, chronic exploitation and literally enslavement in many sections of society under the French the Vietnamese did not want to go through it again. The belief gave them an insatiable desire, iron determination and great courage to fight the Americans till the end to preserve freedom and independence.The other equally important belief which also greatly contributed to the outcome of the war was a historical one. The Vietnamese believed in their proud traditions of repulsing foreign invaders. They drew their strength from their successful 1000 year fight for independence from China, their 3 victories over Genghis Khan in the 13th century and more importantly their fresh triumph over France in 1954. They had an unshakeable belief that no invaders could succeed in Vietnam. They really believed in their ability to outwit, outfight their enemy and defend their country.Mountainous TerrainThe 2nd belief was partly because they had a mountain range running almost the entire border of Vietnam from its northern frontier with China along the border with Laos ending somewhere near Saigon. It consisted of many high peaks rising out from dense jungles with forests after forests of large leafy trees and many caves providing perfect hiding places from the Americans reconnaissance and bomber aircraft. They also formed formidable vantage defensive positions for the Vietcongs or North Vietnamese regular soldiers to fight and inflict casualties against the GIs and their ally soldiers.3/4 of Vietnam is covered by dense forestGuerrilla TacticsFacing a powerful enemy like the US, the Vietnamese knew it would be suicidal to challenge the GIs in too many set-piece battles unless on the rare occasions when they were certain of victory. Instead they employed the guerrilla tactic. The hit and run tactic, adopting the element of surprise, choosing when and where to fight and when to withdraw to safety, worked effectively against the Americans. This tactic suited the Vietnamese well as they operated in small units thus didn't have to assemble large forces and risked being detected and decimated by devastating American air power. Such a tactic also helped inflict maximum casualties on the Americans without exposing themselves to the better equipped GIs for too long. The guerrilla often had their bases in the jungles but they also mingled among the populations and therefore were hard to detect. The GI casualties eventually grew and became unacceptable to the American public back home and played a big factor in helping the Vietnamese win the war.A guerrilla unit in their mountainous baseA typical small guerrilla unit on the attack.Strong LeadershipHo Chi Minh led the North Vietnam’s government with overwhelming support from the population following his Victory over France after 8 years of fighting and 80 years of French rules. The Vietnamese public admired and revered him for this and had absolute confidence in his leadership in the fight against the US. He was known to be a father figure, a clear, decisive thinker with immense wisdom. He had an amazing ability to pick out and collaborate with the best, most capable individuals who believed in the same cause and who embraced the Soviet’s socialist doctrine. The Vietnamese were grateful for the independence and freedom HCM and his supporters fought so hard for. It was understood at the time that HCM and his government hadn't planned for 2 Vietnams and weren't about to accept the other half of their newly independent Vietnam being ruled by Diem, who exiled in the US for the entire war against the French. They were determined to unite Vietnam under their government at any costs “Tha hy sinh tat ca”, rather sacrifice everything, was their war cry, and the public as well as the governmental ministers were fully behind Ho Chi Minh and his vision for Vietnam.The great Ho Chi Minh with his top aid, general Vo Nguyen Giap.Soviet Union’s and Chinese HelpThis is often overlooked but it is in fact a huge factor in the Vietnam War.The Soviet’s help to the cause of the Vietnamese actually began long before the Vietnam War. Ho Chi Minh read the first draft of Lenin's thesis on national and colonial problems in the early 1920s , (Ho Chi Minh: "Forever Following the Road of Great Lenin," Su That Publishing House, Hanoi, 1970, page 51) from that moment, Marxism-Leninism spread to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh later wrote "The Great October Revolution Has Opened the Way to the Liberation of All Nations" [1 November 1967] "By following the path charted by the great Lenin, the path of the October Revolution, the Vietnamese have won very large victories. " He referred to the victory over France.Vietnam acknowledges that other than China, the Soviet Union has been an important contributor of economic and military aid, especially since early 1965 when Moscow initiated measures to improve Hanoi's "defense potential."Part of the receiving of weapons and equipment was