The following is a summary of the questions/comments I raised and received no response to. Initially they were posed to John McCarthy in response to his thread: "Saddam should have been arrested by the U.N," hence the conversant tone. (apologies for the redundancy if you've already seen this)
On the "justification" for the US missile attack on the Iraqi capital:
Mr. McCarthy should refresh his memory about the "justifications" that seem to conveniently crop up every few months. In addition, he should recognize that of the other 170 odd States, it seems to be practically only the US that continues the pursuit. Besides that, the hypocrisy and double standards in evidence should be sufficient to overwhelm even the most ideologically indoctrinated (see my other references to Panama, and other comments about Castro, and Hussein as a US target himself in other notes).
More on the "justification" for the US missile attack on the Iraqi capital:
As related to the aforementioned note, it appears that Mr. McCarthy believes the results of a sham of a trial in the emirate of Kuwait is sufficient "proof" that there was a conspiracy to assassinate a US citizen and therefore warrants a State to launch a missile attack on the capital of another State.
As even Mr. McCarthy, I presume, is aware, Kuwait is a family dictatorship which is deeply indebted to the US government. The US government is on the record in support for the demise of Hussein (and hopes that he is replaced by an "iron-fisted dictator" who is a Saddam Hussein clone who *obeys* orders - like the mass-murder Hussein prior to August 1990).
Doesn't this make the results of a "trial" in Kuwait, and the accusation in general, at least highly suspect? If the US weren't the "global enforcer", would Mr. McCarthy accept the same standards in evidence here to allow another global enforcer to "enforce" the subjective judgements and pronouncements of another country whose retributions were directed against the US?
On the US as objective party capable of determining responsibility AND terrorism :
I see. Of course, the US has proven itself to be an objective and dispassionate player in the whole Iraqi "affair", beginning with millions of dollars in export subsidies thanks to the US taxpayer, followed by a major military operation leaving tens of thousands of corpses (many buried alive in the desert by US tanks retrofitted with plows, a major violation of the Geneva accords - but, don't fear; We're the global enforcer, so no one will exact a punishment as a result of this violation of international standards that Mr. McCarthy believes we are so committed to), in addition to 56? US citizens, and regular military attacks, some tacitly "sanctioned" by the UN security council (by no means a democratic body) and some explicitly NOT sanctioned ("no-fly zone in N. Iraq, bombing of Iraqi capital).
So, if the FBI and the CIA find "evidence" warranting military activity, they are CLEARLY objective organizations capable of judging guilt and responsibility. Should we lobby for the World Court in the Hague to be replaced by the US FBI and the CIA?
On double standards and paradigm shift:
Again, I ask Mr. McCarthy to consider a paradigm shift. I know this is a bit tricky, but it's nonetheless extremely important:
Consider that WE are at the other end of the barrel of a clearly superior economic and military State at some point in the future. Consider that a similar conflict arises (say, the US invades a country in Latin America, possibly with some justification) and the world power "State X" has the same preponderance of power and influence that the US has today on the world stage. Consider that US power and influence is comparable to Iraq's today, AND "State X" has been tacitly supporting the brutal military dictator running the US.
Would Mr. McCarthy accept the same justification for retribution of the same scale as directed by the US against Iraq, but in this case directed at the US (and incurred by the US citizens, NOT the dictator)?
On the US opposition to Iraqi Democracy:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : 1. President Bush said he hoped the Iraqis would overthrow Hussein : and replace him by a democratic government. Since he is no longer : President, this is not necessarily the policy of the U.S. Government. : Very likely, President Clinton has similar hopes.
That is a false statement. The US has absolutely NO interest in a truly democratic government for a very simple reason: Democratic governments are much more difficult to control and deal with than dictators, especially the type of dictators that suppress domestic voices that might oppose the interests of the US and the west in general (see Friedman below).
The US has no interest in a democracy in Saudi Arabia for the same reason.
Nor in Kuwait.
If Mr. McCarthy goes back and examines how the US dealt with those Iraqis calling for a democratic Iraq during the Gulf conflict, he will see that they were explicitly ignored by the US media AND the US government.
On US complicity in the invasion of Kuwait:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : 3. That Hussein obeyed U.S. orders is another fantasy.
Really? He got the green light to invade Kuwait from April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq.
Was Mr. McCarthy not aware of this minor detail? (didn't the American Spectator cover these aspects?)
And, at the time the US was working in favour of an oil price rise (one of the primary motivation for Iraq's aggression).
On Mr. McCarthy's misguided interpretation of my view of Kuwait:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : Mr. Epstein clearly hates the Kuwaitis.
and then again
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : I read your words about Kuwait, but I find them an expression of hatred : and not just an opinion about facts.
