[jjr69] Re: Martin Luther King's Opposition to the War on Iraq
- From: "Hung V. Le" <hungle1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jjr69@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:00:27 -0500
Tho^i cho to^i xin can ddi, ngu+`o+i Vie^.t mi`nh vo+'i nhau, ha?y ye^u nhau
ddi. Tra('ng, xanh, ddo? gi` cu~ng ddu+.o+c. Ye^u ngu+`o+i nhu+ MLK ye^u
chu'ng sinh.
Hu`ng
on 1/16/03 11:24 AM, viet.be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx at viet.be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
>
> Dat,
>
> Just one more thought, since you mentioned the side effect of the VN/Cambodia
> event:
> One of the side effects of the Mission Civilisatrice is that we both went to
> French schools. One of the side effects of the White Man's Burden policy is
> that we both are sitting in America discussing this in English.
>
> Are these good side effects of bad policies of interventions?
>
>>
>> From: Dat Duthinh <dduthinh@xxxxxxxx>
>> Date: 2003/01/16 Thu AM 06:34:04 PST
>> To: jjr69@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [jjr69] Martin Luther King's Opposition to the War on Iraq
>>
>>
>> So the Americans would defend freedom and the Iraquis would fight against
>> invasion, both very valid reasons. Both sides are right, and people
>> die. The defense of freedom sounds so lofty it reminds me of the Mission
>> Civilisatrice and the White Man's Burden.
>>
>> I see only one reason for foreign military intervention: the prevention of
>> genocide. Rwanda, Bosnia , Kosovo, Cambodia. Now, countries also use that
>> excuse when their real reason is more imperialistic, as for VN in Cambodia,
>> even though the side effect was very good.
>>
>> At 08:40 PM 1/15/03, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Van, Dung, Khai,
>>>
>>> As much as I oppose violent means to resolve conflicts, and in the Iraq
>>> case, a contemplated PREEMPTIVE strike under the guise of protecting the
>>> world, I must say that SOMETIMES war is inevitable, even
>>> necessary. I would not advocate avoiding war at any cost. For example,
>>> fighting a war to defend one's country against invasion is, to use Marting
>>> Luther King's own words, honorable and just. That is how I see the
>>> self-defensive fight that we (the Vietnamese who chose to live in the
>>> South, and the Americans who helped them) lost.
>>>
>>> I resent the fact that those who opposed the VN war see it and continues
>>> to see it as an event that dishonored America. I don't see it that
>>> way. On the contrary, it was a part of US and Vietnamese history that
>>> should be honored. The only regrettable part was the outcome.
>>>
>>> Please forgive me if I offend any one. It is my only (!) bias in
>>> politics.
>>>
>>> Mr. Nash's , and MLK's, lamenting that the poor and the Blacks died in
>>> disproportionate numbers is a justified concern. But how does a nation
>>> equally distribute the burden of death, when it comes time to fight to
>>> ensure that something worthwhile (like the freedome of a friendly people:
>>> the Vietnamese) be preserved? Or should a country live in complete
>>> isolation, close its eyes, plug its ears, and not come to the aid of a
>>> friendly nation? How does one do that? I don't have answers here.
>>>
>>> Nothing less than freedom and self-defense justifies the loss of lives,
>>> especially the lives of young men and women. I'm forever grateful that a
>>> large number of Americans and Vietnamese died for me (us) to live the
>>> precious few years of relative freedom. I remain saddened by those losses.
>>>
>>> I lost my father in the war. If I were asked whether I would give up my
>>> father to a "just and honorable" war, I will say no. The problem is, I
>>> wasn't asked. And I believe that he died in honor. I also believe that
>>> he joined the Army knowing of the ultimate consequences. And he accepted
>>> them willingly.
>>>
>>> Preserving freedom, coming to the aid of a friend, or self-defense, is NOT
>>> the case in Iraq. But it does not mean that all war is evil.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Viet Be
>
>
Other related posts:
