geb@cadre.UUCP (06/11/84)
> You are right. there are those among us who refuse to admit that the > "war was wrong." Including me. > >The problem is that no-one has ever talked about the strategic reasons why we >might have preferred that Indochina didn't become controlled by essentially >hostile other countries. > >Had we won the Indochina war, there might very well have been SIX MILLION FEWER D >FEWER DEATHS in Cambodia, and Thailand, a peaceful country itself, would >not be fighting a prepetual border war against people FROM OUTSIDE THE >COUNTRY ATTEMPTING CONQUEST BY FORCE. > >The chance to prevent this is in itself sufficient moral justification for >the war. One could argue that had the U.S. not conspired to prevent the democratic election of Ho Chi Minh 30 years ago there would not have been a Viet Nam War, neither all those deaths. Arguing what might have been does not retroactively justify criminal acts, however. In my mind, when Lyndon Johnson, having pledged not to, then within 9 months of his election announced that American youths were to be sent, whether willing or not, to die for someone else's country because of what LBJ thought was good for the US, and when he deliberately falsified information (Gulf of Tonkin) in order to trick congress (not that they are innocent) into giving the green light to his war plans, he became a war criminal. Whether or not Viet Nam would have been better off if we had won does not expunge the guilt or bring back the dead draftees. If the war had been fought only with volunteers, only with money contributed by those who approved the goals (it looks like there are enough of you out there), then we might listen to some arguments that it was justified, but as it was done, it is immoral on its face.
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (06/14/84)
There could have been no fair democratic election in which the Vietnamese
communists took part. Ho Chi Minh never had more than minority support
among the Vietnamese people. However the communists were willing to
brutalize the Vietnamese people in a way which was unacceptable to all
other Vietnamese factions. This brutality gave them the strength to win.
Winning under such circumstances is hardly evidence of rightness or of
popular support. The bolsheviks used the same technique. The Greek
communists wanted to use the same technique at the end of WWII but
external intervention prevented them. True the Greek governments have not
been so wonderful since then, but then again the Greeks have now and then
succeeded in replacing these governments. Brutal communist regimes seem
to be impossible to replace.
--
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
(An Equal Opportunity Offender)ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/15/84)
-- >> There could have been no fair democratic election in which the >> Vietnamese communists took part. Ho Chi Minh never had more than >> minority support among the Vietnamese people. However the >> communists were willing to brutalize the Vietnamese people in a >> way which was unacceptable to all other Vietnamese factions. >> This brutality gave them the strength to win... >> Brutal communist regimes seem >> to be impossible to replace. >> Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo I'd like to see some references. I was under the impression (dupe of the Commies that I must be) that Ho Chi Minh, a very charismatic war hero, was really elected in a real, fair election-- before the CIA decided to contest it. But whether he got in by deceit or popularity, his totalitarianism was no better nor worse than that practiced by our succession of puppets in the south. Brutal regimes of the right AND left seem to be impossible to replace--with democracy, anyway. Both the US and USSR romp all over the world, though, exchanging one for the other. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 14 Jun 84 [26 Prairial An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
jnc@iham1.UUCP (Jeff Coleman) (06/15/84)
From Yehoyaqim Martillo's note on the "Vietnam controversy": > There could have been no fair democratic election in which > the Vietnamese communists took part. Ho Chi Minh never had > more than a minority support of the Vietnamese people. > However the communists were willing to brutalize the Vietnamese > people in a way which was unacceptable to all other Vietnamese > factions. This brutality gave them the strength to win. Don't let me confuse you with the facts, Mr. Martillo, but a CIA estimate that Ho Chi Minh would garner 85% of the Vietnamese vote in a free election was one of the reasons that the U.S. sabotaged the 1956 elections called for by the 1954 Geneva Conference. Well, perhaps 85% could be thought of as a very large minority. Still, Yehoyaqim, you are more that justified in attacking the "brutalities" of the Vietnamese communists, especially in light of the humane and progressive actions of the U.S. government in Vietnam. At least our limited period of intervention in Vietnam allowed us to provide some assistance to the Vietnamese people, in the form of social services like the Pheonix program, the CIA-directed campaign to assassinate Vietnamese who opposed U.S. plans to make Vietnam safe for the Bank of America (60,000 Vietnamese assassinated. [1]). And let's not forget the Agent Orange agricultural fertilization program! Or the generous Vietnam landscaping project, in which the U.S. Air Force, at the peak of its bombing activity, dumped the equivalent in TNT tonnage of the Hiroshima A-bomb on Vietnam every 2 weeks! Or Lt. William Calley's March, 1968 picnic outing at Mylai! Next time, let's discuss the underwater navigational aids we've installed for the Nicarauguans in their Pacific ports! Jeff Coleman [1] Estimate by William Colby, CIA executive in charge of Pheonix.
lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (06/16/84)
#R:cadre:-23600:uokvax:5000093:000:386 uokvax!lmaher Jun 16 00:52:00 1984 Regardless of what cadre!geb thinks, the act he cites of LBJ are not war crimes. There are specific clauses in international law and treaty concerning what constitutes a war crime, and falsifying information and breaking campaign promises are not classified as war crimes. Sorry, geb. But I do agree with your condemnation of LBJ, not that it matters. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (06/17/84)
>From Yehoyaqim Martillo's note on the "Vietnam controversy": >> There could have been no fair democratic election in which >> the Vietnamese communists took part. Ho Chi Minh never had >> more than a minority support of the Vietnamese people. >> However the communists were willing to brutalize the Vietnamese >> people in a way which was unacceptable to all other Vietnamese >> factions. This brutality gave them the strength to win. >Don't let me confuse you with the facts, Mr. Martillo, but a CIA >estimate that Ho Chi Minh would garner 85% of the Vietnamese vote >in a free election was one of the reasons that the U.S. sabotaged >the 1956 elections called for by the 1954 Geneva Conference. >Well, perhaps 85% could be thought of as a very large minority. I hope you also believe CIA statistics on communist subversion in Central America. I think very little of the CIA as an intelligence gathering organization (consider Iran and the assasination of the Pope) and never quote its statistics. In any case, there is strong suspicion that the CIA fabricated this statistic in order to scare the USA government into intervening in East Asia. Still, such a majority would have been possible if Ho Chi Minh had been allowed to brutalize the peasantry as he intended. In Paris he developed an ideology of something which translates as "totalistic rejectionism." This ideology held that French domination of Vietnam had shown the failure of traditional Vietnamese Buddhist and Confucian-influenced culture which therefore had to be totally rejected. Since the majority of Vietnamese had not achieved the level of enlightenment in totalitarian Marxist ideology, which he had acquired in pre-WWII Paris, their opinion could be safely ignored or if necessary the Vietnamese people could be brow-beaten into accepting "totalistic rejectionism" of traditional Vietnamese culture. Needless to say the majority of Vietnamese like the majority of Russians several decades earlier had no great desire to see their society overturned. If elections could have been held without brutal-pressure tactics (extremely unlikely), Ho Chi Minh would have been lucky to achieve a small plurality. He was not the only important political figure of the resistance to the French. If Ho Chi Minh had been unbelievably lucky and achieved the premiership with a small plurality, he would like all twentieth century Western and Westernized totalitarians (e.g. Hitler) used the available democratic resources to wipe out the opposition and seize total control which could never be overthrown through internal rebellion. For this reason, rooting such political leaders out of East Asia and South America is a completely justifiable goal of American policy. The more traditional dictatorships of these regions which have a concept of fair play are generally much easier to overthrow when they excede their legitimacy and try to extend their control to areas to which non-totalitarian dictators have usually made no claim. Unfortunately, the success of the totalitarians in their own areas and in American public opinion is teaching the traditional dictators and rulers much more abominable behavior. >Still, Yehoyaqim, you are more that justified in attacking the >"brutalities" of the Vietnamese communists, especially in light of >the humane and progressive actions of the U.S. government in >Vietnam. >At least our limited period of intervention in Vietnam allowed us >to provide some assistance to the Vietnamese people, in the form >of social services like the Pheonix program, the CIA-directed campaign >to assassinate Vietnamese who opposed U.S. plans to make Vietnam safe >for the Bank of America (60,000 Vietnamese assassinated. [1]). >And let's not forget the Agent Orange agricultural fertilization program! >Or