Again, Mr. McCarthy should very carefully reread my comments. His lack of precision and basic comprehension of the following words is quite telling of his deeply indoctrinated state:
The "trial" (and confessions) [of the accused] is being conducted in that bastion of democracy, the kingdom of Kuwait, NOT in the nation that (re)installed its vicious and murderous dictator (see Amnesty Int'l and other human rights reports if you doubt this characterization).
So, Mr. McCarthy understands my disdain for murder, torture, and dictatorship (re)installed by the US as "clear" proof of hatred for "the Kuwaitis" by myself.
On our responsibility:
John McCarthy (j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : I suppose that before Iraq invaded Kuwait, he had little opinion : on the matter. It seems that when a victim is : rescued by the U.S., the victim automatically becomes a criminal.
Interesting twist of words here by Mr. McCarthy. It indicates some quite revealing aspects of a deeply indoctrinated individual.
[deleted quote from Noam Chomsky}
Does Mr. McCarthy now understand why it is universally understood that our impact (and therefore responsibility) is greatest within our own domains?
On Vietnam:
To make just a brief comment, the US has no right to meddle in the affairs of any other state - neither does another state have the right to meddle in the affairs of the American people.
Had the US been "successful" (as defined by Mr. McCarthy) in Vietnam, Vietnam would most likely have been turned into another El Salvador or (Somoza's) Nicaragua or Haiti (countries that exemplify US democratic ideals).
THe US Pentagon Papers make explicitly clear that the US kept overthrowing the S. Vietnamese regimes until it found one that "invited" the US in - the US **NEVER** had the support of the people of S. Vietnam. Therefore, the US in effect *invaded* South Vietnam in the same manner that the USSR invaded Afghanastan (although it too claimed it was *invited* in by the regime it had installed), and devastated the countries in that region.
Again, please look at the US Government record (the US Pentagon Papers) and it will help separate fact from fiction.
The the US Government's Pentagon Papers describe quite clearly the motives for the US involvement in Vietnam - they had absolutely nothing to do with concern for the Vietnamese. In addition, the tragedy of Pol Pot's ascent to power and his subsequent genocidal policies are an indirect result of US meddling in that region, including the murderous and devastating carpet-bombing of villages of a peasant society by US taxpayer-purchased B-52 bombers.
My Summary:
If Mr. McCarthy argued the Machiavellian dictum that "might makes right" and that there *should* be no no morality in foreign policy, I could understand (although not agree with) his view. But, when he looks for *justification* in support of this dictum, he is grasping at straws.
Every Machiavellian act requires couching in moralistic rhetoric in order to sell it to the domestic audience who in general do NOT support morally vacuous policies, especially those in the interests of someone else, AND are the ones that have to pay the costs. My concern is when people believe the propaganda that compels people like Mr. McCarthy to support these Machiavellian policies, while ACCEPTING the *justification* churned out by the propaganda mills in support of the State ("national interest").
Mr. Epstein has the enviable energy to summarize, from his point of view, the discussions we have had. I would suspect that few have the energy to read long point-counterpoint discussions. Anyway I don't want to interpolate a further point-by-point discussion. Here are a few points, some of which are new.
1. I previously said that it would be nice if there were an effective world court that would respond to complaints and an effective enforcement of its decisions. Then we could have complained about the assassination attempt, an investigation might have led to an indictment, a police force might have arrested Saddam, a trial might have led to a conviction and a sentence of imprisonment. Of course, Saddam has done worse things than attempting to kill Bush.
There is no such court, every country must do the best it can to protect its interests.
I need to qualify my previous statement wishing that there were an effective world court. Unfortunately, any kind of world government established in the next 100 years would probably be a tragedy for the world that might not be overcome for thousands of years. I don't want to take the space to elaborate the point fully, but imagine a world government having the political character of the present government of India, which is the closest analogy I can find. Imagine the government of India in a world by itself and there being no successful foreign countries with which to contrast its failures. Dynasties in Egypt, China, the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire developed into stagnant patterns that persisted until they were overthrown from the outside. If we had a world government, there would be no outside.
2. It was unfortunate for the Iraqis that Bush stopped the war when he did. However, as I have said before, Bush keeping his promise to Gorbachev may have had the enormous benefit of helping persuade the Soviet generals not to support the coup, and this will save us enormous defense costs.
However, it would have been better to have given more moral support to those Iraqis demanding democracy. The wise guys in the Middle Eastern desk of the State Department who purport to "know the Arab mind" were probably wrong again, as they usually are.
The U.S. investigated the attack independently of the Kuwaitis.
Mr. Epstein is sure U.S. policy is never motivated by a desire to see democracy prevail and takes the smallest indication as proof of this view. He offers an explanation based on his idea of what motivates U.S. policy, but doesn't see the need for actual evidence other than a cynical remark by a New York Times diplomatic correspondent. There is a whole mob of "independent minds" who believe that every U.S. policy should be interpreted cynically. I believe U.S. presidents usually, though not always, mean what they say, and regard my reading of the news over many years as confirming this belief.
(Footnote about the New York Times. For many years the editor of the editorial page of the New York Times was John B. Oakes. He is a leftist and it was leftist. Then he retired, and the viewpoint of the editorial page changed considerably. I thought that maybe the point of view of the editorial board had changed, or something.
Then Mrs. Sulzberger, the matriarch of the family, died a few years ago. The story included a photograph of her wedding in 1917. In this photo two little boys, maybe four years old, were holding the end of the train of her bridal gown. One of these little boys was identified as John B. Oakes. The light dawned. Oakes is an anglicization of Ochs, the name of the founder of the newspaper. The New York Times editorial page went lefist when a leftist family member rose to get the job, and it changed when he retired. It's like Ron Dellums, an enemy of defense, becoming Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. It's just seniority.
As for Thomas Friedman. How can one regard the New York Times as a spokesman for U.S. policy if prominent positions in its organization are determined by seniority and sometimes even by family connections. End of digression.)
Yes, I knew about April Glaspie, and I regard it as just one more State Department stupidity.
3. Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and failure in defending a country from communist invasion? I thought the difference between $1,500 a month and $50 a month in wage costs was a relevant point. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
In article <JMC.93Jul6192...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea >as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and >failure in defending a country from communist invasion? >-- >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
"Defending a country from communist invasion."
This is a most amusing piece of revisionism in the case of Vietnam, as the Communists had already nearly won the civil war in South Vietnam by the time the U.S. invaded that country ("escalated the intervention" in Washington-speak). And all of this was clearly recognized by the U.S. government at the time, internally but not publicly.
Have a look at the Pentagon Papers, Prof. McCarthy. You will learn something. -- Dave Kohr CS Graduate Student Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561 Home: (217)359-9350 E-mail: d...@cs.uiuc.edu "One either has none or not enough."
In article <JMC.93Jul6192...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea >as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and >failure in defending a country from communist invasion? >-- >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
"Defending a country from communist invasion."
This is a most amusing piece of revisionism in the case of Vietnam, as the Communists had already nearly won the civil war in South Vietnam by the time the U.S. invaded that country ("escalated the intervention" in Washington-speak). And all of this was clearly recognized by the U.S. government at the time, internally but not publicly.
Have a look at the Pentagon Papers, Prof. McCarthy. You will learn something. -- Dave Kohr CS Graduate Student Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561 Home: (217)359-9350 E-mail: d...@cs.uiuc.edu "One either has none or not enough."
The communists had also nearly conquered Korea before MacArthur made the Inchon landing. However, the comparison was in terms of the results of the two outcomes. It is typified by the fact that workers in Vietnam, 17 years after the communist victory, make $30 to $50 per month, whereas workers in South Korea make $1,500 per month. This is the difference between a communist victory and a capitalist victory.
Some people in the U.S. Government said one thing; others said something different. You leftists pick what you like as an admission of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies. That civil war in South Vietnam was a fiction was stated by General Giap after the North Vietnamese victory. It was mainly an invasion from the start, and American leftists helped the communists lie about it. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
In article <JMC.93Jul6215...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >The communists had also nearly conquered Korea before MacArthur made >the Inchon landing.
Yes, the North Korean communists.
But in contrast, the South Vietnamese Communists (the NLF), who comprised the "largest mass-based political party in South Vietnam" (as Douglas Pike of the USIA put it), had largely "conquered" their own country (what a concept!), in many areas *without* violence (because they had extensive popular support), before the U.S. decided to intensify its already considerable effort to prop up its puppet regime in Saigon to the point of openly invading South Vietnam to attack that political party. And the decision for this intensification took place at a time (late 1964) when there were *not* North Vietnamese Army units known to be operating in the South.
Your analogy of "invasions" is obviously quite incorrect.
>It is typified by the fact that workers in Vietnam, 17 years after the >communist victory, make $30 to $50 per month, whereas workers in South >Korea make $1,500 per month.
>This is the difference between a communist victory and a capitalist >victory.
It is also the difference between:
1. Having an embargo on aid, trade, and international loans enforced against a country by the world's dominant economies since the end of the war (as has Vietnam), versus not having an emabargo but instead receiving quite considerable economic development aid and foreign investment (South Korea).
2. Suffering massive war damage (enormous amounts of bombing, defoliation, and desctruction of agriculture), with no reparations from the inflicting country (the U.S.), as did Vietnam, versus suffering far less damage and, again, receiving considerable aid for reconstruction (South Korea).
3. Being attacked only a few years later by 2 of one's neighbors, resulting in further wars (Cambodia and China attacking Vietnam) and large military expenditures, versus benefitting from the protection of a quite substantial garrison of troops belonging to a superpower (as has South Korea).
