GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

pimplink · 09-09-2004, 05:08 PM

IMX,

Intelligent, well-reasoned, and cogent post as usual. Good point re the proxy fight re Cold War. Which hints at the US inability to see the difference between ethno-nationalist struggles of liberation from communist upheavals.

Quote:

Originally posted by <IMX>
Short answer ...yes. If winning is getting the other side to beg you to stop. But, I think a more pragmatic view would be in order...

Long answer is all the cold war conflicts were fought as proxies for outrigth conflict from U.S. / U.S.S.R or China.

Problem was Cambodian supply lines and assistance to the North from China. Much like it was an open secret that Soviet MIg pilots were in N. Korea. (China was supporting N. Korea as well in case folks here have forgotten and they felt it was a victory against the west).

There was no authorization from congress to go after Cambodia, and China of course would have been a whole other can of worms.

BTW we couldn't simply go nuclear, as we did want to improve relations with China. Use nukes would have had very practical implications. I think China just developed nukes in 69.

China is unpredictable and crazy btw (um...i.e. great leap forward from Mao).
They've been abused by both the British and Japanese and have a massive inferiority complex; yet, they are GINORMOUS even at that point.

Nixon wanted to save face, but opennning relations with China meant helping to "win the cold war" against the Soviet's communist ideology , so why worry about a minor "battle" against Vietnam? Especially since it was outside our "sphere..." If we won in a conventional sense, we might have set our relationship with China back...

Of course Americans vastly underrate Nixon's performance as pres...and tend to forget that Eisenhower got us involved originally with assistence to the French, and the "communist containment" philosophy was conceived long before Nixon.

Like all lost wars, blame the french (j/k)

I think it has a lot to do with perception...Nixon can't fight the historical perspective on his presidency (though he did do a lot of questionable abuse of executive power shit). Nixon wasn't telegenic, so he always looked like a prick on tv.

While folks like Reagan get away scott free for many of the same things (Iran-contra!) while not really accomplishing much with the increased executive power, simply b/c he looked trust-worthy on tv.

[btw.. let me through in that Oliver North is a pompous criminal prick who has no business as a commentator on tv.]

Yes, I do think it is that simple. Perception is everything (truth is relative?)...

i.e. George being an "hero" for giving a speech on ground zero rubble.