If I implied an equivalency between the two sides, that was a mistake. I agree wholeheartedly that communism leads unerringly to suffering. I read somewhere that in attempts to gauge "happiness" among world populations base economic success was surprisingly irrelevant, but that those under communist regimes were always less happy than those under any other system of government.
Basically, my previous post can be boiled down into two questions:
A) what is the vital US interest in Nepal (and this is a question that I am completely ignorant on, I admit), and
B) how can we help eradicate marxist rebellion while at the same time encouraging democratic reform? I understand that the hardening of the dictatorship in Nepal was a response to the rebels, but I also believe that frustration with non-democratic government only helps drive rebellions.
And thank you for the vocab lesson.
There may be other things that can be done in addition to supplying weaponry. But I don't think supplying arms requires a "vital" interest. U.S. troops would. My assumption is that a communist government in Nepal would provide another safe haven for terrorists, although admittedly a small one. It could also disrupt in some way our attempts to make an alliance with India. Communists always hate the U.S. and always try to make trouble for it. But even the humanitarian concern of preventing the people of Nepal from coming under a communist government
is enough, in my view, to justify strong U.S. support for the suppression of the guerrillas.