By failing utterly to mention these crucial points, your comparison is immensely dishonest.
>Some people in the U.S. Government said one thing; others said >something different. You leftists pick what you like as an admission >of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies.
This is a highly facile but totally unconvincing refutation of the numerous government statements and reports (many classified at the time--and with good reason) which support the contention that the NLF was very popular in the South.
>That civil war in South Vietnam was a fiction was stated by General Giap >after the North Vietnamese victory.
Care to provide a reference for this?
>It was mainly an invasion from the start
Yes, by the U.S., and also by the North Vietnamese who entered the South well after the U.S. forces had, but certainly not by the large numbers of Communists who already lived in the South.
>and American leftists helped the communists lie about it. >-- >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
And apparently the "leftists" also managed to convince the government to produce classified documents which tell this same "lie". Hardly. -- Dave Kohr CS Graduate Student Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561 Home: (217)359-9350 E-mail: d...@cs.uiuc.edu "One either has none or not enough."
In article <JMC.93Jul6215...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >That civil war in South Vietnam was a fiction was stated by General Giap >after the North Vietnamese victory.
Was the Civil war in the Confederate States of America a fiction?
>It was mainly an invasion from the start
Was the Union entry into the Confederate States an invasion from the start?
Actually this analogy is weak because through at least the Tet offensive, the majority of the fighting against the southern govt. was by southerners. In the US case, the Northern troops moved in to reconquor the territory which split off. In the Vietnamese case, the southerners fought against the new govt. to overthrow it, receiving help from the North. Only after massive foreign intervention (which did not happen in the USA/CSA case) did the North send large quantities of troops.
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
There are always excuses for the disastrous economic performance of communist ruled countries. Indeed for the 20 or so communist ruled countries, there are more than 20 excuses. There is the further excuse that they aren't really communist.
I will not follow Dave Kohr into an argument about the amount of popular support the Viet Cong had. This is because I haven't read the books I should read to get the opposite point of view to his, and I prefer to concentrate on other issues. Would someone else take up the cudgels on Vietnam? -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
=o= Hey, folks, look at your headers. This thread is being cross-posted to both alt.activism and alt.activism.d.
=o= It's basic net etiquette not to cross post between a newsgroup and its ".d" discussion group. Please help keep this type of cross-posting down -- all it does is cause flames to snowball. <_Jym_>
In <C9ryJ2....@cs.uiuc.edu> d...@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr) writes:
|In article <JMC.93Jul6192...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: |>Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea |>as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and |>failure in defending a country from communist invasion? |>-- |>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|"Defending a country from communist invasion."
|This is a most amusing piece of revisionism in the case of Vietnam, as the |Communists had already nearly won the civil war in South Vietnam by the |time the U.S. invaded that country ("escalated the intervention" in |Washington-speak). And all of this was clearly recognized by the U.S. |government at the time, internally but not publicly.
|Have a look at the Pentagon Papers, Prof. McCarthy. You will learn |something.
The North Koreans had also nearly won the war in Korea. By the time the Americans arrived, the South Koreans only held a small area around the capital. -- Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money. Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related. Mark.Wil...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
The area the Americans and South Koreans held at the time of the Inchon landing was not around the capital Seoul. The North Koreans had captured that in the first few days of their invasion. It was a perimeter around the port of Pusan in the far Southeast. Inchon is the port associated with Seoul and is in the Northwest of South Korea. The landing, which MacArthur made against the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the most brilliant operation of his career. It led to cutting off and capturing almost the whole North Korean army. If MacArthur had taken the advice of the Joint Chiefs and built up his forces in the Pusan perimeter and launched an offensive to enlarge the perimeter, it would have cost large casualties, the North Koreans would have driven the population ahead as they retreated, and we would have been subjected to a communist peace offensive that we might not have had the strength to withstand.
Alas, after conquering North Korea, MacArthur was not in a good position to withstand the Chinese entry into the war and the war ended up just about at the 38th parallel where the communists invaded. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
In article <Jym.8Jul1993.1855b@naughty-peahen> j...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: >=o= Hey, folks, look at your headers. This thread is being >cross-posted to both alt.activism and alt.activism.d.
Yeah. It's appropriate for both.
>=o= It's basic net etiquette not to cross post between a >newsgroup and its ".d" discussion group. Please help keep >this type of cross-posting down -- all it does is cause >flames to snowball.
Wrong. It's something that Jym wants part of basic net etiquette, but the rest of the world is not cooperating. You see, Jym doesn't want "activists" to have to read those annoying posts that point out just how stupid their causes are.
>Some people in the U.S. Government said one thing; others said >something different. You leftists pick what you like as an admission >of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies.
Have you read the Pentagon Papers or have you not?
>Some people in the U.S. Government said one thing; others said >something different. You leftists pick what you like as an admission >of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies.
