Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!fortune!rcb From: rcb@fortune.UUCP (Robert Binstock) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.misc Subject: Re: Domino theory Message-ID: <3664@fortune.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Jun-84 11:54:28 EDT Article-I.D.: fortune.3664 Posted: Fri Jun 22 11:54:28 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Jun-84 03:45:54 EDT References: <279@cepu.UUCP> <1179@rti.UUCP>, <560@opus.UUCP> Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 30 ----- Just a thought: There is always the possibility that the domino theory is essentially correct, but that our actions in Southeast Asia were not the most constructive response to the fact that there were teetering dominoes there. Maybe if we'd done things differently, they would still be standing, and there wouldn't be any communist governments in the area today. Proponents of the military approach to Viet Nam tend to cite the domino theory in support of their position, but even if valid, it doesn't prove a thing. It may be that the dominoes fell because we "lost" or "didn't win" or "didn't try to win" on the battlefields of Viet Name, or there may be entirely different reasons that no one has yet recognized. There may have been other things we should have done or tried to do that we never even thought of, or that we thought of but never tried. Many people believe that the best way to counteract the spread of communism is to try to make friends with revolutionary governments BEFORE they are totally committed to a Soviet-supported, 2nd-world communist path. Cuba is a good example. [P.S. I myself don't pretend to know enough to support one side or the other of this idea. I bring it up because it seems to have some logic to it and to shed some light on the ongoing discussion.] Bob Binstock