Yes, and Uncle Ho was merely an agrarian reformer....You are the one who is ignorant. There is no reason to believe in the limited aims of the North Vietnamese, nor of its sponsor. It was not even necessary for Vietnam to have engaged in wars of conquest, it had only to operate as the logistical base supporting insurgencies throughout the region. Communism is, by its nature, expansionist, both for ideological reasons, and because it is safer to have a bloc of Communist states than to be isolated. YOu say that the "for all we know" is a basis for doing anything, anytime, in the name of whatever. Well, no. I was merely pointing out that you know only what happened, not what might have happened without intervention. As it stands, the very fall of Indochina lends some credibility to the idea that Communism might have spread further if the region had not been exhausted from war. What happened is not the whole story, so is what might have happened with inaction.
Who cares why Communism failed? I only note that the travail of Communist upheaval, and the threat of other Pol Pots or Stalins or Maos, before improvement, was pretty strong. If we had not intervened, it might have been more devastating, not less, for the region. |