Have you read the Pentagon Papers or have you not?
No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: > d...@netcom.com (Dennis Allard) writes: > >Have you read the Pentagon Papers or have you not? >No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers.
Thank you for your honest response.
From the preface of the Pentagon papers:
... the deep-felt need of the government insider for secrecy in order to keep the machinery of state functioning smoothly and to maintain a maximum ability to affect the public word.
From Document #15, describing CIA actions in 1954:
The first rumor campaign was to be a carefully planted story of a Chinese Communist regiment in Tonkin taking reprisals against a Vietminh village...
The northern team had spent the last days of Hanoi in contaminating the oil supply of the bus company for a gradual wreckage of engines in the buses...
Vietminh relations with the mass of the population during the fighting had been exemplary, with a few exceptions; in contrast, the Vietnamese National Army [our guys] had been like too many Asian armies, adept at cowing a population into feeding them, providing them with girls...
From Document #46, cable from Ambassador Lodge to President, 1963:
...I doubt that a public relations package will meet needs of situation which seems particularly grave to me, notably in the light of General Big Minh's opinion expressed very privately yesterday that the Viet Cong are steadily gaining in strength; have more of the population on their side than has the Government of Vietnam; that arrests are continuing and that the prisons are full; that more and more students are going over to the Viet Cong; that there is great graft and corruption in the Vietnamese admin- istration of our aid ...
...I still hope that I may be informed of methods ... which will enable us to apply sanctions [to affect] Diem and Nhu without precipitating an economic collapse ... If a way to do this were found, it would be one of the greatest discoveries since the Marshall Plan in 1947 because, so far as I know, the U.S. had never yet been able to control any of the very unsatisfactory governments through which we have had to work in our many very successful attempts to make these countries strong enough to stand alone.
I also believe that whatever sanctions we may discover should be directly tied to a promising coup d'etat and should NOT be applied without such a coup being in prospect. ... I particularly think that the idea of supporting a Vietnamese Army independent of the government should be energetically studied.
From Document #87: Briefing by Ambassador Taylor to U.S. Officials 11/64
After a year of changing and ineffective government, thej counter- insurgency program country-wide is bogged down. ...
The ability of the Viet-Cong ['south' vietnamese who were revolting against the Diem regime] continuously to rebuild their units and to make good their losses is one of the mysteries of this guerrilla war. [where there is mystery, there is lack of facts or invalid deduction] ... Not only do the Viet-Cong units have the recuperative powers of the phoenix, but they have an amazing ability to maintain morale. ...
...We need to do three things: first, establish an adequate government in SVN [South Vietnam]; second, improve the conduct of the counter- insurgency campaign; and finally,persuade of force the DRV [Democratic Repulic of Vietnam] to stop its aid to the Viet-Cong and to use its directive powers to make the Viet-Cong desist from their efforts to overthrow the government of South Vietnam...
These excerpts give a feel for the contents of the Pentagon Papers.
They provide important source material in support of the following view. We supported a corrupt government which prosecuted its student protesters and had lost the support of its own population in the countryside in defending itself in a civil war conducted by Vietnamese in the South, aided greatly by Vietnamese in the North. As we escalated the war, cratering ten percent of the surface area of the country with our bombs, a debate raged as to whether we were escalating fast enough or whether whatever we did would be doomed to failure against a popular insurrection. That debate continues to this day. What is sure is that we lost and Vietnam was crippled and is struggling to this day to survive in a capitalist dominated economy, their wounds from war against the French and U.S. far from healed.
However bad the Vietnamese government was, it turned out that the communists were very much worse. Agreed? -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
: Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea : as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and : failure in defending a country from communist invasion? : -- : |>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
In discussing South Korea as an example of a "U.S success", it appears appropriate to understand the relationship between the Vietnam war and the South Korean "economic miracle.", as some have termed it.
As most agree, the Vietnam war proved extremely costly (economic, and human terms) to the US, and appears to have greatly benefited both Japan and South Korea. Both countries enriched themselves by exporting arms and services for the destruction of Indochina. I recall that the trade deficit with Japan shifted significantly in 1965; in addition, South Korean development was partially sparked by huge payments for South Korean mercenaries in South Vietnam. (Does anyone have specific references for how much money South Korea was paid, and how many mercenaries there were?)
Understanding this might put a slight damper on the enthusiasm some have shown for the "economic miracle" resulting from our "aid" to South Korea.
Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on millions of people being deprived of their liberties? And, what about the price paid for the violently crushed labour movements budding in the '40's? How many millions of Koreans were killed in the Korean war, yet another war prosecuted by the U.S. on someone elses soil (would we ever accept such benevolent aid)? What about the cost to the South Koreans of the right wing dictatorship installed after "liberation" from Japan? The U.S. bombing and shelling of both South and North Korea reduced the country to shambles in about 3 years, with perhaps two million Korean lives lost. What price should be placed on this?
