From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 10:14:18 MDT
Samantha said:
> I have justified the comment and said why I made it now. Perhaps you
> have not read it. I beg your pardon? I was not actively rooting
> for the victory of any 'murderous regime'.
In your comment to me, when asked why you hold Fumento morally culpable for
AIDS deaths in Africa, you stated "He was busy insisting that AIDS was a
non-heterosexual problem and thus lending sanction to those who chose to
ignore it as a "gay problem" and even "the wrath of God" instead of doing
very much about it. The result, of course not limited to him, was many
millions of needless deaths..." and "He wrote what he wrote despite the
evidence [to the contrary]...I hold supposed intellectuals who twist the
truth responsible for the consequences of being believed."
Would it be fair to rephrase this contextually to say "He was busy insisting
that being concerned about something [heterosexual AIDS transmission] was
senseless and thus lended sanction to those who chose to ignore that
something instead of doing something about it, resulting in many millions of
deaths and seriously compromised health of millions more" and "He said this
despite evidence to the contrary, and can be held morally culpable for being
believed"
Now, given that contextually rephrasing, by your own criteria, you can be
hald morally accountable for the deaths in Indochina. Rewording your above
statement with Indochina related events reveals:
"She was busy insisting that something [our involvment] was senselss thus
lended sanction to those who chose to ignore it as something else [colonial
expansionism of the US, a revolution in vietnam, all for tin/oil, etc]
instead of doing very much about it. The result, of course not limited to
her, was many millions of needless deaths..." and "She wrote what he wrote
despite the evidence [to the contrary]...I hold supposed intellectuals who
twist the truth responsible for the consequences of being believed."
And here you say nearly exactly that
I was rooting for the end
> of our senseless and murderous involvment in a pseudo-war we should
> never have entered.
Now clearly, by your own criteria, promoting something that leads to the
death of people means you must bare some of the blame for those deaths.
I certainly take issue with the accuracy of your summation of Fumento's
points, so perhaps you take issue with the accuracy of some of my points,
thus clearing you of any blame for the millions of deaths in Indochina. I
would like to know which points you contest.
The single most important point of contention seems to be that you do not
find the US's involvement in Indochina as a morally valid one in any shape
or form, and I consider it valid. The involvement was certainly handled
poorly in many cases, and outwardly disgustingly in still others, yet the
principle of involvement remained a morally just one. I wonder on what
moral justifcation your assessment that is was not on. To not put the
spotlight solely on you, I will outline the moral justification I feel we
had (actually that morally required us) to get involved in the Indochina
conflict.
1) South Vietnam requested our assistance in defending their soveriegnty, to
which we agreed
2) North Vietnam, a communist, murderous, dictatorship invaded South
Vietnam, intent on 'unification' or 'liberation' against the will of the
majority in the south
3) It is morally valid to defend people against acts of aggression,
especially when asked and agreed
4) The United States had the military and tactical capability to defeat
North Vietnam
5) The Vietnam war was essentially a proxy war between the US and the Soviet
Union, one which the North could have never hoped to win without the
trmendous Soviet aide.
6) The Soviet Union was a murderous regime, whos empire had expanded a
significant percentage in the previous decade, and was intent on enslaving
the population of South Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia, Laos, and
Thailand. The largest Soviet military installation outside the USSR was in
Cam Rahn Bay, in South Vietnam.
7) The United States had reason to believe that horror would befall the
people of Indochina should this effort fail
These were the essential variables available when reviewing the event in
historical context. Today we have even greater context to judge the
morallity / immorality of involvment. I invite you to dispute any of these
facts.
1) The Khmere Rouge could not have taken over Cambodia, and subsequently
slaughtered a third of its population if the now unnoccupied North
Vietnamese Army had not decimated the Pro Western well armed now abandoned
army of Lon Nol.
2) No country has done more to spread democracy and freedom throughout the
World that the United States
3) The united states SAVED the ENTIRE WORLD, TWICE, THIS CENTURY, once
against facism, and subsequently against murderou communism.