the generous Vietnam landscaping project, in which the U.S. Air >Force, at the peak of its bombing activity, dumped the equivalent in >TNT tonnage of the Hiroshima A-bomb on Vietnam every 2 weeks! >Or Lt. William Calley's March, 1968 picnic outing at Mylai! >Next time, let's discuss the underwater navigational aids we've >installed for the Nicarauguans in their Pacific ports! With little difficulty, I can list equivalent brutalities of East Asian communists for example like massacres of the tribal peoples (in which US-backed ARVN forces never engaged) and yellow rain. Many Americans have the silly idea that war can be waged without brutality. Compared to the East Asian communists, the USA army was a model of correct and moral behavior. The USA army at least theoretically believes in accountability. No communist army anywhere accepts this concept. The USA has also shown some understanding of fair play in treating conquered enemies (in the case of Germany and Japan). The Vietnamese communists showed utterly gratuitous brutality in their treatment of the North Vietnamese population in the 50's and in treatment of the South Vietnamese and of Vietnamese Chinese and of tribal populations during the last two decades. The large numbers of refugees from communist Vietnam indicates this brutality. I have worked extensively with post-victory Vietnamese refugees, Vietnamese, Chinese, and tribal and have yet to meet one who would have to come to the USA if there had been no post-victory communist brutality whose existence is now well-documented. All refugees (except for some of the Chinese) I have known stated they would immediately return to Vietnam the day the communists were overthrown. -- Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo (An Equal Opportunity Offender)
scw@cepu.UUCP (06/18/84)
In article <148@iham1.UUCP> jnc@iham1.UUCP writes: [origional posting deleted] >Still, Yehoyaqim, you are more that justified in attacking the >"brutalities" of the Vietnamese communists, especially in light of >the humane and progressive actions of the U.S. government in >Vietnam. > >At least our limited period of intervention in Vietnam allowed us >to provide some assistance to the Vietnamese people, in the form >of social services like the Pheonix program, the CIA-directed campaign >to assassinate Vietnamese who opposed U.S. plans to make Vietnam safe >for the Bank of America (60,000 Vietnamese assassinated. [1]). Of course the VC/NVA never assinated anyone right? Hmmm, wonder who murdered those 2500 people in Hue during Tet of '68 then? and how about all those Hamlet/Villiage chiefs? >And let's not forget the Agent Orange agricultural fertilization program! On this we are in total agreement. >Or the generous Vietnam landscaping project, in which the U.S. Air >Force, at the peak of its bombing activity, dumped the equivalent in >TNT tonnage of the Hiroshima A-bomb on Vietnam every 2 weeks! I remember walking through an area that had been bombed about 18 months before, the only way that you could tell where the bombs had landed was this circle (about 40' across) of taller (read flourshing) rice. >Or Lt. William Calley's March, 1968 picnic outing at Mylai! For which he was charged with Murder (any only got off through a travisty of justice, he, his company commander and that Brigade commander flying around in that Helecopter should have been shot). But see coment *-3 above, I'll bet that not one of the 'HEROS of the REVOLUTION (or whatever they're called)' that were invloved in that has been even charged for the deaths of those people (Oh, sorry I forgot that they were enemys of the People, and deserved to be dragged out into a rice paddy and shot). > >Next time, let's discuss the underwater navigational aids we've >installed for the Nicarauguans in their Pacific ports! > > Jeff Coleman > >[1] Estimate by William Colby, CIA executive in charge of Pheonix. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/21/84)
In article <588@ihuxt.UUCP> martillo@ihuxt.UUCP writes: >Compared to the East Asian communists, the USA army was a model of correct >and moral behavior. True. One of the most effective interrogation techniques the Rangers and Green Berets had was to threaten to turn the prisoner over to the ROK's (Korean Army). -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250