training on how to use them. In the late 1950's, North Vietnam sent groups of selected candidates to the Soviet Union and Red China to learn how to fly MIG jet fighters. They stayed in their host country for one or more years learning to become jet fighters. After they had become pilots, the Soviet Union and Communist China supplied the jet aircraft. The Soviet Union supplied mostly MIG-17's and MIG-21's. China supplied mostly J-6's (a Chinese version of the MIG-19).Soviet built Surface to Air Missiles (SAM's) were sent to North Vietnam along with Soviet technicians to over-see their operations.Weapons and equipment that were not sophisticated enough to require advisers/technicians, such as tanks, artillery, small arms (rifles, machinguns, etc.) were supplied in mass numbers. PT-76 tanks, AK-47 assault rifles, SKS semi-automatic rifle, land mines, and ammunition for those weapons were supplied on a routine basis.Vietnamese airmen with a Mig in the background.A SAM site in Hanoi.The North Vietnamese utilized their SAM's and Air Force, and other anti-aircraft artillery (AAA guns) most efficiently, bringing down approximately 2,000 US aircraft including a number of the flying fortresses B52s during the war. Their anti-aircraft defences proved to be one of the most deadly in the history of modern warfare.Soviet Union’s military aids reached 1395 million US dollars and 1765 millions in economic aids between 1968 and 1971 alone.China’s assistance was no less significant. The military aid and training China provided were vital to the Vietnamese defeat of the French. In the Vietnam War the Chinese continued to supply massive amounts of military and economic aid, as well as sending over 300,000 military support troops into northern Vietnam.People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces began flowing into North Vietnam in July 1965 to help man air-defence in Hanoi and maintain its major transportation systems. They rebuilt or repaired bombed out bridges. The total number of Chinese troops in North Vietnam between June 1965 and March 1968 amounted to over 320,000 at one point peaking 170,000 soldiers.Furthermore China provided the North Vietnamese troops with 5,670 sets of uniforms, 5,670 pairs of shoes, 567 tons of rice, 20.7 tons of salt, 55.2 tons of meat, 20.7 tons of fish, 20.7 tons of sesame and peanuts, 20.7 tons of beans, 20.7 tons of lard, 6.9 tons of soy sauce, 20,7 tons of white sugar, 8,000 toothbrushes, 11,100 tubes of toothpaste, 35,300 bars of soap, and 109,000 cases of cigarettes.Weapon-wise China provided 2 million guns, 65,000 artillery pieces, 1 billion bullets, over 17 millions artillery shells, 560 tanks and 165 planes.Chinese trucks on the Ho Chi Minh Trail advancing southwards.The foreign assistance was crucial to keep the public fed and the war going and it is therefore not to be underestimated.More importantly the mere ideological alliance with the Soviet Union and China proved enough to restrict the Americans’ freedom to fight a conventional war they would have wanted against North Vietnam. In some people’s view had the US invaded North Vietnam the outcome of the war may have been very different. The huge casualties the US had suffered against China in the Korean war probably coerced the US to restrict the war strictly within south Vietnam.Vietnamese great GeneralsVo Nguyen Giap was not the first well-known Vietnamese general. He followed the Vietnamese tradition of producing great generals in times of foreign invasions. Before him there had been the first powerful general Ngo Quyen who lead the Vietnamese forces to defeat the southern Han’s kingdom to end 1000 years of Chinese domination. The next great general Tran Hung Dao successfully defeated Genghis Khan’s army 3 times to save Vietnam from a Mongolian occupation. Less than a century before Vo Nguyen Giap was born another great general in the name of Nguyen Hue who had united Vietnam in a civil war and then defeated an invasion army of the Qing’s dynasty. He died young at the age of 39 undefeated in all the battles he fought.Vo Nguyen Giap, a teacher and a lawyer by trade, became a formidable general under Ho Chi Minh in modern history. After defeating the French with his masterful combating skills and strategical ability, he played a major part throughout the Vietnam War and its outcome. He became one of the greatest general of the 20th century. He lived the a ripe old age of 103.General Vo Nguyen GiapVietnamese ingenuityThe Cu Chi Tunnels were evidence of the Vietcong’s ingenuity. The tunnels, built in secrecy by the helped to shelter the guerrilla troops in their hundreds and ammunition from the Americans. The tunnels were built with complex turns and various concealed levels to increase its defensiveness. Some of their entrances were under water and could not be seen. They were so vast totalling 250 km in length (155 miles) with hospitals and schools as well as entertaining venues. They remained indestructible by and large throughout the Vietnam War.The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a supply route hidden under the thick foliage in the mountain range along the Vietnam, Laos border. There the Vietnamese built many bridges with the decks of which often submerged a few feet under the water to avoid detection and destruction by American aircraft. The supplies of soldiers, food, medicine and ammunition was transported by trucks as well as bicycles. The logistical people overcame the problem of bicycle punctures by taking out the tubes and stuffing the tyres with straws. They also devised smokeless kitchens to avoid detection by air.Weapons were often hard to come by for the guerrillas and they produced most of their own home-made weapons. Gunpowder were obtained from exploded american bombs or shells which were readily available with a bit of searching around.Ability to endure hardship and fight till the end.An average gurrilla fighter suffered prolong hunger and disease much more than the well supplied and well cared for American GIs. They were expected to dig up to 5 feet of tunnels per day on an empty stomach in the Cu Chi Tunnels. They were prepared to live rough among rats and venomous snakes often venturing down the tunnel, the former for scraps and the latter for the former. It wasn't uncommon to die of malnutrition or related deceases.North Vietnamese soldiers matching 20 miles per day into south Vietnam on foot along the Ho Chi Minh Trail survived on a couple of handfuls of boiled rice a day whilst dodging the bombing. Yet they persevered and marched on regardless.The Vietnamese were prepared to fight for 30 or 40 years if necessary and inflict as much casualties on the Americans until they gave up. They were prepared to sacrify everything to win. That was their strategy and level of determination . The soldiers and guerrilla fighters and their sacrifices and endurance were the true reason for the Vietnamese triumph over the US.Lack of American public support for the warBy 1964 as the escalation of the Vietnam War became apparent, public opposition to the war began to take shape and grew larger in the next few years reaching the social movement status.The growing opposition to the Vietnam War was partly attributed to greater access to uncensored information through extensive television coverage on the ground in Vietnam. Civilian deaths, which were downplayed or omitted entirely by the Western media, became a subject of protest when photographic evidence of casualties emerged. An infamous photo of General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan shooting an alleged terrorist in handcuffs during the Tet Offensive also provoked public outcry.General Nguyen Shot a young suspected Vietcong in cold blood.Civilian deaths like the My Lai massacre andthe bombed out residential streets in Hanoi enraged the American public.Another opposition to the war was the perception that U.S. intervention in Vietnam because of the domino theory and the threat of communism, was not legally justifiable. Others argued that the American intervention in South Vietnam interfered with the self-determination of the country and felt that the war in Vietnam was a civil war that ought to have determined the fate of the country and that America was wrong to intervene. More importantly there was no sign of the GIs winning the war. The American were being told that America was winning the war and that the VietCong was on their last leg, then, the Tet offensive exploded with more American casualties and the US embassy attacked and taken for a few days. The Tet offensive by the Vietcong really ended the American public patience and any support left for President Johnson’s administrations. Shortly after the US began a Vietnamisation programme in preparation for the eventual withdrawal of their troops from Vietnam.GI’s coffins arriving homeAnti-war protesters in America helped end the warVietnamese were not KoreansLast but not least, this in my opinion is what differentiates the Vietnam situation from the Korean situation. Why did the Koreans (particularly communist North Koreans) accept the division of their country and the Vietnamese insisted in unifying theirs?The answer can be found from one period of history of Vietnam which is unique when compared to the history of Korea.By turning back the clock by just less than 200 years, Vietnamese history would reveal the complete annexation of the Champa kingdom by the Vietnamese emperor Ming Mang in 1832. As the maps below indicates, the original Vietnam (in yellow) ended at the border between Ha Tinh province and Champa, roughly at parallel 17. Just below Champa the southern end of modern Vietnam belong to the Khmer empire. By the 19th centuries, Vietnamese settlers had penetrated the Mekong Delta. The Nguyen Lords of Hue by diplomacy and force wrested the southernmost territory from Cambodia, completing the "March to