A liberal apologia for GI Joe, Part One (v. 2.0)

[geoffsebesta]

This is a repost from the original s_d. It was written when Bush was president, and things have changed. Moreover, it had remarkably interesting comment threads, so I've changed my mind a lot based on new evidence and analysis. So it's edited, and we can go from here. Call this version 2.0.

I read all the old GI Joe comics. All of them. Thank you internet! One hundred and fifty-five issues, plus 26 of Special Missions, 13 of European Missions, 4 of GI Joe and Transformers, and a bunch of other stuff here and there. They were great.

I consider myself a liberal activist. You can dispute my effectiveness, whatever, the point is that's the way I see the world. I try to work on liberal causes and help make them happen, I go to protests and stuff, I work tables and sit in trees and so on and so forth.

I love GI Joe comics. I always have, ever since I was a kid and they were new and I owned half the toys.

I oppose military adventurism in all the forms that I can. I think America should get out of Iraq tomorrow. I protested the bombing of Iraq when Clinton did it! I think Bush should be tried for war crimes.

But I do love G I Joe comics.

Because they're that damn good.

In this post I discuss issue #1. Note to new readers: GI Joe comics have NOTHING to do with the cartoon. There are characters in common but the structure, goal, and tone are entirely different.





As Mr. Andersen said last time, "looks like the guy is telling Scarlet to GTFO of the little Iwo Jima re-enactment." Not exactly fair to the series as a whole (we'll discuss sexism in G I Joe soon enough, especially as it compares very favorably to the prevalent cliches of 80s comics) but certainly a cogent point.



See, G I Joe isn't afraid to ask the tough questions.

As you know our posting guidelines have gotten even tighter and I'm afraid I'm going to have to remove even more awesome from this than before, and it is at this point that the story begins to suffer. This sucks and I'm sorry. ree pages of the first comic. From this point in I'm just going maximize awesome at the expense of comprehension. That said, lucky for you the story is most of the awesome so you'll be able to pick up most of the plot.

I'll follow a simple rule: if it ain't by Larry Hama it ain't crap. He made the series good. He turned what should be total toxic sludge -- a story about a bunch of toys that promote the American military-industrial complex -- and made it great. And it is great. Sometimes jaw-droppingly so.





We've got a five-page streak on already. They kidnapped her with balloons! And then picked up the balloon with a helicopter which is impossible, but still. Larry Hama obviously agrees with John Ostrander and the Suicide Squad, in that you should introduce the villains first. So here you have them, front and center, the two types of people who give the Joe team the most trouble:

dastardly techno-terrorists
and angry civilians who just don't get it, man.

Now, Hama is astoundingly even-handed through the whole series. I read a really great interview with Jim Owsley that talked about him and made him sound like the greatest, least prejudiced guy ever. That comes through in GI Joe. Every race, color, and creed is well-represented. You even grow to like most of the bad guys. Maybe not Doctor Mindbender. But then, Doctor Mindbender is but a simple orthodontist who accidentally drove himself evil with a mind-control ray, so you have to give the poor guy a break.



You will never see that combat training center again. Guess they didn't feel like making a GI Joe Sensory Deprivation Tank.



The beginning of a long tradition: Cobra lurks in a castle or on an island, again, for the first time. There will also be many cabins in many woods.



Moral complexity! Ah, the first intimations of the Dostoyevskian plunge into the depths of responsibility, of a soldier's burden and a soldier's duty, and also civilians are stupid. So dumb. They should just shut up and let GI Joe protect them.

Meanwhile in Cobra Castle the First:



I didn't read all those words when I was a kid and I'm not reading them now. But isn't it cool! Herb Trimpe could have been excused for phoning it in, because this is a comic book about toys for little boys. But he didn't. This is pure Tothian storytelling win, and it's a shame that people like this don't get work these days. His style's pretty damn rough, lets be honest, and the Baroness looks like she has a weird growth. But it's great! There are mysterious soldiers and a big awesome logo and this freaking dynamic shouty guy in a mask and computers and castles....it's good stuff.

These are the bad guys, and they got their act together. They are serious people, seriously dressed. It is never Casual Friday in Cobra Castle the First.



Hey, Cobra. You want to know the difference between the comic and the cartoon? Panel four.

