From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 16:51:39 MST
From: "MaxPlumm" <MaxPlumm@aol.com>
X-Mailer: YaBB
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?
---- This message was posted by MaxPlumm to the Extropians 2003 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=54413>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST