Today I unwittingly stumbled upon a reason to loathe McCain

ricetalks · Oct 26, 2008

dgiharris said:
Did the Vietnamese hold French Troops after their conflict?

Did the Vietnamese sell back these hostages to France?

I believe the answer is yes.

If so, can you think of a reason to hold 400 people hostage, 400 people who belong to the wealthiest nation on the planet?

This would be a logical reason.

Another one (not to dive into conspiracy theories).

If I were Russia, i'd urge Vietnam to hold some hostages--- keep America occupied, bloody their noses more, make them lose face, weaken their world presence, or hell, just out of spite.

In conclusion, there are logical reasons to do so.

Mel...

What's illogical is that Hanoi would keep it a secret. Why? It''s like kidnapping someone and refusing to send the ransom letter.

ricetalks · Oct 26, 2008

dgiharris said:
If this is true, then my feelings and opinion for the American media has sunk to a new all time low. I guess this is the spirit behind all those "Go back to Vietnam" movies of the 80s like Rambo II, Delta Force, Iron Eagle, etc. etc.

This is also a very complex issue and I don't think it is fair to throw it all on McCain's shoulders. Admittedly, that was my first visceral response (my second being to cry). But then, when i thought about the politics of this, that is where the complexity became apparent to me.

So, transport yourself back to 1973. Intelligence just confirms that you have 400 prisoners still left in Communist Vietnam--Soviet and Chinese supported Vietnam. Now, add on top of that that the American Public's anti-military anti-governmentness is at an all time high. What are the ramifications of acknowledging these prisoners?

Option #1, You acknowledge them, then you have to go back and get them which means War and tens of thousands of more lives lost.

Option #2, You acknowledge them, then proceed to pay through the nose for them which means a precident for future conflicts and encouragement of future prisoners in future conflicts (ask Israel how well this works out for them) this action (including future lives) means thousands of lives lost

Option #3, You ignore them and let them die. 400 lives lost, international face saved, no precident to be used against you in the future is set. War is averted, tens of thousands of lives saved.

I say this all the time, affairs between states is a Machiavelli affair.
Trying to apply personal morality and logic to these types of conflict is sometimes a recipe for disaster.

Now, we live in interesting times because Machiavelli 'logic' relys on the populace never finding out, so it will be interesting to see the affairs of states in this new globalized media accessible environment. But going back to this situation in 1973 US...

This is an absolute giant bowl of shit. Considering the facts and situation and the time period, there is no good way out of it, only varying degrees of bad.

And yes, I realize we've had global media since 1940s, but not really on the scale of what we have now. Similarly, there is inertia of politics and old school thinking that takes many generations to adapt to changing times (for example, many militaries rode calvary lines (horses) into battle during WWI despite the well established technology known as the machine gun)

This was a very hard story to read. As ex military, I am repulsed and a part of me wants to cry out for blood and vengeance for both our leadership and Vietnam, but the analytical part of me sees this for the no-win-bowl-of-shit situation that it is. I'll have to think more on this, but I think burying it was the right decision viewed in the context of Machiavelli Politics and Utalitarian morality (the total good or the many vs the few)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolò_Machiavelli#Il_Principe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Mel...
aka
the shit stirer

Again, even if the U.S. decided for soem reason to keep this a secret and not get political mileage against a communist former enemy for ignoring the geneva convention, what is the motivation for Hanoi to keep the P.O.W.'s a secret?

They want the money. The best way to force the money is to get the message out to the American public. Why would Hanoi be silent about it? To be silent is against their basic interests. All of these excuses tell me some weird but maybe possibel reasons why the U.S. might deny such a thing but not why Hanoi would. It makes as much sense as the idea that George Bush and the C.I.A. decided to knock down the World Trade Centers. Sorry. Don't buy it. It doesn't make sense. Everything I've read about this and McCain seems to indicate to me that McCain is offended by people who keep circulating these conspiracy theories about the P.O.W.'s and refuses to give them a platform to keep torturing the families of these P.O.W.'S by giving them some false hope that their family members are somehow still alive and their government has abandoned them and is now deceiving them.

I don't believe it. It has all of the earmarkings of some paranoid delusional nutjobs.

Joe270 · Oct 26, 2008

I don't believe it. It has all of the earmarkings of some paranoid delusional nutjobs.

Rice, I haven't seen your other posts before we got sorta cross-ways, but I gotta admit you put in one hell of an argument here.

Why haven't the governments who hold pows used them for the political clout that is attributed as the reasoning behind holding them, as the conspiracy theorists say?

It sure should have happened by now, for cryin' out loud.

One conspiracy theory shot down, effectively. Congrats, Rice.

Today I unwittingly stumbled upon a reason to loathe McCain

ricetalks

ricetalks

Joe270