The following is a description by a British BBC journalist who had the dubious honor to witness one of the beneficiaries of our noble intents:
In front of us a curious figure was standing, a little crouched, legs straddled, arms held out from his sides. He had no eyes, and the whole of his body, nearly all of which was visible through tatters of burnt rags, was covered with a hard black crust speckled with yellow pus. . .He had to stand because he was no long er covered with skin, but with a crust-like crackling which broke easily. . . I thought of the hundreds of villages reduced to ash which I personally had seen and realized the sort of casualty list which must be mounting up along the Korean front.
What macroeconomic statistics measure this?
In addition, many consider South Korea's current political system is more akin to fascism than to a free-market capitalist democracy. What weight is this given in the measurement of macroeconomic statistics?
With regards to Mr. McCarthy's selection of South Korea, why choose South Korea? Why not pick what appear to be more appropriate examples exemplifying our noble intents and adherence to Wilsonian democratic ideals and our firm principles supporting free-markets, democracy, the rule of law, freedom, self-determination, human rights, equality and non-intervention? Take a look at Liberia, or perhaps Haiti and Brazil. Or Mexico. Or the Philipines. El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua (under Somoza). And, examine more than just macroeconomic statistics (look at human misery, starvation and disease, infant mortality, environmental and other statistics with human impact). Aren't these better examples of the "consequences of U.S. success and failure in defending a country from communist invasion", among other noble intents?
Mr. McCarthy states:
"You leftists pick what you like as an admission of the truth and call what you don't like Government lies."
How would Mr. McCarthy express his "pick" of South Korea, given the ample supply of countries which, due to length of our involvement, and other historical considerations, appear much better candidates?
In article <CA0Aro....@cup.hp.com> d...@cup.hp.com (Dan Epstein) writes: >John McCarthy (j...@cs.Stanford.EDU) wrote: >Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration >should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South >Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a >consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a >repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of >determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on >millions of people being deprived of their liberties?
We're comparing South Korea to Vietnam. Needless to say, liberties have been deprived from the Vietnamese too. The argument is not "capitalist countries work perfectly while Communist ones don't", but "capitalist countries work *better*". -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
No. I have not and do not presently intend to read the Pentagon Papers.
I ask John McCarthy: Why?
I have read a certain amount about Vietnam but mainly concentrate on other issues. I take Mr. Epstein's questtion as suggesting that reading the Pentagon papers is a requirement for having one's remarks about Vietnam and its consequences taken seriously. Is Mr. Epstein willing that I should give him a reading list, and he should stop posting till he has read some of it. In the meantime, here's an item on Vietnam that I saved. It's short, and I would like his comments.
a047 0304 04 Jul 86 BC-Liberty Essay-Text,0208 11-Year-Old's Essay on Statue of Liberty NEW YORK (AP) - Following is the text of the essay titled ''Our Statue: Teacher of Liberty'' written by 11-year-old Hue Cao of Hawaii for the Christa McAuliffe Liberty Essay Contest: ''I think the Statue of Liberty is the greatest symbol of freedom in the world. ''My family and I are from Vietnam. After the war ended, the Communists took over and they were very cruel, stern and ill-tempered. They took away our freedom, and worst of all, they could kill anyone. We had a very hard life under them. ''We wanted to live in America, a land where there is liberty and justice. Everytime we saw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, my mother would tell us that SHE is America. America is a place that lends a hand to those in need. The Americans care for all people, from hopeless to homeless people. After we arrived in America, we promised our mother to love, care and protect the Statue of Liberty. ''In conclusion, I would like to say that America is truly my home. I shall live in this country forever, because this nation has given my family a brand new life.''
-- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
1. Mr. Epstein's attribution of the economic success of Japan and South Korea (and I suppose also Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) to the Vietnam war is an invention. The exports of these countries were never significantly in support of U.S. military action. South Korea suffered significant costs, because it had a division in Vietnam. It is a lie to refer them as mercenaries.
2. The U.S. did not maintain any government in South Korea. It is another leftist invention to ascribe all bad aspects of foreign governments to U.S. will. Backward countries have difficulty maintaining democracy. South Korea did better than countries whose politics was characterized by anti-U.S. slogans.
3. I selected South Korea, because that is the country where we succeeded in rescuing from a communist invasion. There wasn't any choice if this criterion was to be met.
-- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
This concerns debating technique. Some people have complained that Mr. Epstein is egotistical. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. The accusation that he is egotistical seem to me to come from observing some of his debating techniques. I shall mention three of them.
1. Defining the issue to suit his position and accusing the other discussants of evading the issue. The most recent issue was whether I had read the Pentagon papers. Not content with my saying I hadn't and didn't intend to, he asked why.
