 |
| Game over, man! | |
>> The Iraqi government you describe under 'cut and run', the type of government
>> even Iraqis are asking for, where there's a strong leader who stops Sunni v
>> Kurd v Shia separatists, looks pretty similar to what we had before. The one we had before had no democratic checks. The Iraqi population would be
less likely to accept mass killings merely to protect the power block, or the
president's son raping too many 14 year old girls in a democracy. Would the majority-supported government repress minorities? Would they steal
from the minorities to give to the majority. Of course - just like every
democracy. I never said it would be perfect - just better. >> The idea that the West had to get try to stop a nationalist anticolonial
>> uprising in Vietnam to defeat socialism, and somehow got something out of
>> the experience, is interesting. It is convenient for historical revisionists to paint the Viet Cong as
'nationalist'. Why nationalists would ally themselves with a group with a
clearly stated goal of world socialist domination has always been a mystery.
Face it - they were a bunch of pinko commies. Defeating socialism was a huge benefit. Whether it was worth the death of 500
Australians (**) is, of course a issue for debate, but the death of 500 people
seems pretty minor compared to the impoverishment and continual suffering of a
nation of 20,000,000 people. ------ (**) 55,000 dead Americans and some 2,000,000 dead vietnamese might weigh into
the equation too, but whether this is a cost or benefit is left as an
exercise to the reader.
| 
