[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gas out
Kyle Howe <howe.38 at osu_edu> wrote:
> And speaking of Vietnam, i happen to think our actions there were not only
> not wrong but definitely justified. on the political end, we were to
> contain the domino effect of communism spreading across Asia, had we not
> intervened, the former USSR and China would think that they'd have a free
> hand in toppling non-communist governments. We were partially successful as
> in that we made the effort and put up a fight. even though S. Vietnam fell
> eventually, no other southeastern asia country did. On a more idealist
> front, we were there to defend the self-determination of an ally who did not
> wish to be under communism rule, and self-determination is one of the basic
> principle upon which this country was founded.
Ack. Well, I guess that's one interpretation of events. Another interpretation
would run more like this: After WWII, the French, former colonial rulers of the
area, wanted it back. The Vietnamese thought they might like to run their
own show. Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese leader, really wanted US support
but we decided to support the French. The USSR was more than happy to
fill the gap. The French and Vietnamese duked it out for a few years, until
1954 (I think), when the French lost big at Dien Bien Phu and decided to go
home. Over the next few years the US gradually assumed the French role,
supporting the colonial-style rule, now basically a military dictatorship. There
was a real election that the Communists won which was thrown out (um,
1961 I think), and a few show elections. As with most military dictatorships,
political repression was brutal and unpopular. It's said that the war was lost
largely because we failed to "win the hearts and minds" of the people; maybe
that's because it's hard to do so when the government is busy killing its own
people.
Maybe the people supported Communism, or maybe not; it's hard to know,
because they never really got a chance to decide. But when given a choice
only between either communism or continued dictatorship, it's not hard to
see why they picked what they did. As for whether or not we "contained
communism", that's largely speculation too. What is for certain though is a
legacy of brutal military rule in Burma and Thailand, and continuing chaos in
Cambodia. We've played similar games in our own hemisphere, particularly
in Chile, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Now, I'm not sure how it can be said
that this pattern of behavior exemplifies either "self-determination" or "moral
values". Maybe the Red Threat overrides these other considerations. But
consider that communism has shown a definite tendency to flourish in areas
where the government is most repressive, and where the wealth of the
country is concentrated in the hands of a small elite and foreign companies
while the rest of the people starve. In my opinion, our moral obligation in
these cases lies with some more equitable distribution of wealth. Most
people in the US seem to think socialism and communism are inherently
evil, repressive systems. But these are economic systems, not political ones.
If the people of a country democratically choose socialism, who are we to
intervene? (And yes, it has happened, in Chile and in many European
countries, and even (*gasp*) in the US.) Instead of making the world safe
for Big Business, it would be nice to see the US actually act in the interest
of self-determination and moral right for a change.
---
Mike. Nevertheless, I didn't heed the warning Of my pending fate
alchemy at cr_com It's my practice to disregard omens Until it is too late