[jjr69] Re: Martin Luther King's Opposition to the War on Iraq
- From: <viet.be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jjr69@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 8:24:27 -0800
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:
