OCR Text |
Show Debater Debunks War Detractors Editor: j For some time now I've watched the controversy on the issue of it j4 Viet Nam grow and proliferate. I've listened to and read the opinions 7 ' of doves, hawks, moderates and all the gray areas in between. Much to my chagrin, I've found that those with opinions on this campus have boiled down to two major groups: those who want to withdraw with-draw from Viet Nam and those who think it was a big mistake to become involved, but now that we are let's finish the war and be done with it. As a member of the intercollegiate debating team at the University I debated with colleges from all over the nation last year upon whether or not the U.S. should withdraw from Viet Nam. I researched the subject sub-ject thoroughly and came up with one major conclusion: The United States was right in becoming involved in Viet Nam and should not disengage dis-engage itself from the conflict until a solution can be reached which would guarantee the freedom of those in South Viet Nam who wish it. What ever happened to the ideals of freedom and democracy upon which this nation was founded? It seems the argument is Viet Nam is so far from home, how could our freedom be threatened? Someone once said, "No man is an island, and every man's death diminishes me for I am a part of mankind." We could substitute the words loss of freedom in place of death. Why can't people understand that we have fought to maintain the freedom of others for centuries, because we knew that when large amounts of the population of the world lose their freedom ours is indeed threatened? Thousands of Americans died in World War I, although the U.S. was never attacked. Thousands more died in W.W. II fighting in Europe, even though Nazi Germany never invaded the U.S. The situation we had in Korea and the present situation in Viet Nam may be easily compared to the two world wars. Many argue that Communism Com-munism is not monolithic, that the U.S. has nothing to fear if South Viet Nam falls to Ho Chi Minh. They seem to forget that Ho was trained and schooled in Moscow, that he has never abandoned his goal to unite all Indochina under his rule; which would mean that once South Viet Nam goes, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia are next. These people overlook over-look General Giap's statement that "If the type of warfare the U.S. is using in South Viet Nam is overcome, it can be overcome anywhere else in the world." Another significant point to consider is that with the captured armies Ho would gain from South Viet Nam and the rest of Indochina he would have one of the largest military forces in Asia, second only to Red China. We must not forget that a Communist is a Communist, whether he's Russian, Hungarian, Chinese or Vietnamese. The over-used argument that the goal of Communism is to establish a worker's state in every nation of the world (led by a dictatorship of the proloteriat) cannot be overlooked. over-looked. The United States now faces two powerful Communist armies in the world. A withdrawal from Viet Nam would allow a third to form. Why should we let this happen? Sure, everything hasn't been on the up-and-up with the South Vietnamese Viet-namese government, and perhaps Eisenhower was right that Ho Chi Minh would have won in elections in 1954. But how many Vietnamese peasants knew that Ho had sold out their revolution to the Communists? Recently 80 per cent of the registered voters went to the polls at the risk of their lives. Sure, no Communist ran, but if the people wanted the Communists, why should they turn out to vote in the first place? I see then, two reasons for seeing the conflict through to a peaceful solution which would guarantee the freedom of the Vietnamese people: (1) those people want to be free; (2) it is in the best interest of the United - States to halt Communist expansion and power build-ups. . . "Every man's loss of freedom diminishes me, for I am a part of mankind." man-kind." Larry R. Keller |