4) Communism has killed 150 - 170 million people this century.
We signed a treaty agreeing to protect South Vietnam in the event of an
invasion. An invasion perpetrated by an oppressive murderous tyranical
regime. An invasion supplied and armed by two of the three worst murderous
governments this planet has ever experienced. Fighting the expansion of a
murderous regime bent on world domination was senseless? Fighting the
enslavement of millions of people was senseless? 170 million people, this
century, died from communist regimes. 2 - 3 million died in Cambodia. 1
million died in Vietnam after the US abandonment of the region. Thats a lot
of deaths. Deaths which it can be argued you share some portion of the
moral culpability for since you A)supported the ending of efforts to prevent
said horrors and B)contributed by that support to the end of the efforts to
prevent said horrors. In rooting for the 'end' of our 'involvement' (not a
quickening of a success) you rooted for the abandonment of the people of
Indochina to the worst murderous political system this world has ever seen.
You complain about our loss of freedoms domestically, yet ignore the fact
that the people of Vietnam enjoy fewer freedoms today than they did in 1960,
a situation which you contributed to.
It was senseless to help defend these people? What is senseless was your
idealogically opposition forged in a geopolical vacuum. Its time to come to
terms with your past, perhaps in your bohemian charged youth, you saw this
as a worthy cause, you no doubt felt our involvement was principally unjust.
Your counterculture hippie social group saw fit to criticize anything and
everything that was immoral in the US, except you only seemed, and still
seem, to care about people in the US, and cared not about the peoples of the
Indochina region of the world.
I recall recently you described your vote in the recent election as the
'Lesser of two evils' The lack of recognition of this concept in regards to
US Foriegh policy post WWII is I believe the primary reason for your near
whole condemnation of US forieng Policy. A while back I invited you to
embark on a detailed examination of US Foriegn policy actions post WWII and
to deem them just or unjust with the information known at that time, I
received no response.
Today the truth is known, The Anti-war protestors of the sixties were
hi-jacked by communists and used as a tool by the North Vietnamese against
the Americans. Protests you took part in. Nearly every single military
conflict was a victory in Vietnam, what was senseless was the wanton and
callous disgregard for human life, freedom, and dignity exhibited by the
anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. While many would reasonably consider
much of Johnson's handling of the war as 'senseless' what was not senseless
was our efforts to prevent a cancerous and despotic regime from forcibly
spreading and enslaving millions.
> And I will
> not once again be dragged into the very imho revisionist views some
> here hold of the Vietnam fiasco.
I suppose you are just unable to come to terms with the fact the your direct
actions helped lead to the murder of millions of people and the enslavement
of 10's of millions. You were too busy opposing the US uncritically to look
at the horrific murderous regimes spreading throughout the world that the US
was fighting.
There is a whole world of difference. If you
> can not see the difference then I don't see we have an basis for
> further dialogue.
>
I invite you to counter my points made for the US intervention bieng morally
just in principal, or explain how this is revisionist, as opposed to the
fact that the general media and education system dont mention Vietnam from
the moment the US left until clinton 'closed that sad chapter' and re-opened
trade. Ask high school kids how many US soldiers were killed and Vietnam
and they will more than likely know the answer, and then ask them how many
cambodians were killed, or how many South Vietnamese were killed, or how
much aide Russia was pumping into Vietnam, or how many people stalin killed,
or mao... etc. etc. See what answers they give, and then see what history
is 'revionist' and which history is an accurate description of the real
geopolitical climate and motivations involved.
Last question, if the US had won that conflict in a manner similiar to the
Korean Conflict, do you think we would have seen the same massive and
widespread slaughter that we ended up seeing with the US Withdrawel? I know
you have admittedly little to comment on the Korean War (which was nearly
identical in context to the vietnam war) but had the North Korean communists
won the Korean War, would we be seeing a vibrant democratic and economic
powerhouse in a unified and 'liberated' communist Korea, or would Kim Jong
Il merely have a million more postures and statues up of himself with 4
million starving every year instead of 2.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 14 2003 - 10:11:04 MDT