the South", Nam Tien.As above, following the defeat of the French in 1954 Vietnam was ‘temporarily’ split at the Geneva agreement whilst waiting for a general election ironically at the 17th parallel, the old border with Champa . Anywhere but the 17th parallel!I have not found any sources to support what I will say below so if anyone know of any source please let me now. So bear in mind it’s only my personal opinion.Now if I was part of the leadership of North Vietnam after 1954 , particularly after 1956 when the division became permanent and the Vietnam War officially got underway, I would be very concerned about letting South Vietnam lose on its own . South Vietnam precisely encompassed the former state of Champa and the anexed East Cambodia and therefore I would be very wary of the sizeable population of Champa and khmer ancestry. I would be equally wary of a very large catholic population who were anti-communist and who might have wanted their own state, specially with Diem, a stern anti-communist and a catholic, in power.I would be so worried that some day, someone in the south Vietnamese government would declare South Vietnam independent from Vietnam and resurrect the Champa state perhaps with the southern section given back to Cambodia, or more likely completely form a new nation under a new name. This no doubt would be on the leaders’ mind and would give them the unshakeable and added determination to fight and to educate the people to unite Vietnam at any costs, to the death if it meant South Vietnam remained part of Vietnam.And when the leadership had the determination to fight the whole population followed faithfully. That was how it was in North Vietnam and with Ho Chi Minh’s followers in South Vietnam. The possibility of losing half of the country forever had likely increased the determination of the Vietnamese to unite their country and to win the war.An unspoken/undeclared catalyst to unite Vietnam certainly existed during the Vietnam War as far as the North Vietnam’s leadership was concerned.There was a famous war cry Quyet Tu Cho To Quoc Quyet Sinh, which can be translated roughly as Ready to die for the survival of the nation. This probably sums up the whole sentiment in many ways, very likely reflecting the leadership’s apprehension of a possible breakaway of South Vietnam.As for the Korean issue? Not that the communist North Koreans didn’t care about their country’s division but it was always a case of North Korea and South Korea would always be Korea, eventually merged and therefore it was not worth killing each others for anymore. Definitely not the case in Vietnam.I could go on a bit longer but these are the main reasons in my view the Vietnamese won the Vietnam War.Thanks for reading and please feel free to comment folks.

If the business is yet to be established, then does it have a balance sheet? For instance, does it have assets or loans? Those can be fixed assets, like land, or buildings, or furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Perhaps, it has intangible assets, like patents, copyrights, etc.If it has assets in excess of its liabilities, then it likely has a positive value today, meaning that accepting 20% equity in it may give you an immediate gain.Let’s say the only things the business has is one truck, worth $9,000, and one computer, worth $1,000. It has no liabilities. Therefore, it has $10,000 worth of assets, and that means it has $10,000 worth of owner’s equity. When you accept 20% of equity, then you have gained $2,000, on paper, because you now own 20% of the assets. — In addition, you’ll have some right to have, or accrue, the (future) earnings of the company in perpetuity.If it has no assets and no liabilities, then you only own 20% of future profits, which — since the business has not begun yet — the present value of the future operating cash flows is $0. So you do not get any gain by becoming an owner. Hopefully, of course, that will change pretty soon.Let’s complete this by saying that the business has $10,000 worth of assets and $20,000 worth of liabilities. It has a negative valuation; your 20% will get you equity of <$2,000>. Does that mean that you are on the hook to pay $2,000 in the case that the company goes bust?Good question.Knowing whether the debts of the company have recourse to you, personally, is something you should know! Make sure that’s clearly stated in the contract!Whether these provisions actually will be codified in contract form depends on the way the entity is incorporated, created … there are eleventy billion terms for this.For instance, a partnership has a partnership agreement. The covenants of the agreement will be listed there, and I guess a partnership agreement is a contract. A potentially very complicated one.Now, is your partnership a limited liability partnership (LLP) or a general partnership? If it’s an LLP, then who is the general partner? The general partner(s) are people who don’t have