Dear Fester,

You wrote: US involvement in Vietnam had more to do with a fear of the USSR and communist China funding insurgency and establishing a proxy regime, much like the insurgency and false provocations Russia has been using in Ukraine to justify invasion.

I disagree. The Vietnamese wished to be free of colonial domination by the French. After WW2 the French, Dutch and English wished to reestablish their colonial empires in southeast Asia. The people in those places wished to be free of foreign domination whether it was by Japanese or the European powers. The English got out of India, but the Dutch and French tried to hold on with the aid of Australia and the US.

Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam originally appealed to the US for help. As the US freed itself from English domination he hoped that the US would help the Vietnamese be free from French domination.

https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=228 contains a record of Ho Chi Minh’s appeal to Truman which Truman ignored. Ho Chi Minh wanted the aid of the US in becoming independent. In Vietnam it was the US and the French who established puppet governments under Ngo Dinh Diem and Bao Dai in south Vietnam. The US and Australia had no more business in Vietnam than Putin has in Ukraine. Putin is trying to bring back the old Russian Empire, and the US supported European domination in Vietnam. In fact Vietnam fought a war with China after the US left. Vietnam was never a puppet of China. They only wanted to be independent, and they now are independent.

Hi David,

Post WWII I think it a little fanciful to imagine that the US would back a dpr over French rule. The claim is that all the people from Luhansk, Kerson, Donetsk and Crimea want is independence from Ukraine and alliance with Russia. Is that what they want or is it what Vlad wants? The Vietnam war is history now and the only good I see from the conflict is the migration of Vietnamese people to other parts of the world. I hope that the war in Ukraine can at least achieve a reduction in Russia's ability to commit acts of terrorism.

Dear Fester,

What is a dpr? Perhaps it was fanciful for Ho Chi Minh to think that the US would back him against the French. Unfortunately former colonies become colonial powers. Indonesia which was a Dutch colony is now a colonial power in West Irian. Nevertheless, the US and Australia had no more business in Vietnam than Putin has in Ukraine.

The US has been a colonial power in the Philippines and waged a war of aggression against Mexico. Grant in his memoirs stated:

The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.

Hi David,

dpr = democratic people's republic

One of the achievements of western civilisation I appreciate is places like this where we are free to argue and express opinions. I think it good to reflect on ideas and realise that people can see the world quite differently.

On a national basis I think openness and reflection a strong driver of change (hopefully for the good). An example is the My Lai massacre making the US military more open and accountable.

I authoritarian Russia you can freely express the opinion of the state, but you do not have the same freedom to challenge it. Nor is the military open and accountable, so unlike My Lai, massacres in the Russian military are commonplace and often ordered from the top.

My hope is that the internet allows Russians access to information and will allow them to reflect on what the Russian military is doing in Ukraine, like this fellow has:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63346300

Dear Fester,

I appreciate the freedom we have in democratic countries to criticise the government and others that we find at fault. That freedom comes with an obligation, and the obligation is to use that freedom.

Wm Calley who ordered the massacre served three years of house arrest. His punishment was a slap on the wrist. From an article about Calley:

"In March of 1968 Calley and his men arrived at the village of Mỹ Lai where they murdered hundreds of elderly men, women, children, and infants from allied South Vietnam. In addition, he and his men gang-raped many of the women, some as young as 12 years old, before mutilating them, even stopping to have lunch before resuming their slaughter. Calley would later state in court about the deaths, claiming an air strike killed the innocent civilians. There was no sign of enemy combatants in Mỹ Lai when he and his men arrived."

In some other countries nothing would happened to him at all. However you wrote: "An example is the My Lai massacre making the US military more open and accountable."

Can you cite any evidence that the massacre made "the US military more open and accountable"?

Hi David,

From what I read it has, e.g.:

https://www.dw.com/en/lessons-for-the-us-from-my-lai-50-years-after-the-massacre/a-42969338

My impression is that the US military is more open to public scrutiny and consequently commits fewer war crimes than say the Russian military. Do you think that public scrutiny makes any difference? For example, do you think that the Chinese military would behave differently were the Tiananmen Square massacre not wiped from Chinese history? I am under the impression that democracy is facilitated if people know what is happening.