From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:21:28 GMT

In <Bxqzxu.6nu@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.721550993@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Yes, it is very similar, though our revolution has been painted
>ds> with a more patriotic and freedom-loving brush.

>Hmm.  Perhaps because our revolution wasn't obliged to contend with
>a corrupt dictatorship that enforced it's religious and economic
>bigotry by means of hit squads financed by the taxpayers of a foreign
>superpower (ie the US). 

	The US Revolutionary War was about religous and economic freedom,
and I doubt that any minuteman would think King Henry anything but a
corrupt dictator.  Hit squads?  Could you mean redcoats?  No, the reason
for the patriotic and freedom-loving brush is that we won.  In addition,
you will note that ol Ho Chi Mihn's troops were no better.  The VC were
not known for being polite to people who supported the US forces, or the
French forces for that matter.

>ds> In any event, you appear to be dancing around the point that
>ds> this was not the popular revolution you attempted to paint...

>Quick Quiz:  

>1) Who defeated the french colonial forces at Dien Bien Phu?
>   a) english soldiers; b) italian soldiers; c) vietnamese soldiers

	C.  What portion of the population were they?  To be a
popular revolution I'd expect voluntary service by a vast majority.

>2) Who launched the Tet Offensive against US forces in 1968?
>   a) russian soldiers; b) chinese soldiers; c) vietnamese soldiers

	C.  Note they did this in violation of their own cease-fire
agreement, during a national religous holiday.  Popular?  While the
people celebrated their version of Christmas, Ho Chi Mihn broke his
word and launched his greatest offensive.  What were the casualties
among the civilian population as a result of this?  Popular?

>3) Who finally captured Saigon in the final days of the war?
>   a) israeli soldiers; b) cuban soldiers; c) vietnamese soldiers

	C.  So what?  Have you forgotten all the civilians pushing
through the gates of the embassy, anxious to leave the country now
that the Cong were in charge?  Have you also forgotten all of the
ARVN forces that fought along-side us?  Your claim is still unsupported.

>I think most historians now agree that it was a popular 
>revolution with roots dating back to the turn of the 20th 
>century, and most historians also agree that the US played the 
>ignoble role of supporting a faction that violated many 
>principles that americans hold dear.

	Many historians obviously don't apply their theories to both
sides with equal fervor.

>  Let's tie this back into 
>the rights debate with one quick example: 

>Do you think that human animals have a right to make decisions
>about their own reproductive lives?  Or, would you agree with the
>position of the (roman catholic) Diem dictatorship that the possession
>of contraceptives ought to be punishable by a mandatory prison
>sentence?

	Do the catholics actually think this?  You should know that
I'm for the choice of the individual, hence I'm pro-birth-control.
However, were this example you mention the case, would you support
an all-out war against the police and government, the enforcers of
the laws, even if your side only represents a small faction of the
population in general?  I look upon the terrorist actions done in the
name of animal liberation and rights, and am sickened by the idea
that these people cannot understand that the majority of the
population not only doesn't agree with them, but that the normal
channels of changing laws aren't stopping them by some conspiracy
or fiat.  The government in Vietnam, had the revolution been a truly
popular one, could have been voted out as the US had promised
elections once the Viet Cong were quiet.  Had the VC stopped fighting
and let the elections tell their story, would all the bloodshed have
been avoided or would the popular uprising have been proven false?

	The fact remains that change takes time, and that painting
the Vietnam war as a popular uprising or revolution is no
different than saying that all Americans were bearing arms against
the British.  It wasn't so.  In addition, war is a political process,
and I humbly submit that, had the US wished to pursue the matter
politically, Vietnam would now be either democratic or a parking lot.
That we pulled out lends no credence to the popular uprising argument.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals