Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (141963)	7/29/2004 5:00:30 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> I am not arguing that the war in Vietnam was the right policy. I am arguing that it was reasonable, that only means that it was not an obvious mistake at the outset. Well here I say that it was clear that most Vietnamese could not have cared less what Marx or Lenin had written about the working class. They did care about and understood very well was that they were under occupation (pretty much a hand over from the French to Americans) and did not want it. Now if in fact there had been support for independent minded nationalist Vietnamese, then the nationalist groups would not have united under Ho's banner. But of course this would not sit well in Washington because they would not give in to every US demand. So I have to disagree that the war was the best alternative against communism. >> My primary concern is to combat the Chomskyite view that our whole conduct of the Cold War was wrong, and that anti- Communism was just a shill for corporate hegemony. I probably agree with you here. There were and are legitimate concerns. The problem is, that there is always some lobby group that convinces someone to go the extra mile while they are at it and not just remove direct threat, but also oppose the independent minded leaders. So yes, there were legitimate strategic concerns. Yes, some of the left wing groups we opposed were worse than the thugs we kept in power. But no, we did not limit ourselves to just keeping the main threats away and allowing other societies to mature. >> I have been arguing to vindicate my idea that our actions reflect our values, not in the sense that we never do anything under necessity that we otherwise regret, but in the sense that we sincerely were working for the eventual triumph of democracy. Sorry, this I disagree with. And this is not because Americans are bad people. Quite to the contrary; Americans are some of the most generous and good natured people in the world. It is in fact this innate goodness of the Americans (the people I am talking about) that forces the government to work so hard at justifying its wrongful actions overseas. In the end, American foreign policy has always preferred control over benevolence, or as Kissinger would put it, "US policy favors stability over democracy"...and of course nobody can deliver "stability" like a harsh dictator. The "lesser evil" policy you are advocating boils down to "the ends justify the means". ST PS We also differ fundamentally in that I don't see Washington as being primarily concerned with the well being of the people in America, let alone the foreign inhabitants.

To: Neocon who wrote (141963)	7/29/2004 7:58:07 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<It means accepting that if a liberation group were either going to take over in the name of Communism, or to throw a country into chaos, that we had a reason to be concerned.> I see some progress here in recognizing that, from a Vietnamese perspective, the "American war" was a war of liberation. You say we were justified in fighting to prevent Vietnam from being liberated because those doing the liberation held political views different from ours -- although "political views" mattered much less to the Vietnamese than liberation and nationalism mattered. Could we have supported a free and democratic Vietnam? Yes, but not by going to war and killing millions of people. We could have supported their efforts to free themselves from our control. We could do the same in Iraq -- but we won't -- and we won't do it for the same reasons -- we want to control Iraq. It frustrates us that we in fact do not and can not control Iraq -- but we are doing what we did in Vietnam and brushing that aside and continuing with a failed policy.

To: Neocon who wrote (141963)	7/30/2004 5:34:19 PM
From: freelyhovering	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Neocon Reference your post on the justification for our entering Viet Nam: Have you read Barbara Tuchman's book: "The Folly of War: From Troy to Viet Nam"? She has some salient ideas about why we started and continued the war and how right before the assassination of JFK, we were contemplating getting out. Johnson, according to Tuchman, could not tolerate being the first president to lose a war. Respectfully, Myron (I noticed you just got bruised--on 7/29-- so I'm being very nice. <g>)