2. The use of terminology that prejudges the issue under discussion. Some examples are "South Korean mercenaries", "exporting arms and services for the destruction of Indochina", "the Korean war, yet another war prosecuted by the U.S. on someone elses soil", etc.
3. The atrocity story. In this case, Mr. Epstein doesn't even bother to say which army caused the injuries to the individual seen. It doesn't matter to him. Even if he was burned by a communist weapon, it's the U.S. fault anyway.
4. The ending "Do facts matter?"
I don't know whether Mr. Epstein got this debating technique from Chomsky, who always starts a discussion of Vietnam with something like "During the U.S. attack on the Vietnamese people". The originator of the technique, so far as I know, was Stalin. An international communist weekly in many languages was started in Belgrade right after WWII with the name "For a Lasting Peace, For a People's Democracy". Stalin told someone, Milovan Djilas maybe, that he chose the name so that even enemies would have to repeat a communist slogan in referring to the paper.
Anyway the technique works pretty well. The first time Chomsky used it on me I was quite disconcerted. I thought, "Do I have to haggle over terminology before we can even begin to discuss the issue?" The answer was yes; it is necessary to haggle over terminology in such cases. Normally, I refer to the Vietnam War as "the Vietnam War", but learning from Chomsky, in dealing with Mr. Epstein I refer to it as "the noble American effort to defeat the communist invasion of South Vietnam". Then he has to haggle over terminology.
There is one new thing in this matter of debating technique. Because Usenet permits unlimited replies, terminological ploys are less effective than in, say, a radio broadcast where there is no opportunity to answer, or even a face-to-face debate where answering what it implicit in a phrase like "South Korean mercenaries" takes at least a minute of one's limited debating time.
Here one can take the time to answer if one has the time and is willing to take the trouble.
In future responses to Mr. Epstein's posts, I will merely list phrases that presume what he should be trying to prove.
-- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
In article <CA0Aro....@cup.hp.com> d...@cup.hp.com (Dan Epstein) writes: > John McCarthy (j...@cs.Stanford.EDU) wrote: > : Did Mr. Epstein miss my message comparing Vietnam with Korea > : as an example of the different consequences of U.S. success and > : failure in defending a country from communist invasion? > : -- > : |>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> In discussing South Korea as an example of a "U.S success", it appears > appropriate to understand the relationship between the Vietnam war and > the South Korean "economic miracle.", as some have termed it.
> As most agree, the Vietnam war proved extremely costly (economic, and > human terms) to the US, and appears to have greatly benefited both > Japan and South Korea. Both countries enriched themselves by > exporting arms and services for the destruction of Indochina. I recall > that the trade deficit with Japan shifted significantly in 1965; in > addition, South Korean development was partially sparked by huge > payments for South Korean mercenaries in South Vietnam. (Does > anyone have specific references for how much money South Korea was > paid, and how many mercenaries there were?)
> Understanding this might put a slight damper on the enthusiasm some > have shown for the "economic miracle" resulting from our "aid" to > South Korea.
> Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration > should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South > Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a > consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a > repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of > determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on > millions of people being deprived of their liberties? And, what about > the price paid for the violently crushed labour movements budding in > the '40's? How many millions of Koreans were killed in the Korean > war, yet another war prosecuted by the U.S. on someone elses soil > (would we ever accept such benevolent aid)? What about the cost to > the South Koreans of the right wing dictatorship installed after > "liberation" from Japan? The U.S. bombing and shelling of both South > and North Korea reduced the country to shambles in about 3 years, with > perhaps two million Korean lives lost. What price should be placed on > this?
> The following is a description by a British BBC journalist who had the > dubious honor to witness one of the beneficiaries of our noble > intents:
> In front of us a curious figure was standing, a little crouched, legs > straddled, arms held out from his sides. He had no eyes, and the > whole of his body, nearly all of which was visible through tatters of > burnt rags, was covered with a hard black crust speckled with yellow > pus. . .He had to stand because he was no long er covered with skin, > but with a crust-like crackling which broke easily. . . I thought of > the hundreds of villages reduced to ash which I personally had seen > and realized the sort of casualty list which must be mounting up along > the Korean front.
> What macroeconomic statistics measure this?
> In addition, many consider South Korea's current political system is > more akin to fascism than to a free-market capitalist democracy. What > weight is this given in the measurement of macroeconomic statistics?
> With regards to Mr. McCarthy's selection of South Korea, why choose > South Korea? Why not pick what appear to be more appropriate examples > exemplifying our noble intents and adherence to Wilsonian democratic > ideals and our firm principles supporting free-markets, democracy, the > rule of law, freedom, self-determination, human rights, equality and > non-intervention? Take a look at Liberia, or perhaps Haiti and > Brazil. Or Mexico. Or the Philipines. El Salvador, Guatamala, > Nicaragua (under Somoza). And, examine more than just macroeconomic > statistics (look at human misery, starvation and disease, infant > mortality, environmental and other statistics with human impact). > Aren't these better examples of the "consequences of U.S. success and > failure in defending a country from communist invasion", among other > noble intents?
