Your spam, oops, I mean films, for 18â€“25 October

Old Pro Joined: 02 Jan 2007 Posts: 2260

The problem with the domino theory is that it became a self-fulfilling prochecy. Initially the Vietnaminh (more socialist than communist) approached America for support against France but were rejected, driving them towards the left, a mistake America continued in South America and (if you replace fundamentalism for communism) the Middle East by supporting any mad dictator no matter how cruel or unpopular as long as they were broadly alligned with American interests. Without propping up the likes of Somosa, the Marcos' or the Shah of Iran while opposing reform, they pretty much drove the people into the arms of the very groups they wanted to keep out of power.

Old Pro Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 1297

TrevorAclea wrote:

The problem with the domino theory is that it became a self-fulfilling prochecy. Initially the Vietnaminh (more socialist than communist) approached America for support against France but were rejected, driving them towards the left, a mistake America continued in South America and (if you replace fundamentalism for communism) the Middle East by supporting any mad dictator no matter how cruel or unpopular as long as they were broadly alligned with American interests. Without propping up the likes of Somosa, the Marcos' or the Shah of Iran while opposing reform, they pretty much drove the people into the arms of the very groups they wanted to keep out of power.

They were in fact allies of sorts during WW2. The Vietminh worked with the OSS to furnish intelligence on the Japanese occupation of Vichy Vietnam. They had good reason to look for support and may have gotten it had Roosevelt lived longer. He was in favor of liberating Indochina from the French, though Churchill was having none of that as he thought it might set a dangerous precedent for India. As far as I am concerned the whole debacle could have been averted right there.

Old Pro Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 289

etucker wrote:

There's nothing subtle about this. Nor is it an assumption. These are simply the unvarnished facts, which you do not seem inclined to address. The subject was the causes of the genocide, but you to have fallen back on ideological rhetoric and a dismissal of the facts rather than defend your assertions regarding the antiwar movement. Even if the domino theory was correct, it still doesn't explain the genocide.

Cambodia was a constitutional monarchy that supported a multi party system and was working towards reforms. There were plenty of moderate and even leftist communists incorporated into this government. After all that it has been through it is once again a constitutional monarchy - so where does that leave your pervasive domino theory?

You've argued yourself into the position that Cambodia was a stable society full of happy people that would have got along nicely with a jolly bit of communist representation in government if the Americans hadn't intervened in the region. Come on, that's patently ridiculous.

The domino theory simply predicts the march of ideology, which is what happened. Fact. Revolutionaries care nothing for reforms and multi-party systems and consitutional this-and-that - they were bunches of guerillas who took forcible control as soon as they had the opportunity - which the Americans provided by abandoning the region. Fact. Anything more subtle - as any canny lawyer knows - begins to cloud the issue, especially if your aim is to disparage American politics at the time.

The political machinations in America are trivial details that loom large to you because you were there in America at the time, presumably demonstrating against them. But the big picture is that they were fighting to stop the spread of communism because your government was clear-sighted enough (no, not paranoid) to understand what an evil it was. The evil of communism is the only fact worth considering here. And to say that criticism of communism is 'ideological rhetoric' just makes me wonder why you refuse to acknowledge the fact yourself...

Just to inflame you a bit more, I might add that McCarthyism always seemed perfectly reasonable to me because all those misguided intellectuals spinning their ideas through the media really could have been a threat. I realise it got out of control and started picking on homosexuals and other groups, but clamping down on communist sympathisers was necessary unless you wanted riots on the streets like in Paris.

And - this will really get you - I also defend colonialism. There were good colonialists and bad ones, admittedly, but if economic development was the goal, it was the best thing that could happen to those places - they still reap the benefit today of the infrastructure that was built (railways etc pretty much everywhere), agriculture that was set up (eg, in Rhodesia, which has gone to the dogs since the colonists were kicked out), political institutions (eg. India - the world's largest democracy). And of course, if they had had the economic advantage, do you think the people of those countries wouldn't happily have colonised you and me? Of course they would. I think it would be a good idea to reintroduce colonialism by which rich countries 'sponsor' third world countries - help develop them for a share of the spoils (if I still believed in economic development, that is).

Old Pro Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 289

TrevorAclea wrote:

The problem with the domino theory is that it became a self-fulfilling prochecy. Initially the Vietnaminh (more socialist than communist) approached America for support against France but were rejected, driving them towards the left, a mistake America continued in South America and (if you replace fundamentalism for communism) the Middle East by supporting any mad dictator no matter how cruel or unpopular as long as they were broadly alligned with American interests. Without propping up the likes of Somosa, the Marcos' or the Shah of Iran while opposing reform, they pretty much drove the people into the arms of the very groups they wanted to keep out of power.

