3 ms·
So when Vietnam invade Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge, we should have defended the Khmer Rouge’s “territorial integrity”? Or was that “different”? Som
by refurb 4y ago
So when Vietnam invade Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge, we should have defended the Khmer Rouge’s “territorial integrity”?
Or was that “different”? Somehow when people are clamoring for war, it's always "different" this time. That's how we ended up in Vietnam.
"It's clear that China and the USSR are looking to take over SE Asia. Today it's Laos and Vietnam, tomorrow Malaysia, then Australia. We have to back South Vietnam as the security of the free world is at stake!"
Of course you know how silly that sounds because you have 20/20 hindsight. But that's how it was explained the public at the time.
Sound familiar at all?
Your rule that territorial integrity must be defended no matter what doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It's not a "red line" that we have to start a war over.
- lovich 4y ago> So when Vietnam invade Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge, we should have defended the Khmer Rouge’s “territorial integrity”? There are plenty of arguments to defend Vietnam in that instance. There are zero to argue that it wasn’t an invasion. > Sound familiar at all? Nah it doesn’t because that was America getting involved in a revolutionary/civil war for our own interests entirely. We were the invaders then, like Russia is now. And guess what, the US wasn’t the good guy in Vietnam just like Russia isn’t in Ukraine. Sending war material to a people defending their homeland against invasion is a war I am completely comfortable getting behind ethically. Come back to me if we start putting boots on the ground in the region or Ukraine start taking Russian regions and it’ll be a lot more gray for me