Scott,
Re: What specifically are you against the U.S. doing in response to 9-11-01,
OK, let's run down the list of local and regional civil wars and insurrections that the Shrub wants to have us actively participate in. Fergama Valley, the Caspian, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Kurdish and Shi'a Iraq, Indonesia, Philipines, ,Yemen, Columbia. And that's just for starts.
Does it cross your mind what the common denominator to all this intervention is? Oil. We are sending in the Marines to protect our strategic interests in oil. And to suppress what is called by the other side "freedom fighters".
I have no problem whatsoever with our military's efforts in Afghanistan to break up the al Qaeda network. They seem to be doing a fine job. What I object to is using "terrorism" and the "axis of evil" as a soundbite justification for some very expansionist and hegemonic foreign policy initiatives.
Re: Does your experience with the Viet Nam era relate with today's issues?
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of the our involvement in Viet Nam. I'll provide one example to show that history is repeating itself. In 1964, Chevron, then known as Standard Oil of California, signed a lease agreement in San Francisco with a representative of the French government for blocks of territory off the coast of North Viet Nam near Haiphong harbor. I have personal knowledge of this agreement. Now, what's wrong with this picture? Chevron was negotiating with an entity, France, which had been defeated and left Viet Nam in 1954. It was offering consideration on the sovereign territory of an enemy nation. Do we have the right as a nation to go to war to conquer foreign nations so that phony contracts with ex-colonialists can be honored? Is that worth the 60,000 American lives and 3,000,000 Vietnamese lives that were lost trying to gain a commercial advantage for Chevron?
-Ray |
