From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 12:38:45 MDT
Matus originally wrote:
> 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.
To which Samantha responded:
"It was precisely that and I did root for its end. So what? I had no
great effect on what happened after we pulled out."
Then let us at this point clarify a point of contention. In your view, did
you have any effect on what happened BEFORE we pulled out?
"Nothing I or others like me said was likely to have made a lot of difference
except where US involvment actually made the problem much worse in
the region as in our support of the Khmer Rouge."
Our "support" of the Khmer Rouge made things worse? As opposed to the
continued interference in Cambodia by the Communist Vietnamese government,
which violated the neutrality of that country in 1965 and then in 1979
proceeded to invade and occupy it, replacing a system of horrific mass murder
and repression with one of less mass murder but similar levels of repression?
Bravo, Le Duan. And more to the point, our support in Cambodia was for all of
the factions aligned against the Vietnamese occupying forces, not simply the
Khmer Rouge. This was a position, I might add, held by over 110 member states
of the sacrosanct United Nations.
>
> 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.
>
"Nope, that is a poor characterization. Unlike Mr. Fumento I did not
promote myself as any sort of expert. One who promotes themselves
as an expert and adviser on a problem does have greater
responsibility."
So you would suggest that while say, you, apparently have no culpability,
someone such as Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Ramsey Clark, or Noam Chomsky might?
"I will grant however that it was wrong of me to
personally hold him responsible for millions of deaths."
Good.
"Instead I simply hold him as an undependable, irresponsible and amoral
opportunist posturing as an expert. Such people do cause great harm."
As they did in Indochina, and continue to do there by pretending a positive
outcome occured.
I
> 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.
>
"I won't wate my time on such. That war is over and done with and I
have *much* better things to do than rehash it with you."
The military campaign has been concluded for some time, yes. Just as in the
case of Iraq, but you wish to "rehash" that conflict. People, such as
yourself, can and have successfully argued that it is too early to tell if in
the long term our effort in Iraq will be a complete success. It is not too
early, however, to state unequivocally that the efforts of the Communists in
Indochina were a complete and utter failure that brought death and misery to
millions of people. "The war" for those people is not over, because they are
still ruled by despotic and barbaric thugs. Do you criticize the US
government's trade agreement with Vietnam signed by President Clinton, or do
you support economic relations with mass murderering petty tyrants so long as
they aren't named Saddam Hussein? You continue to criticize vehemently the
Bush administration's efforts in Iraq, and yet, it is more likely than not
that a democratic election will be held in that country long before one is
ever held in Vietnam or Laos.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 12:49:49 MDT