Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 26 2004, 04:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 26 2004, 04:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Sep 26 2004, 11:44 PM
I sound like a disarmament protestor - except that I didn't say anything about disarmament? I don't follow. 
|
You had said democracies had nothing to worry about from the spread of communism. You labelled said principal democracy an aggressor.
In other words, similar to the rose coloured glasses of a disarmament movement that was more dangerous than it knew. (wait'll Vulcan gets a hold of that one!!)
Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Mutual disarmament, I think, went a long way in diffusing the global tensions of the time. Both the West and the USSR were on an uncontrollabel "arms race" and playing a game called "brinkmanship". I like to think that the disarmament movement forced the West into dialogue with the USSR and led to the disarmament agreements. Of course Bush has cancelled those agreements now that the USSR no longer exists and Russia doesn't scare him. I never advocated unilateral disarmament. Yes, I think we were dangerous to the military industrial complex. Viet Nam was a war of independence first against France and when France lost, the USA moved in and tried to set up a puppet govt. The West's spin that this could creat a domino effect and lead to a Communist takeover of SE Asia probably led to Australian participation in Viet Nam. I thought of this war as just another Colonial land grab with the USSR just as bad. The VietNamese had no choice but to get aid from the USSR. The Americans did the same in their revolution by getting aid from France. Their logic is " The enemy of my enemy is my friend".