At 02:19 AM 17/02/00 , Reese wrote:
> >In South Vietnam, our client regime
>
>The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam.
>
>Vietnam was split into N. and S. and the FRENCH were to look after S.
>Vietnam at the end of WWII - we had a similar setup in KOREA. Outside of
>some college radicals in the modern day, the South Koreans didn't and don't
>want to be annexed by the agressive North that seeks re-unification, just
>as the S. Vietnamese didn't particularly wish to be subjugated by the
>communists to their north. For whatever reason, we entered into Vietnam,
>the French withdrew, and we eventually withdrew also - mostly due to
>incompetent micromanagement directly from the whitehouse, and discontent
>fomented by college radicals in the US circa 1960s/early 70s. Such is the
>nature of Police Actions. Sorry, I guess they are called "Peacekeeping
>Actions" now - funny how they mean the same thing, but one doesn't carry a
>negative connotation.
I don't think that this is the only 'interpretation' of the facts. The
French withdrew, and the Americans did go in. However, the intent of the
US Gov was to subvert the Geneva agreement of 1954, which allowed the
Vietnamese some self-determination: to vote on unification -- thus a
political agreement. By 1956, with US support, the GVN was installed
in South Vietnam, and was thus considered (admittedly, by some) to be a
'client state' of the US.
>I'd say that since 1973, North Vietnam has done a better job of
>suppressing, repressing and subjugating S. Vietnam than anyone else, ever.
>But this flies in the face directly, your model of US Gov't as the ultimate
>evil that represses the third world. Do I really need to finish
>researching Suharto or the Chile / Pinochet connection?
Nice construction of an argument. Even better 'research'.
I quote a reporter for the Economist and London Times,
"[The Diem regime] has crushed all opposition of every kind, however
anti-Communist it might be. He has been able to do this, simply and solely
because of the massive dollar aid he has had from across the Pacific, which
kept in power a man who, by all the laws of human and political affairs,
would long ago have fallen. Diem's main supporters are to be found in
North America, not in Free Vietnam."
In case you don't know your history, the Diem regime was installed by the
US Government, and the above quotation was written in 1959.
The war came, and left... with the Paris Agreement (which, you are correct,
the White House) poorly managed)... and the resolution was that, ok, the US
would essentially agree to the basic tenets of the Geneva Agreement of
1956. Twenty years later, and a country bombed to pieces, because the US
couldn't accept the 'political settlement', and required Indochina to go
through a military struggle. Even during the Paris Agreement, the US
continued to send arms to South Vietnam, in contravention of the
principles. But oh well, you may say, that doesn't prove that SV was a
'client state'.
>I think I've made my point.
Nice try. Bonus points for effort.
>My knowledge of history may have gaps, but yours has errors, which in my
>opinion, is much, much worse. You didn't learn from the factual events of
>history, you were taught what to think about the bits and segments you were
>exposed to. Indoctrinated. By Liberals and Socialists, with an agenda.
Be wary of making accusations that can be turned upon yourself. Read
chapter five of Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent in order to
question your 'knowledge', i.e. where you received it from. I am not
saying that they speak the gospel, rather, they at least ask the right
questions.
This whole thread on communism, socialism, libertarianism is
tiring. Calling names, and espousing 'facts' is not going to help this
situation at all.
Admittedly, I like to consider myself a libertarian, but my context is
within the society that I grew up in: I can't imagine the withering of the
state followed by libertarian utopia, because institutions built up with
the state (not necessarily _by_ the state, but perhaps through regulation)
will not necessarily wither at the same time.
So, I ask, if the state withers, will power then be decentralised, or will
the old institutions, cartels, etc., merely assume the power that exists
within the gaps? And then we would be stuck with the same situation we had
before: old wine, new bottles.
I would not say that companies/corps are 'evil', but they can assume the
role if reserve power is made available, perhaps. I don't like the state,
I don't like the 'corporate state'. What then?
gus.
