 |
|  |
 |
|
Pax
|
|
1. The vietnamese people won there freedom through years of war with the French in spite of the U.S. aid to France. During Dien Bien Phu the U.S. even offered to give nukes to france to drop on the Vietnamese.
What right does the U.S. have to open it's mouth about what type of government Vietnam has before or after that? None. These people were fighting against tyranny. How come we did not come to there aid. Our policy was not flawed. It was wrong. We were obviously were not interested in democracy, just as we support countries today that are not democracy. I applaud John Kerry who was probably tired of seeing people he knew go off to fight and die for BS reasons. Reasons that should be obviously wrong.
The mistake of the U.S. during that time and now is to support governments that are corrupt or out touch with the people. For every Germany there's 2 or more Iran's. I think that our last real ally is probably Great Britain.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001 time: 00:34
|
|
The problem with involvement in Vietnam, even if we ignore the denial of the '56 elections, was that it was not a choice between a democratic government and an autocratic communist government. We were choosing between a pro-American dictator, and a pro-Soviet popular movement. We justify Vietnam by saying it is a fight for democracy, but our support of Diem is just as unfortunate as our support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.
You who claim that American foreign policy post WWII is shaped by being a defender of democracy would do well to reconsider. We have been consistently propping up pro-US regimes that are just as totalitarian as anything the Soviet's supported. For every Pol Pot there is a Pinochet, or a Diem. If the transfer of power from pro-US to pro-Soviet only means the transfer of power from one totalitarian state to another, why should we intervene?
Finally, communism itself is not the anathema that some seem to see it as. It originated as a popular movement against authoritarian rule, and admittedly did sink to the level of nazism under Stalin. Yet, outside the Soviet Union, communism has not been all bad. Castro was a much better leader than Baptista, and before the inposition of US sanctions, Cuba experienced a renaissance, with mass popular support for Castro and his programs. Numerous other times, people have been elected in the Americas on leftist, verging on socialist platforms, without any real support or backing from the Soviet Union. Yet, in many of those countries, the US has intervened, against a legitimately elected government, and imposed a right-wing government that, upon occasion, did not even possess the vestiges of democracy.
In other words, calling the US a defender of democracy is like calling the 19th century British defenders of self-determination of non-European nations.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
Pax, I said it before and I will say it again, you make some very good points about what happened in 1956. My rejoinder is simple. To allow elections in 1956 would have meant placing the entire country under the sway of the Communist Party. Despite what you may think of communism, one thing we know for sure is that Communists do not permit democracy to function. They are single-party totalitarian governments. To keep faith with our commitment to democracy, we had to prevent a Communist takeover even if that takeover was by democratic means.
We are doing something substantially similar in Iraq today. We are preventing the Shi'ites from a forming an Islamic Republic which is not democratic even if the majority of the Iraqis would vote that way.
Last edited by Ned on 08-03-2004 at 07:31
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|