From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 17:02:23 MST
Samantha wrote:
"We pulled out of a senseless war. Our handling of that war had more than a
little to do with the final outcome."
Yes, the fact that we cut off aid to Indochina at a time when the Soviets
were substantially increasing aid to the North Vietnamese played the decisive
role in the outcome of the war. But perhaps you would like to elaborate on
your point of view here.
"The US had no legitimate business in Vietnam to start with."
But according to you, they did. You said earlier that "I consider war
honorable to stop a major and highly expansionist evil such as Hitler."
Our efforts in Vietnam, like in Korea, Afghanistan, Greece, and a host of
other theatres were to stop the spread of Soviet expansionism and influence.
The Soviets were without question the biggest winners of the Vietnam War, as
their chief rival was humiliated and temporarily incapacitated, in addition
to the fact that they were able to construct their largest military
installation outside of the USSR in Cam Rahn Bay in what had been South
Vietnam. If going to war to stop Hitler was the proper course, then surely
attempting to curb the activities of a regime which controlled more territory
and killed more people was also justified.
"Our actions there , including our illegal actions in neighboring countries
gave fuel to Pol Pot."
Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "fuel", but how about the WEAPONS
AND TRAINING that the North Vietnamese gave Pol Pot? Whatever propaganda
victories Pol Pot was able to gain as a result of the US bombing campaign
pales in comparison to the vital support he received in terms of supplies
from the Communists. And, as David Chandler in his biography on Pol Pot
pointed out (and others have done in other books), THE NORTH VIETNAMESE
CREATED THE KHMER ROUGE. If you want to blame someone for the destruction of
Cambodia, look at Hanoi, not Washington.
"The rest of your laundry list in no way
justified what we did there or that we were there at all. I do
not see how anyone could judge the reasons and consequences to
this country (US) as anything other than senseless."
You don't find our actions to stop Hitler senseless. I doubt the people of
France do either. I find it hard to believe that the South Koreans would
consider our actions of 1950 senseless. If these actions were all justified,
then so too was our involvement in Vietnam. Our failure to stop the
Communists there does not diminish the nobility of the effort.
"Puhleeze, we are not going in there for the sake of the Iraqi
people. Pretense that we are is sickening."
So what? We didn't send troops or aid into Korea, Afghanistan, Greece, or
Europe during World War II because we were being altruistic. All of these
actions were in the best interests of the United States first and foremost.
Yet, all of the above parties benefited from our actions. Are the
improvements in the quality of life that these people enjoy somehow
diminished because our first concern was not their well being?
"At every turn we have been beset by those who find everything wrong with
America and little that is right."
-Richard Nixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST