(private/vwac99_ahdr.htm)
Discussion Forum
[ Home | Contents | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Sean Adams
T1: adamss78@hotmail.com
Date: 10/22/99
Time: 10:23:23 AM
Remote Name: 216.164.181.235
I think that Arguments #1 and #2 are empty; does anyone really consider them, or even take them seriously? Argument #3 is the only one that someone may debate successfully (successfully not meaning correctly, but able to engage, using evidence, in a thoughtful argument). Each side has evidence to support its claim; to determine who is "right" or "wrong" (an impossible task, but useful in which to engage) can only be initiated through an examination of the evidence. For example, evidence for Argument #3 is in the actual argument itself: "U.S. businessmen don't have big investments in that country." A person can easily point out many large business that support this claim; in fact, more business than not—in a hugely disproportionate amount—have no affiliations whatsoever with Vietnam. If Vietnam were to disappear altogether, it would have absolutely no influence on their investments.
Someone who opposes Argument #3, are believes the Vietnam War to be an imperialist venture, can still list a fair amount of businesses—ones that have a lot of influence on the American economy and in the governmental offices—that are heavily invested in Vietnam. Both people can make a compelling argument, and the debate accomplishes nothing. So one must consider what "evidence" really is. It can be found anywhere, to support any claim—so does that mean every claim is valid? And more evidence doesn't necessarily mean "more" valid. One can argue for three days, supporting his/her claim with heaps of evidence, that a particular individual was in a specific place at the time of a murder. Yet all the opposition needs to do is produce a single videotape, a single piece of evidence, that shows the defendant pull the trigger—he's guilty.
Developing an argument supported by evidence that weighs more tends to give the argument more "weight." Simply stating that many American businesses had no investment whatsoever in Vietnam accomplishes little; but stating that a select few did have major investments in Vietnam, and showing how those investments affected the economy and the pockets of the politicians in charge accomplishes much more. This is what the pamphlet we were to read for this assignment did. It showed how deeply immersed American investments were in Vietnam, and why it was necessary for them to remain that way. The "American way of life" needed to be preserved (whatever that means) at all costs—whether they be financial or physical. There is an incredible amount of money invested in poor nations overseas; American businesses and government are so immersed in these financial investments that they cannot see a way out. Thus, they do anything they can in order to maintain their stability.
(furr/_private/vwac99_aftr.htm)
Last changed: October 28, 2001