Lots and lots of people die in this comic. More than an episode of the Sopranos plus one of Six Feet Under, and from a similar variety of reasons. Gunshots "through the center of his mass," heads disappearing "in a fine red mist," and car accidents are the main causes of death. I can't count how many times somebody fires a gun and "breaks his mother's heart."



I'm a little troubled by what Scarlett thinks Snake Eyes is thinking. I don't know how often hostage rescuers think about just shooting the hostage and knocking off early for the night, you know, catch a beer and watch the game. Heck, I usually want to get off work easy, so I know how they feel. I guess job dissatisfaction is natural to any career. And that woman is a traitor. Opposing doomsday weapons and all.



Cobra is one step ahead. Cobra is always one step ahead. Cobra usually wins. Wait until you find out where their funding comes from.





I have a theory that this comic is actually about 'Nam. What do you think? PS Stalker rocks, consistently.



Yes, let us all don our special combat helmets. It's the thing to do. Mine's a Kangol.

Story ends. I don't have enough pages to show you. Cobra Commander escapes, by the way.



Backup story (this was a very long issue)

Don Perlin is not as good as Herb Trimpe. Note the way that Snake-Eyes is completely invisible on the page. Bad placement, bad lighting. You can say it's the colorist's fault, but they knew the colorist was going to do that and should have planned better. Whatever. Larry Hama is a great damn writer and introduces one heck of a story on this page. I love the radio dialogue.



And this is technically a kid's comic. I wouldn't say that GI Joe shows all the consequences of violence, but it certainly shows that there are some. Anyway, if they tried to put in all the screams of the dying the letterer would quit.

Now, I'm writing this here partly to give myself an opportunity to revisit a minor classic, and to examine it in depth. This has confirmed something fairly obvious -- Snake-Eyes is the main character of the story, and he represents the trauma of combat and the Vietnam experience. He is extremely, extremely unhealthy. It's sort of amazing that he never snaps and kills somebody.

Oh, wait. He does. Constantly.

Is this what war is about? I've never been in a war so I don't know, but Larry Hama has and that seems like what he's telling me. I know that it's necessary to fight Cobra but was the Vietnam war worth this?

Sigma 7 said this last time: "I don't think I could do justice to a comparison of classic Joe and 21st century asymmetrical combat engagements -- I'd need to be more comfortable with my awareness of both before I'd even pick up those particular threads. I find food for thought, but no answers -- actually, no questions, yet, even. Just...thought."

I agree with that entirely. I do not feel comfortable making these sorts of observations and value judgements. I'm not a veteran, I've never been in a war, I don't know much about it. What gives me the right to have an opinion? Why do I feel like I need to have an opinion?

Because we live in a world where we must. Like it or not, all of us have some (highly variable) responsibility to know about the world around us and act appropriately, and in modern times that means developing the skills to judge situations that you have never encountered, and maybe (hopefully) never will. I seriously hope that I never fight in a war. But I feel that war is something that I should know something about. Larry Hama does us all the great gift of attempting to educate us, and I approach this series with profound gratitude.

But his point of view is that civilians should shut up and be protected, and I could not agree less, and I think that his very attempt to educate us undermines this premise. If it wasn't important for children to understand war, why bother writing this at all?

Now, this work could not be more influential.

In all seriousness, has anyone else noticed how they talk about Al Qaeda exactly like Cobra? Down to the mysterious leader in his mountain lair. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now how George Bush's life was shaped by the movies he watched and the books he read. I'm not saying he read G. I. Joe, though I wouldn't be surprised. I'm just pointing out a cultural meme. Don't fall into this habit. Do you honestly believe Al Qaeda's motivations are as simplistic as Cobra's? They aren't.

Do you understand that to a lot of people in the world, Al Qaeda is their G. I. Joe? Why do you think that may be?

Silly as it may be (and we are all shaped by the media around us), one of the most shocking moments in my life was when I realised that, to a lot of people, they are the Rebellion and we are the Evil Galactic Empire.

I know a lot of you hate that analogy with all your heart, but think about it now -- there are no real politics in the first three Star Wars movies, you don't know anything politically about the Galactic Empire. They have lots of of soldiers and spaceships and bombers and they shoot innocent civilians and bomb people with space stations and torture politically marginalized figures for information. That's all you know. When you're watching, that's all you need to know. They blew up Alderaan and they killed his aunt and uncle and now they're going to pay.

