Genocide Question
America left South Vietnam to its own devices in 1975, leading to 2 1/2 million deaths and totolitarian governments in Cambodia and Vietnam.
So I assume the anti-war mantra now is: if it turns out no worse than 'Nam every thing will be fine.
Also note that in '75 all the South was asking for was material support and airstrikes against the invading North.
The anti-war folks who constantly scream about genocide now want to enable another one.
OK.
So the question is: if our leaving initiates a genocide in Iraq should we go back to save the people we once promised to protect?
Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers
Posts
2 comments:
The anti-war crowd's answer to your question would likely be no. As far as I can tell, they only care about genocide and other wartime atrocities as long as the U.S. is directly involved in a war. (Then, of course, they blame the U.S. for atrocities on both sides, but that's another subject.) Under their twisted logic, the 2 1/2 million deaths and totalitarian governments in Cambodia and Vietnam after that war are of no consequence, because America, having already tucked tail and left the conflict, wasn't a party to it.
As far as I can tell, that attitude hasn't changed a bit since the Vietnam war.
As a member of the 'anti-war' crowd i.e. your whipping boy, all I can say is, if we keep pursuing this defective neocon fossil-fuel-based empire, post-turn-tail-and-run Iraq slaughter will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the avalanches that misguided invasions will shake loose. Eventually the US economy will also collapse and then the avalanche will hit here as well when our military no longer has any fuel at all to protect our own borders with.
Post a Comment