this is a problem

[beermotor]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/sunday_show_wrapup_9.asp


The part about Vietnam needs countering in the blogosphere. Off the top of my head, the reasons why I feel this is wrong is because we have to understand that our presence in the country, fighting the war, clearly exacerbated the problem.

My gut tells me that Paul's position is right, and I like the way he uses Vietnam as an example, but this chorus is going to start getting louder the more successful the campaign is. Need to nip it in the bud now, just like we did the racist stuff (notice that has fallen off the face of the earth ... good job team!).

[Ava]

It is well understood that the Khmer Rouge were a result of our intervention in Vietnam. Ron Paul is correct. We should probably provide the writer of the article with a list of reading material. The Khmer Rouge were in fact removed by the Vietnamese.

Wikipedia on the Khmer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)

[angrydragon]

It is well understood that the Khmer Rouge were a result of our intervention in Vietnam. Ron Paul is correct. We should probably provide the writer of the article with a list of reading material. The Khmer Rouge were in fact removed by the Vietnamese.

Wikipedia on the Khmer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)

Bombs Over Cambodia: New Light on US Air War

http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2420

A lot of other articles too about Asia.

[Highmesa]

I think the point about tens of thousands of boat people and the 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge is somewhat minor compared to the overall cost of the war (it's still atrocious though).

5-6 MILLION Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian lives were lost in addition to the 60k American soldiers killed at a cost of hundreds of billions to the American taxpayers.

And for all our efforts over a decade on that peninsula, the killing fields and the boat people still happened. You could also make the argument that the severity of those atrocities would have been less had our involvement never occurred.

Would Pol Pot has been as brutal to the monks, the former gov't and the westernized intellecuals had we not been bombing the country so severly? It's hard to say, but our bombing raids on Cambodia killed as many as 800k civilians.

[beermotor]

These are all great points, they just weren't on the tips of my fingers. Thanks guys... I knew we had the answers! Now we just need somebody to blog about it...

[TexMac]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/sunday_show_wrapup_9.asp


The part about Vietnam needs countering in the blogosphere. Off the top of my head, the reasons why I feel this is wrong is because we have to understand that our presence in the country, fighting the war, clearly exacerbated the problem.

My gut tells me that Paul's position is right, and I like the way he uses Vietnam as an example, but this chorus is going to start getting louder the more successful the campaign is. Need to nip it in the bud now, just like we did the racist stuff (notice that has fallen off the face of the earth ... good job team!).
Why not use RP's own words?


We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in a civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam we now have a better relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel, and communicate with a unified, western-leaning country that is catching on rather quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others.

This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention cannot – and they certainly are less costly.

In both instances – Korea and Vietnam – neither country attacked us, and neither country posed a threat to our security. In neither case did we declare war. All of the fighting and killing was based on lies, miscalculations, and the failure to abide by constitutional restraint with regards to war.

When goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not, the results are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the use of force. First, the funds needed to pursue a particular policy require that taxes be forcibly imposed on the American people, either directly or indirectly through inflation. Picking sides in foreign countries only increases the chances of antagonism toward us. Too often foreign economic and military support means impoverishing the poor in America and enhancing the rich ruling classes in poor countries. When sanctions are used against one undesirable regime, it squelches resistance to the very regimes we’re trying to undermine. Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power, and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam, China, and even in the Eastern Block nations of the old Soviet empire.

LINK (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul342.html)

[austin356]

The WS picks this to attack Paul about?

HA; I could have found something better.


Nobody who is educated enough to be reading that magazine is going to buy that garbage, except the people who are already gone (their main audience) the radical neocons.

[buffalokid777]

The WS picks this to attack Paul about?

HA; I could have found something better.


Nobody who is educated enough to be reading that magazine is going to buy that garbage, except the people who are already gone (their main audience) the radical neocons.

Yeah, Weekly Standard is just one Neocon love fest. Bill Kristol's father Irving Kristol is considered the Father of Neoconservatism.

[Jive Dadson]

I could not find a way to comment or even email the author. Has anyone?

[Jive Dadson]

Sent to editor@weeklystandard.com:

Dear Editor:

On the Weekly Standard web site, there is an article titled, Sunday Show Wrap-Up. I will overlook the fact that Dr. Paul is called a "fringe candidate." He is a ten term Republican congressman. He has unprecedented support on the internet, which is translating into a huge grass roots movement in the real world. He has more money in the bank than McCain. Soon no one who is observant and honest will call him a "fringe candidate."

I would very much like to see you clarify something. A quote, taken out of context, gives the appearance that Dr. Paul believes US involvement in Viet Nam was justified and beneficial. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Ron Paul believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy. His point is this: The US had to leave Viet Nam. Now Viet Nam is our trading partner with a government that is not too onerous, comparatively speaking. The US stayed in Korea for 60 years. North Korea now has nuclear weapons and is run by a mad man. Why can we not learn from experience?

Please set the record straight.

Best regards,
"Jive Dadson"

[Jive Dadson]

I forwarded Ron Paul's statement to editor@weeklystandard.com. Might help. Probably not.


Why not use RP's own words?


We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in a civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam we now have a better relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel, and communicate with a unified, western-leaning country that is catching on rather quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others.

This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention cannot – and they certainly are less costly.

In both instances – Korea and Vietnam – neither country attacked us, and neither country posed a threat to our security. In neither case did we declare war. All of the fighting and killing was based on lies, miscalculations, and the failure to abide by constitutional restraint with regards to war.

When goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not, the results are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the use of force. First, the funds needed to pursue a particular policy require that taxes be forcibly imposed on the American people, either directly or indirectly through inflation. Picking sides in foreign countries only increases the chances of antagonism toward us. Too often foreign economic and military support means impoverishing the poor in America and enhancing the rich ruling classes in poor countries. When sanctions are used against one undesirable regime, it squelches resistance to the very regimes we’re trying to undermine. Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power, and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam, China, and even in the Eastern Block nations of the old Soviet empire.

LINK (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul342.html)