I am very sorry to tell you that there are places in the world where that is exactly what is going on. But Luke Skywalker is not an American in that analogy.

There's an Afghani man out there whose city was bombed, whose aunt and uncle were killed by Americans. This is a fact. How does he feel? If Luke decides to do something about it, and he's a hero, what is he?

There's no easy answer to that question.

To them, we are the bad guys. And they are not automatically wrong. It's not impossible.

That bothers me.

I love America, with all my heart, and always will. I can neither love it more nor less.

But I could also be prouder of America, and less ashamed for things we have done. Pride and shame are not love. It's not the same thing. The love will stay the same. But every time there's another Abu Ghraib, pride is smothered.

And we all must understand that Al Qaeda is not Cobra.

Whatever you say about the Middle East, you can't say they're angry about nothing.

Maybe we're fighting for principles. Sure. Principles mean nothing to people with dead children. I am reminded of the (apocryphal) conversation between the Vietnamese peasant and the American soldier.

"Why are you here?"

"We are fighting communism and the soviet system."

"Couldn't you do that in Russia?"

It's a very reasonable question, and one that any Iraqi might feel some resonance with.

Comments

Ohh, I remember these.

[proteus_lives]

I remember the epic threads we had about these posts originally. Man, I wished I saved more SD 1.0 stuff.

Lets see....this one was foreign policy, the next one was guns right?

Good times.

Anyway, the comics always were vastly superior to the cartoon. But the recent G.I. Joe: Resolute wasn't half-bad. Much better than the live-action movie. But that had several fun parts.

Re: Ohh, I remember these.

[geoffsebesta]

Hey, what's up! I just reread our whole thread about the UN and Afghanistan, trying to figure out how to incorporate it into the total review.

I had all the comments saved in gmail, maybe I can find a way to send them to you... yeah, they were epic, I doubt we'll hit that peak again, but it'll be fun to see what happens this time. I don't know if you noticed but I substantially rewrote things.

I expect what with Ft. Hood and all the other shootings lately we're gonna have a lot to talk about with guns. But it'll be a while, I'm not going to repost nearly as fast this time.

I was astonished to walk into Borders and find GI Joe for sale! Looked slightly recolored too.

The movie looked like a FPS so I wasn't worried about it.

Re: Ohh, I remember these.

[proteus_lives]

What's up right back at ya. Yeah, I'd like to see those comments and what-not if you get the chance. I remember it being a fun discussion.

Ft. Hood: I'm always up for a discussion about gun rights. Whenever and wherever. ;)

While I didn't agree with many of your points, I always thought you had a interesting POV and it was always well thought-out. Kudos for all the work you put into those posts.

Yeah, I did notice that the writing was different. It seems....different. Hell, I'd need to see the original threads again. Been awhile.

[schmevil]

It's back! \o/

Not to... actually read the post.

[geoffsebesta]

Ha, you have enough to deal with. Don't worry, we'll play nice.

[koschei]

You need to post the special missions issue with the line "Your worst nightmare: A 19 yr old American with a machine gun!"

[geoffsebesta]

I will when we get there!

[deleonjh]

As I recall, whenever I watched GI Joe I'd spend the entire episode shouting for Snake Eyes to appear. I'd only be satisfied whenever he was on screen. Seriously, I can't remember the plot of a single episode. I even recently watched an episode of the new GI Joe and ended up reiterating my childhood habits.

Anyway, when viewed retrospectively it's ridiculous how gung ho the 80s was. You could pretty much sum up American pop culture in the 1980s by watching the scene in Predator where the heavily-armed and musclebound commandos level a jungle in fear and paranoia. It's almost like the US was overcompensating for having a small penis. That or something that starts with V and ends with War (or as the other side calls it, the American War).

Seriously, the idea that civilians betray the country by refusing to support the military 110% clearly comes from the US military's sense of betrayal following the Vietnam War. The extreme view holds that the war could have been won had those civvies just kept supporting the war. I believe this is snarkily referred to as the Green Lantern theory of geopolitics: the view that anything in the world can be solved by applying military force as long as you have the willpower to keep it up.

It's both odd and unsurprising that Cobra should be shown to be so high-tech for a terrorist force. Anyone with a passing familiarity with real life asymmetrical warfare (not just the 21st century kind, any kind at all) would know that a centralized command would be pure lunacy for the terrorists/guerillas/what-have-you. But once you remember that the comic book is a fantasy then all is well. After all, you get an enemy who stands up and fights instead of cravenly maximizing their use of force. No wonder WWII movies got a sudden boost after 9/11.

