Posted on 07/20/2007 11:59:17 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
It's funny how two people can read the same thing and come away with two strikingly different conclusions of it.
Like veteran columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, I, too, read the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine with its 40-year-old memo about Vietnam, which the editors suggest contains lessons about our current quagmire in Iraq.
But, unlike Geyer, I have not allowed revisionist historians to impose their version of Vietnam on me.
In her most recent nationally syndicated column, she writes this about Vietnam: "After the Americans withdrew, in momentary humiliation, from the coasts of Vietnam by ship and helicopter, there were few regional consequences of the foolhardy war. No other country in Asia became communist, as Washington's 'domino theory' had long predicted; in fact, the communist giant, China, followed the Singapore economic model of controlled economic freedom instead of Marxism's state control."
Trouble is, everything Geyer writes about the aftermath of Vietnam is a lie. Like me, Geyer lived through this history. She is a respected commentator. How could she so mangle such a well-documented period of recent history?
Few regional consequences? Does this jog your memory? The long-predicted bloodbath in South Vietnam became reality when North Vietnam invaded. Some 600,000 Vietnamese drowned in the South China Sea attempting to escape. Tens of thousands more were imprisoned in "re-education" camps, and millions more were forced to live under unimaginable forms of tyranny for the rest of their lives.
No other country in Asia became communist? An amazing oversight since neighboring Cambodia not only went communist under the Khymer Rouge, but suffered one of the worst genocides in history as a result. Remember the Killing Fields, Georgie Anne? Some 2 million were murdered as a direct result of Pol Pot's policies. His inspirations? Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung.
Did she actually mention China and "controlled economic freedom" in the same breath? In China today there are no individual property rights. There are no "rights" at all – only privileges bestowed upon people through favoritism by government. While China's economy is thriving, it is thriving in the same way the economy did in Adolf Hitler's Germany – through "controlled socialism," or fascism – not "controlled freedom," a gross misnomer if I have ever head one. Geyer's gross distortion of reality in Vietnam would be bad enough if she were only covering up the 35-year-old genocide of Communists in Southeast Asia. That would be horrific. But her Walter Duranty-style apologia for Pol Pot and his gang has consequences today.
At least Geyer admits that pulling out of Iraq will have grave consequences. But why create a history lesson out of whole cloth unless we are to draw some lessons from it?
Geyer is 62 years old. She was 27 in 1972. She has no excuses for not understanding what happened in the wake of America's tragic withdrawal from Vietnam except an incredibly faulty memory.
There are many younger people living in America today who have no recollection of Vietnam. They could easily be fooled by Geyer's total misrepresentation of reality.
In fact, all of those fighting for us in Iraq today are too young to remember what happened when the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress ordered all U.S. troops home, and then in a fit of pique ordered the end of all military aid to our long-time allies in South Vietnam – setting off the bloodbath.
I would expect Ted Kennedy to try to forget that so he could sleep at night.
I would expect John Kerry to try to forget that so he could revel in his phony "heroics" that helped lead America to that fateful decision.
I would expect Jane Fonda to try to forget that so she could rationalize her treasonous behavior during the war.
But why would an American journalist specializing in foreign affairs overlook history so callously and blatantly? Maybe it has something to do with that Fulbright scholarship to attend the University of Vienna.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Ping!
What these fools don’t perceive is that Americans are “paid” to take care of trouble in the world.
By that I mean the standard of living we enjoyed from WWII until the early ‘70’s had a lot to do with 5-6% interest rates. Those come from other governments, businesses , and individuals investing in America. They do so when they perceive stability, reliability and effective use of power and leadership to contain and resolve the “hot spots” of the world. When we walked out of Vietnam in 1975 -3 years later we could’nt buy gasoline and in five years we had 20% interest rates. It took all of RR’s presidency, with its resolution of the Cold War, ultimately, to get the world re-invested in the USA and get our interest rates down. They plummeted after 911 when GWB showed the world we were serious about dealing with the Islamic threat.
These fools walk on Iraq—we’ll be looking at 25% interest rates in 3 years...and 10.00 gallon gas-which is what Europe already pays. But then again, I’ve always held out that the Democrats can only find opportunity in their fellow American’s misery.
Often overlooked are the two years that passed between America fighting to a stalemate in Vietnam and the South Vietnamese losing the war. Very little can be accomplished when a person has no interest in becoming informed. Georgie Anne Geyer has shown no interest beyond her existing dogma.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.