Well, there you're spinning a theory out of a couple of examples while ignoring the bigger, simpler picture which is that the poor people in many nations at that time were inflamed with communist fervour inspired by Mao who showed them that years of struggle in the wilderness could eventually prove victorious.

Why this need to blame America all the time, as if the world would have got by beautifully without any intervention? In fact the world might have gone right up its own arse, like in Russia and China... There are plenty of other places where the guerilla process took hold and had nothing to do with American or any other intervention - eg the Shining Path in Peru, or in Nepal only recently.

Old Pro Joined: 12 Nov 2007 Posts: 394 Location: New York

Quote:

but itâ€™s hard to dislike a film with exchanges like "Well, at least we're not dragging the boat over a hill." â€œVat vos zat?â€ â€œUh, nothing.â€

Funniest line in the movie.

Old Pro Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 1297

fed2 wrote:

You've argued yourself into the position that Cambodia was a stable society full of happy people that would have got along nicely with a jolly bit of communist representation in government if the Americans hadn't intervened in the region. Come on, that's patently ridiculous.

Maybe. But we'll never know, because American intervention in Cambodia insured that could never happen, by dismantling their neutrality, destroying their diplomatic relationship with Hanoi and Beijing, and by precipitating a full on civil war where previously there had been only minor skirmishes. Once this was achieved, US and ARVN troops were withdrawn, leaving Lon Nol with his thumb up his arse to face a major KR/NLF insurgency with an inadequate domestic military. Nixon embarked on this project knowing he could not maintain US troops in the region, and that after he had stirred up the hornet's nest he would be leaving the Cambodians high and dry. He did this for two reasons; to intimidate Hanoi at the bargaining table in Paris, and buy time for the US troop withdrawal from S Vietnam. Cambodia was used, quite cynically, as a pawn. I might be agreeing with you right now if Nixon had gone in with the intention of staying and preserving the Cambodian people. He did not.

Quote:

The domino theory simply predicts the march of ideology, which is what happened. Fact. Revolutionaries care nothing for reforms and multi-party systems and consitutional this-and-that - they were bunches of guerillas who took forcible control as soon as they had the opportunity - which the Americans provided by abandoning the region. Fact. Anything more subtle - as any canny lawyer knows - begins to cloud the issue, especially if your aim is to disparage American politics at the time.

Every time I present you with a set of facts i.e., events, you accuse me of clouding the issue, and then respond by presenting generalities as facts. However, I am inclined to agree with your statement regarding the inclinations of revolutionaries. As for opportunity, see above.

Quote:

The political machinations in America are trivial details that loom large to you because you were there in America at the time, presumably demonstrating against them. But the big picture is that they were fighting to stop the spread of communism because your government was clear-sighted enough (no, not paranoid) to understand what an evil it was. The evil of communism is the only fact worth considering here. And to say that criticism of communism is 'ideological rhetoric' just makes me wonder why you refuse to acknowledge the fact yourself...

There is nothing trivial about several Hiroshimas worth of ordnance dropped on a country that the US was not at war with. No one knows how many civilians died, but estimates range from 100-800 thousand, and that does not include the number of people displaced and suffering from famine. How do you characterize the evil of communism and look away from this at the same time? Next you'll be telling me that it's necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

This is what I mean by using "ideological rhetoric" as an argument while disregarding unpleasant facts - nothing I have said indicates an affinity with communism.

Quote:

Just to inflame you a bit more, I might add that McCarthyism always seemed perfectly reasonable to me because all those misguided intellectuals spinning their ideas through the media really could have been a threat. I realise it got out of control and started picking on homosexuals and other groups, but clamping down on communist sympathisers was necessary unless you wanted riots on the streets like in Paris.

You'll have to do better than that to rattle my cage. Very Happy

America was much too fat and complacent in the post war 50s for all that. McCarthyism was mostly political opportunism (careers were being made in Washington) fueled by chagrin that the Soviets' spy network was so much better than ours.

Quote:

And - this will really get you - I also defend colonialism. There were good colonialists and bad ones, admittedly, but if economic development was the goal, it was the best thing that could happen to those places - they still reap the benefit today of the infrastructure that was built (railways etc pretty much everywhere), agriculture that was set up (eg, in Rhodesia, which has gone to the dogs since the colonists were kicked out), political institutions (eg. India - the world's largest democracy). And of course, if they had had the economic advantage, do you think the people of those countries wouldn't happily have colonised you and me? Of course they would. I think it would be a good idea to reintroduce colonialism by which rich countries 'sponsor' third world countries - help develop them for a share of the spoils (if I still believed in economic development, that is).

You got your wish. It's called neocolonialism. You didn't think it had actually gone away did you?

Old Pro Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 289

All points noted, e, interesting discussion and I'm happy to leave it there. I'm glad you take my rants in good spirit.