Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lamont Cranston
Because it'd be so much better if the USA had won the counter-insurgency war and imposed its usual style of American-friendly dictatorship (just like the good ol' days in South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, etc; and the entire regions of South America, Africa and the Middle East!)
|
Uh, no. My point about Kissinger, and his name making the whole Nobel "Peace" Prize illegitamate, was the same exact one you were making, so we don't even have an argument here. How you could infer from my comments that I was saying the U.S. winning in Viet Nam would have been good, I don't know. It was a completely unjust collonial war from the get go (when we took it over from France, though it was for them too.)
My point was merely that Kissinger basically lost to the North Vietnamese in that they succeeded in driving the U.S. out without their government being overthrown, and oddly that was translated into a Nobel Peace Prize for the butcher we both revile. Truly ridiculous.
I don't think the North Vietnamese leader being honored made any sense either, because as you point out, winning a war is not making peace anymore than losing one. Certainly defending your homeland is more justifiable than invading somebody else's, and it may be an act of Justice, but not Peace.