[jjr69] Re: Martin Luther King's Opposition to the War on Iraq
- From: <viet.be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jjr69@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 7:14:31 -0800
Freedom is not so exaggerated a concept once you've experienced emprisonment
(or tu` ca?i ta.o), or unsuccessfully attempted to leave your native land by
"boat". It's as real as anything...when you've lost it.
The problem is to wage war under the pretense of defending freedom...for others.
>
> 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:
