Had the US involvement in Viet Nam been based, in part, on the historical animosity between China and Viet Nam and not on anti-communism, democracy, and oil then perhaps things would have been different today. I recall reading somewhere that Ho Chi Mhin tried to contact the US government for aid after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
You may well be right that the loss of China may have played a role in the anti-communism that affected foreign policy towards Viet Nam at the time.
During the same time that you wrote about democracy having to do with US involvement in Viet Nam I argued that supporting dictators in South Viet Nam was anti-democratic and therefore counter-productive. All kinds of views exist and existed about that painful period of US history.
The result of the Viet Nam policy from 1954-1976 is telling.
>50,000 US dead, >2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, communism in a united Viet Nam, Pol Pot, and so on.
This is what so-called principles have gotten the US. And that record is why I suspect that principles never really played a part in the decision to go into Viet Nam.
As for Saddam, well the US government created that monster and one should expect that he will act as such if attacked.
That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be removed, only that the dangers be recognized, both those in getting rid of him and those in setting up a new regime. |
