<< I have read, somewhere, that we did sell out the S. Vietnamese in the Paris accords. The rumor is that Kissinger was simply buying time to get our troops out and save face, but that there was an implicit agreement that we would take no action when the North later invaded.>>
If you have a source for this, I have never seen it. If, in fact, this was the case, it would have been morally wrong. The South Vietnamese People were the third-party beneficiaries of this Agreement; all those Vietnamese who had gone out on a limb to support us from 1959 - 1973 they had a right to expect expect that we would honor our commitments made in Paris. To abandon them - and there were millions - was morally bankrupt.
<<As far as "romantic" visions of people fighting to their death for big ideas, what do you think people voluntarily risk their lives for? It's usually for survival or for big ideas. What would you fight and risk your life for?>>
My Brother, you know very well that you are - in debate terms - switching 'apples for oranges.'
I was referring to your "romantic" image of 'noble and brave' Vietcong holding 'true through death' to their "idea" of a united (communist) Vietnam. Hogwash IMO.
<<For instance, how do you continue to "help" prop up a government when its people and its army will NOT fight for that same government. Don't forget that we'd fought and died propping up that corrupt, morally bankrupt puppet government for years.>>
My Brother, you are deliberately ducking the argument.
Clearly, from any objective standpoint, the South Vietnamese Army AND PEOPLE did fight bravely from 1973 - 1975. That they did not prevail had nothing to do with their moral fiber - no more than the defeat of the French in 1940 to the Germans proved the latter's moral superiority.
In 1975, the South Vietnamese govenment was not perfect; but it was far from the worst government in the world, and the South Vietnamese People clearly preferred it to the harsh Spartan-style regime of North Vietnam.
Bruce |