Anyway, I don't mean to lessen your realization of American complicity in all kinds of horrible shit but it's almost painful for us non-Americans how shocking that realization should be. Indeed, American perpetuation of horrible shit is as old as the US itself. (Yes, every country does it. So what?)

Damn, I can't believe I wrote so much. I guess I really do need to start my blog again, if I'd been writing for it I would have brought up utopianism and Walter Benjamin and whatnot.

[geoffsebesta]

Good reply, thank you.

One of the reasons I like this series is because it's such a perfect encapsulation of a certain type of American militarism. I think that Hama believes the Vietnam War could have been "won."

This actually came out immeditaly between Vietnam and Predator, by the way. They never dreamed this comic would someday be available to, and of interest for, a "world" audience. There was no "world" audience at the time -- it wasn't until 9-11 that the American populace started to notice the rest of the globe. These were transient toys designed for American boys, and there was no need to make it an exegis of the heart of war or a exploration of the foundations of American colonialism. Hama did that himself, because that's what artists do.

"Seriously, the idea that civilians betray the country by refusing to support the military 110% clearly comes from the US military's sense of betrayal following the Vietnam War."

Hmm, I believe you're right, though America has always had elements of jingoism. Also like your observation about 9-11 boosting WWII movies; if there's been one clear theme in the last ten years, it's searching (and failing to find) a true Bad Guy. It's a trap -- we've already agreed that we are going to spend all this money and effort on fighting, and now we need someone to fight. No wonder we set Cobra up to be exactly the same as us. Wait till you see where Cobra gets their funding, yer gonna plotz.

[salamangkiero]

Speaking as someone who isn't American, and whose country used to be a U.S. outpost of sorts...whenever the U.S.A. goes to war, we're thinking: Ah, interests and profits to protect. Sad to say, while many outside of America love it for the ideals, that love is tempered with (sometimes even destroyed by) the reality of it being a superpower.

[geoffsebesta]

I sincerely appreciate that we now have the technology to discuss this so that we in America can know exactly what it is that we're doing. It used to be that the dinosaur couldn't exactly see its toes, you know what I mean?

I am entirely against American military adventurism and I'm not the only one. We'll get to this eventually, but I actually advocate turning the US military apparatus over to the UN because we sure ain't usin' it right. The "self-defense" argument for the US military is mind-bogglingly paranoid and provably incorrect. To pick one very small fallacy, NBC weapons are not self-defense weapons any way you look at it.

I think everyone in the world, America included, would be much happier if we lived up to our image of ourself a bit better.

[cleome45]

Eh, that's not just you. [said the American non-interventionist]

Personally, I'm sick of hearing about "betrayal" and how we could have "won" Vietnam. The more important question is why the blazes should the morality of an armed conflict have anything to do with whether or not it was ever "winnable."

[jlbarnett]

and those thoughts are a significant reason a lot of Americans don't like people in other countries.

[lamashtar]

There are lots of Americans who'd like to quit dying for other countries behalf. Constantly being accused of doing so for a profit motive is headdesking.

[thehefner]

Seconding the "Yay it's back!" sentiments.

[geoffsebesta]

awwww ....<3

It's looking like it'll be better this time too.

[lamashtar]

I haven't read much GI Joe. I read the Snake Eyes origin, that's about it.

But unhealthy veterans kill their families or random innocent civilians. How is Snake Eyes supposed to be so unhealthy?

[geoffsebesta]

In my opinion, unhealthy people kill people. I don't mitigate it quite as much as you do.

War is massively unhealthy and should be avoided because of the sickness it imparts.

GI Joe creates a moral situation where every single guy that wears a blue helmet and yells "Cobra" deserves to die. This is simply not realistic.

Again, in this comic they create a moral situation where Snake-Eyes only kills people that we know to be bad (because they're wearing the "bad" uniform) and his pain is internalized and never spills out in any unhealthy way. But the last issue of the series makes it clear, even Snakes doesn't think it was worth it. Check out GI Joe #155 if you can find/dl it.

[lbd_nytetrayn]

"You will never see that combat training center again. Guess they didn't feel like making a GI Joe Sensory Deprivation Tank."

