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