In a civil war everybody is often aggressing on everybody else, that was certainly the case in Viet Nam, and what that means to the foreigner who decides to pick sides and interfere is that he will lack firm high moral ground for justification of his own actions .... remember Arendt, 'He who chooses the lesser evil tends to soon forget he chose evil' ... and i'd add a corollary to that, 'It is not easy to tell lesser from greater'
The Bush Doctrine, stated in clear terms, is 'The US will invade anybody it likes, any time it likes, for whatever reason it deems adequate' ..... underlying this is plainly, Might Makes Right ... because without the might to act on it, the doctrine would be no more than wind
'the Tories/Loyalists where always mentioned' - mentioned yes, but in what context? ... representatives of a 'foreign' power, opponents of the 'patriots', which is the US term for the rebels du jour, right? ... when in reality those were british colonies, peopled by brits, some of whom took up arms against their fellows ... had the french all fell into a hole in the Atlantic, and peaceful law-abiding patriot loyalists prevailed in the struggle, leading the thirteen colonies to a more civilised canadian path to democracy, i think it's entirely possible that advance of our species would have been aided, not hindered
No i didn't respond seriously to some of your points there, sorry ... just getting weary of addressing attempted justification for war on Viet Nam i guess, to me it's clearly a massively expensive mistake for the US, stemming from hubris combined with the Yer With Us Or Agin Us binary choice of the day ... you know who cares not a whit about this stuff nowadays - the vietnamese! ... to them the US phase of their war supplies them with a chance to attract rich old soldiers who go there to reminisce - it's a business opportunity, they sell them food, accomodation, tours etc, and i hear it's well done
'Canada was ruled by England' - more correct here to say 'by Britain', there was much input by scots .... well yes and no, officially the centre of power was over there but the reality was that Whitehall was a long ways away, and there was a great deal of local autonomy on most matters ... as was always the case under the british system of overseas administration ... also remember, canadians were british, there was a constant flow of immigration from the UK but also native sons had full rights of british subject status, more than a few of us ended up practising politics in Britain ... we were members in a club on whose grounds the sun never set, a canadian could go freely to any british country, with full rights as a citizen, and many did, likewise kiwis and aussies and south africans etc ended up here .... so a lot of us liked this situation, and for all the normal friction that happens between jurisdictions everywhere, we did not for the most part feel 'ruled by Britain', in a real sense we were Greater Britain
So when Jefferson et al started up a war to take this country from us, using alleged impressing of sailors as pretext, it may have made sense to them, but it sure wasn't justifiable to canadians .... and you didn't need british roots to understand why - the quebecois were fully aware how anti-catholic was US society at the time, how they'd be robbed and run off just like mexicanos were a few years later ... indians also had seen the US style, and Tecumseh was killed at Moraviantown defending against it ... the british regulars at Queenston Heights almost all stayed and became canadian, though that day they were on the king's shilling .... to none of these people could you use that sleazy attempt at robbery as justification for making war on the vietnamese |
