To what extent was the domino theory debunked by Vietnam?  Did the
slaughter of millions in Cambodia have anything to do with who was
ruling Vietnam at the time?  Is it possible that the slaughter would
not have been left unchecked if the American public hadn't turned so
sour on intervention in SE Asia?  Was the rest of SE Asia somehow
protected from what would have been a steady takeover by China?  Was
the domino theory less applicable in Vietnam than in Korea, since
Vietnam was such an enemy of China?  And if Vietnam was such an enemy
of China, then where were its weapons coming from?

---

Clarification of Question by cwd-ga on 21 May 2004 14:14 PDT

To appeal to Neil's grammatical "sence", here is a more positive
version of the third question: Would the US have been likely to stop
the slaughter in Cambodia if the American public was less demoralized
from the prior SE Asian intervention?

It is nice to have a single cause for every historical event, but
there are multiple causes (of significance) for most events. IMHO
domono theory is alive and well; perhaps rarely the most important
cause, but significant and good logic.
 I think we can apply domono theory with a twist to terrorism. Most
Muslums believe the 50 concubines/virgins only in part, so they will
join a terrorist organization only if they perceive low personel risk.
Lots of killed terorists = fewer and more cautious terorists with rare
exceptions. If our commander and chief seems irrational (think
unpredictable) all the better, as terrorist like to be able to
calculate their odds of survival just like most people hate
uncertainty. If most people are soft on terorists, expect lots more
terrorists.   Neil

The second sentence of your question has three negatives if you count
unchecked. Please revise it extensively. ie Fewer people would have
died in Cambodia if the USA and world media had better supported
making the world safe for democracy? I don't know, but a researcher
may have some ideas if that is your question? IMHO the public believes
what the media tels them to believe except for a hand full of people
with common sence.   Neil

The domino theory probably works 'backwards' as well - the more people
believe the US, or capitalist states in general, to be corrupt,
aggressive and unjust, and the more they see this proved through
actions such as attacks on various countries/factories/groups, the
more likely they are to turn to different means of government, such as
communism. Similarly with terrorism, the more countries that are
affected by capitalist policy - e.g. loss of jobs and livelihoods from
IMF policies, loss of homes from WB-funded development projects such
as dams, or loss of friends, family etc from military aid to agressive
groups, then the more people are likely to become desperate enough to
risk/end their lives in protest/defense. Increasing the no of attacks,
or the no of countries under attack, just increases the desperation,
and therefore the number of people turning to terrorism or susceptible
to despicable terrorist leaders' propaganda, who're willing to use
people's understandable desparation, in incomprehensibly awful ways,
for their own gain.
Thus every country the US/UK/whoever attacks, increases the risk of
terrorism or the likelihood of countries coming under some kind of
totalitarian government.