I think its spirit lives on in the recent movie.

--LBD "Nytetrayn"

[geoffsebesta]

pics?

TALES OF INTEREST!

[anewchallenger]

Great to see this again. Never found the time to comment on it at old SD as noirsensei, but I SO grew up on G.I.Joe...

While I find the commentary about the work itself to be well thought-out and certainly a heck of a read, I have to say a few things about the commentary on the commentary:

- A large problem with modern Americans is that living in a country that has become so polarized (and 50% of us so jingoistic as we have) is that we're always so focused on our modern game of red vs. blue that we fail to realize the blame inherent not in a nation's decision's but in those of it's past leaders.

America didn't cause Vietnam; backpedaling party-grown yes men like LBJ did. And fuck, many of the problems with the Middle East per current could be trailed back way beyond Bush Jr. and his pappy... to one Mr. Jimmy Carter. I think I'm the only person my age who has the good sense to despise that man, much less in a minority for knowing anything about what kind of damage he actually did to our foreign policy while in office.

- With that said, it IS possible to be an American and fall in the middle grounds between supporting the war and wanting mass disarmament. I think that advocating the US give up control of it's military power to the UN is absurd. The UN is the same sort worthless body of squabbling old men as our own house and senate, only now in delightful multicolor. All the same? I don't support the war in the Middle East one bit. With that in mind... my view on the whole thing is a bit... different.

- Why a ground war? Aren't we technologically advanced enough at this point to have fought the whole war with UAVs? Lord knows we've sunk enough money into our armed forces to make it so. It speaks to the idea you've brought up about us needing to be the big heroes against the radio serial villain... but it was never sound logic. If our country wanted vengeance for 9/11, I'm just fine with that... but why waste lives, and create a predominantly ground-based conflict, meaning more of *their* civilians would be in the same danger?

Make no mistake - I'm hardly a bumpkin hooting about bombing them fuckers back into the stone age... but wouldn't prolonged aerial strikes be preferable to the clusterfuck of operations we have now?

Think about it - by taking a ground war to them, we ARE occupying them - we are the stomping footsoldiers in their Warsaw, and as such we're only fueling the rhetoric of the radicals we supposedly sought to rid the region of. As such, the main argument against initially carpetbombing the region -- "Think of all the civiliain domiciles, all the women and children!" goes out the window. Those women are being widowed or raped by soldiers on both ends, and the children being handed AKs or IEDs and told to go give G.I.Joe a hug.

Could this have been the one instance where we dropped the ball by NOT having the cajones as a society to support playing up our superiority in the first place? I think so.

Re: TALES OF INTEREST!

[kashmirkong]

I think the simple answer to why soldiers over missiles and bombs is that bombs don't discriminate between combatants and civilians, and a soldier is a lot cheaper to use as an instrument of war than a missile.

Re: TALES OF INTEREST!

[geoffsebesta]

Hey thanks! I was worried the comment threads wouldn't be as fascinating this time but it looks like they'll be even better.

I will of course be incorporating previous comments into this so it's gonna take a while. ^_^ Too bad you didn't comment then!

I would very much like to hear what you have to say about Mr. Carter. You may or may not know this but I happen to have serious insight and inside information into the Carter years and I am in the position to confirm or deny many allegations. Not kidding. So what ya got?

I think that advocating the US give up control of it's military power to the UN is absurd.

We will get to this, believe me. To put it mildly, I do not find it "absurd" at all, and would like to hear why it is unthinkable.

Also troubled by your advocacy of air war. Long story short, without clear and reasonable political goals, air attacks are simply killing a lot of people for no good reason. I am not at all fine with "vengeance" for 9/11 when it's against the wrong people. Though I *understood* our invasion of Afghanistan, and I knew it was unavoidable given the climate at the time, let's not kid ourselves about effectiveness or morality. We probably didn't kill the "right" people, we definitely killed the wrong people, and we killed a lot of them.

Do you recall the aspirin plant in the Sudan?

Agree that the ground war is as "bad" as the air war, but I would point out that it was not nearly as "good." At least ground war has positive effects. Can't imagine what nuking Afghanistan would have accomplished.

"Could this have been the one instance where we dropped the ball by NOT having the cajones as a society to support playing up our superiority in the first place?"

Interesting allegation -- I'd like to hear more about it.

