From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 10:49:02 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 12/11/2002 12:21:28 PM Central Standard Time,
>charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: I *STILL* don't know why we invaded
>Vietnam. Not even yet.
>
>Charles,
> Would you document that we did invade Vietnam? I don't like to ask
>that but your statement is so far off base that I want to see what you come
>up with.
>Ron h
>
>
>
Invade may have been a poor choice of words, but I can't think of a
better. The original invasion wasn't military. It was installing a
puppet government after the sabatoge of the Geneva Convention (I forget
it's real name). This was justified by the current at that time
anti-communist hysteria (and again, I can't think of a better word).
It seems to me clear that if given any chance Vietnam would have been
glad to have been an ally if we hadn't actively driven them away. The
Chinese were their traditional enemies. (This is long before the
escalation that started after Johnson was elected. By then it was
probably too late for us to do anything reasonable.) But the us 0wn3d
the government of S.Vietnam during the days of the "Vietnam incursion",
and we faked the justifiers used for sending in the troops. (The Gulf
of Tonkin resolution.) (N.B.: by "we" here I mean parties unknown
operating within the US government.)
It's probably true that once the war really got going whichever side won
would have inflicted massive damage (many deaths) on the side that lost
(do you really think the govt. of the South was any better than that of
the North?). But our participation dates back to the original partition
of the country. And from that point forward we acted to prevent any
reasonably peacable solution. And to achieve no goal that I have been
able to discern. (Please don't try to assert that the govt. that
supported, e.g., Papa Doc, was acting out of humanitarian motives.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:41 MST