> Mr. McCarthy states:
> "You leftists pick what you like as an admission of > the truth and call what you don't like Government lies."
> How would Mr. McCarthy express his "pick" of South Korea, given the > ample supply of countries which, due to length of our involvement, and > other historical considerations, appear much better candidates?
Since you appear to hold all things American in contempt, I am amazed that you haven't moved to one of the enlightened governments (North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). Your interpretation of the Korean War is truely amazing. The sixties were good for you weren't they.
My dad was a 3-war vet attached to the Army Artillery Map Corps.
He says all the wars fought during the Cold War "extension of WWII" were "Police Actions" to protect global corporate investments. (Sorry but the REAL purpose of the "police" is to protect property)
Vietnam was partly to protect MICHILLIN TIRE CORP's vast holdings of rubber tree plantations (1000's of acres) where no "fire fights" were ever staged. Mapping So.Vietnam in 1967, one of his duties as survey officer was to survey damage to MTC owned trees, then "do an estimate of loss & sign-off documents authorizing US taxpayers to repay MTC."
War;n. 1.Contest of hostile force between 2 or more nations or states. Contest;v. 1.To struggle to gain or hold (property or superiority). End of Conflict usually comes when one side gains control of other.
So who won the COLD WAR? So far, looks like GERMANY & JAPAN, since the BULK of mid-east OIL goes to BOTH of these 2 "WWII" nations, as in who gain control of the property (OIL & other natural resources) in the end? They don't even have to fight for it, but at least BUSH was smart enough to "stage a property seizure" had global community force them to "pay up" or lose their "police force". Oh yes, according to Sc.Am.: "The BULK of US foreign OIL comes from one OPEC nation: VENEZUALA. Granada Island is just off the coast of our industrial "feeding dish"
Starting to get the picture? Here's more: Reason for Contra activity was to meet attempt of XSSR to extablish a "Carribean Curtain" from anchored in Central America thru Cuba to the Granada Islands. Ruski's are good Chess Players but our MI (Military Intelligence) is better. Explains why w/Afghanastan invasion, we drilled all our oil fields, capped & left them for ready access in event of war & loss of OIL.
Now we know what Pogo the possum cartoon meant when he said in late 50's: "We have met the enemy & he is US" Every 3 generations since the discovery of Vitamin Defficiency & Smallpox Innoculation by Brits@1796 there has been major, global, socio-economic upheavel world-wide as when the 4th generation appears, non-producing, consuming and the 1st is still alive, also non-producing, but still consuming it puts a BIG burden on the other 2 middle-generations! The magic number just happens to be "...66.6yrs is a man's number" Sorry King James, your scribes omitted the decimal, for it takes a wise Solar Astronemer to figure that one out. Call him crazy as a LOON, but it's the TRUTH. Sorry about that, roger (keep an open mind or believe what you're fed)
3 or 4 shots on target thru a bolt-action? maybe w/a semi-automatic, but NO WAY w/a BOLT-ACTION, unless you got a concrete cheek. Now that's the REAL ISSUE, side-stepped to this day by the "free-press"
What else don't we know? How about XSA (soon to be at next 66.6 point) Sometime @ 2 or 3 yrs (Wall St Jour, Jul92) a historic moment will occur as 51% of USA will be owned by institutions & global corp's. Later------------------------------------------------------oger
|>Mr. McCarthy highlighted an economic metric. Forther consideration |>should be made to quantifying the "costs" in human terms the South |>Korean citizens have borne during the last half century as a |>consequence of our "help." For example, the U.S. imposed a |>repressive military dictatorship which deprived the South Koreans of |>determining their own destiny. What "value" should be placed on |>millions of people being deprived of their liberties?
|We're comparing South Korea to Vietnam. Needless to say, liberties have been |deprived from the Vietnamese too. The argument is not "capitalist countries |work perfectly while Communist ones don't", but "capitalist countries work |*better*".
Dan, do you really believe that the South Koreans would have been better off if the North Koreans had won.
I will state, though I can't prove, that the South Vietnamese would have been better off had the US won there as well. For example, how many boat people were there before or during the war. -- Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money. Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related. Mark.Wil...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >However bad the Vietnamese government was, it turned out that the >communists were very much worse. Agreed? >--
very much worse? I disagree.
worse? I have no evidence that is the case.
I know very little about Vietnam. I generalize based on analogies with an area I do understand, Central America. For that region, I would gladly debate you about a comparison between countries U.S. captital supports and coutries U.S. capital opposes.
If someday that debate happens, it should be under a different subject heading.
|