Sorry about my delayed reply.

Posting for someone who doesn't want to come to S_D:

[lamashtar]

Many of the comparisons the author is drawing can seem valid at face value, but break down under closer scrutiny. The Rebellion vs Empire analogy does not take into account that the Empire directly and consciously sought out the Tarkin Doctrine of "Rule By Fear", the chosen tactic of the Terrorist. While on the surface there is little difference between the insurgency of the Rebellion and the insurgencies of Taliban and AlQuaeda, they couldn't be farther from the truth. The "rebellion" sought to reinstate a legitimate government in the face of a tyrranical leadership that manipulated fear and conflict to place themselves into power. Al Quaeda and the Taliban are quite clearly stated as seeking to usurp all other systems of government in order to emplace the "Caliphate" as the rule of law over all lands. To that end they will take advantage of all percieved and created inequalities and injustices, molding and corrupting any and all others as expendable resources to be used and discarded in their power play. To be clear, this is not a religious calling (for all but the most deranged jihadists) but yet another face of political and secular power using religion as a front in order to ease the process of indoctrination, manipulation and control. The actual hardliner religious zealots are the easy targets for the behind-the scenes powermongers to manipulate and direct against all they seek to overcome.

Where the Afghan farmer is justly concerned that his family and farm were bombed, such acts were accidental. Not the intended target, nor the intended outcome. Whereas the jihadists continually and directly target civillian populations, markets, schools, hospitals, police forces, and others in order to present the case to the people that the government cannot protect them. Rather than wage attacks against the government's agencies, they choose to strike at the people directly. Soldiers are supposed to die for their people, not the other way around. That is why the insurgent, incapable of waging a stand-up war of occupation and governmental overthrow seeks to influence and destabilize the people. The population is the real target for both the insurgent and the counter-insurgent plans. Not ground, not territory, not holdings. The insurgent needs the people to provide cover, supplies, information, and protection. The counter-insurgent needs the people to deny the insurgent shelter and comfort. When the insurgent resorts to terrorism to make their case, they run the high risk of turning the population they need or theri support against them, and fear can and will easily turn to hate when the stated aims of the insurgent runs cross purposes to the actions of the terrorist and the people are the ones to suffer.

The Rebel (more properly New Republic) or GI Joe agencies in these analogies are seeking in these foreign lands to help the native people and governments to retain control of their governments in the face of forces that seek to carve a bloody swath through their lives to power. Those destructive forces are avowed in their intent to use these lands as bases and funding from which to continue to project forces and attacks outward against their described "enemies" once they are successful in usurping the governments in totality, or at least rendering them mired in chaos incapable of preventing them from taking what theywant and doing as they will.

Re: Posting for someone who doesn't want to come to S_D:

[geoffsebesta]

No metaphor holds up under closer scrutiny. I cheerfully agree that America is not a galactic empire. Although I find your points interesting, I feel that debating them in this framework gives the impression that i have somehow confused an emotional concept -- how an Afghani citizen might feel on finding that their home was bombed and their aunt and uncle were dead -- with a real concept, which is the aim and purpose of American military power in the Afghani conflict.


No, Star Wars is not real.

So if we're clear on that, let's continue.

Motive is obviously relevant -- that's why we have degrees of murder -- but to say that an Afghani farmer is cognizant of our "mistakes" or the differences between our "mistakes" and what we actually meant to do would be stretching things mightily. What would you say to the Viet? Exactly which of the many Viet killed are not a mistake? How many were on purpose?

What was our purpose in Vietnam? Isn't it telling that even forty years later there's no good answer?

You seem to indicate that you are willing to accept American incursions into sovereign countries to remove unacceptable governments. This would seem to me to ignore recent history, when we have been very misguided in many of our interventions, and in certain notorious examples (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Panama) we are actually fighting the errors of our previous incursions.

In other words, you seem to be advocating the idea that these countries are better off because we invaded. In the "notorious" examples I'm curious to think if you see our previous interventions to be well-guided. Was our financing of Bin Laden, the Taliban, Hussein, Noriega, and the Shah correct at the time, and only became a mistake later?

As I understand Vietnam our attempt to prop up the Diem govt. and its successors was the exact problem. As it turns out, both sides were more than willing to "carve a bloody swath through their lives to power" so I'm not sure how you decided who you prefer.

I am not a