limited liability. Important to know if you’re a limited partner or a general partner!Perhaps, instead, you’re entering into a limited liability company (LLC). How’s it going to be treated for tax reasons? → As a sole proprietorship? As an S-Corp? As a C-Corp?Is this new business going to be a corporation? Which kind? S or C?Is it going to be just a sole proprietorship? Are you all just going to go down and register the business’s name with the county clerk? Does your State allow multiple people to be on a DBA (i.e., assumed name certificate)?How will the legal name of the company read? Let’s say you are Jane Doe. The other two equity holders are Horace Doe and Sally Doe (no relation to each other or to you).Will the legal name read: Horace Doe and Sally Doe and Jane Doe dba XYZ Enterprises? Does the State allow that?Or, will it read: Horace Doe dba XYZ Enterprises, and then you have a side agreement which shows that Horace Doe owns X%, and Sally Doe owns Y%, and you own 20% — where X + Y + 20 = 100%?Okay, so there’s the complexity. If you know which situation you are in, leave me a comment and I’ll be happy to help you more when I know more of the specifics.A major provision that should be in the agreement, or contract, or bylaws, or whatever is holding this entity together, is the provision that does not allow your ownership to be diluted in the future. Have you ever watched The Social Network? — You don’t want to end up being the seed capital of Facebook just for Mark Zuckerberg to dilute your ownership down to diddly squat when he gets mad.An attorney should look over the agreement probably. You need to make sure thatyou are not subjecting yourself to enormous financial or legal risk by becoming an equity holder (more about this below);your ownership stake cannot be diluted in the future without your permission.C-Corporations are the kind you see on the stock exchanges. They sell stock to individuals and other corporations. If you bought enough stock in a company, in most cases, you could end up having a 20% equity stake in the company. However, since you’re just a shareholder, you are not on the hook for the debts of the company. — That’s one reason this type of corporation exists!If you find yourself as a general partner in a partnership, even if it’s a limited partnership, you may be 100% on the hook for the debts of the company.In many cases, being offered an equity stake in a new company is a great thing; it’s what people dream about. I mean, most every attorney wants to become a partner at the firm!Nascent companies are normally cash-poor. They don’t have many assets, and capital assets (read: moolah) are minimal. In order to entice you to join the company, the major owners of the company will offer the only thing they can: a piece of the pie. Your 20% equity stake entitles you to 20% of future profits (potentially). That’s 20% in perpetuity. Well, you want it to be in perpetuity; like I said before, make sure your 20% does not get diluted without your permission.So long as the debts of the company have no recourse to you, then it’s likely a great idea to take the 20%, even if in 5 years it may get diluted down.#1 concern — you don’t want to own the debts of the company. Heck, you don’t even need to own the assets of the company. You want the right to claim 20% of the future earnings of the company as your own. — That can be a big payout! And, if the company flops, then all you lost was your time.Sometimes, when you’re offered equity, that’s equity in lieu of salary (for some period of time). If you don’t take the equity stake, then you’ll get a salary. That’s the trade-off. Once again, by taking no salary or little salary because you took equity, the company has more cash with which to operate and grow.If you’ll get a full salary + 20% equity (with no way for liabilities to have recourse to you), then that’s a pretty sweet deal. Just make sure the paperwork is solid!Good luck to ya!P.S. — I just realized I skipped over the tax implication part of this question. Short answer: without knowing what type of entity (i.e., legal structure) the business has, I can’t tell you what the tax implications are.Generally, if the business has no balance sheet; it has no assets; no present value — then, you gained 20% of $0, meaning that even if that were to be considered a capital gain on your part, your tax basis would be (0.2 * $0) = $0.If the business’s stock trades, and on the day you gained 20% of the stock of the company, it was trading at $20, then you may have a gain of (# of shares of stock that equals 20%) * $20.Other types of businesses structures, like privately owned partnerships, may be very difficult to value; they may be only valuable subjectively. Whether getting 20% of that is a taxable transaction — and, in fact, whether any of these scenarios is a taxable transaction for income purposes — is highly nuanced and can’t be answered just from the information you gave.