Ok, you are not telling me anything I did not know. But I think my point is lost on you. Your own link has this to say "Ho Chi Minh , 1890–1969, Vietnamese nationalist leader" and "The United States had hoped that by overthrowing the unpopular Diem it could strengthen the opposition to the communist Viet Cong".
Which is to say that we supported an unpopular government and in the end we killed our stooge in a futile attempt to calm the Vietnamese and hush the secrets...so much for loyalty to allies (and unlike Stalin, Diem was a real ally).
Now on to the more important points:
My position is that the man is more important than his political party. Just becoming communist to get help for independence or even believing in it as an ideology does not suddenly turn everyone into a demon. Despite being a communist, Ho had many redeeming qualities about him and was by a far a better leader than Diem (and with much much better credentials). There is no reason to believe that Vietnam under Ho would have been the same as Russia under Stalin. These were different men from different backgrounds and in different countries, and all things taken into account Ho's behavior supports this statement.
Whereas you seem to be of the opinion that Communism equals pure evil and that anyone who subscribes to it or makes use of it is worse than Satan worshipers who want to bring in the second coming. You are using this opinion to justify whatever US actions around the world under the guise of defending "democracy" and the choice of "lesser evil" even though it is clear that most regimes supported by US are anything but a democracy and there is no credible evidence that our men in charge of those countries are any less evil than their oppositions (in many cases there is evidence that the opposite is true).
Furthermore, there are several factual errors in your posts. In particular the part about we not bringing dictators to power and that what you call "authoritarian regime" is more likely to change than what you call "totalitarian" regimes. (When was the last time Kuwait saw a real change?)
There are many examples of US bringing in the corrupt dictators to power. Often times this is done by giving a ton of help to them while pressuring their opposition down. But some times it is done more blatantly as in the case of Iran, Chile, and of course, Kuwait (we'll see how Afghanistan and Kuwait will play out).
On the other side, China under Mao was a far more totalitarian regime than Vietnam under Ho. Yet China has done fairly well (certainly better than most US supported banana republics, Latino dictatorships, and Arab clients). You cannot use the experience with eastern Europe to justify everything. I have plenty of Chinese friends, some even speak Polish (of all things). Many of them do not understand the hatred of Eastern Europeans of the Communist party because in their words, the Chinese Communist party has done a lot of things right in China and the people are better off than they had been before.
Finally, you have not answered the critical question that if in fact Washington is the champion of freedom around the world, why is it that it never supports the rights of the oppressed among its client regimes? Why is it that you only hear of some boogie man evil forces fighting against those dictators rather than seeing real reformist oppositions? Where is the support for the noble reformers in those countries? Oh yes...I know, they have to sacrificed so as not weaken the our "lesser evil" as the best defense against the "greater evil".
Sorry, I don't buy that.
ST |
