John Kerry the Braggart: Unfit For Command, Part 4

[Straybow]

Straybow, are you suggesting Vietnam was a result of reliable data and truthful politicians? And Straybow, since when is it virtuous to lie or mis-lead people into killing other people and those who see thru the haze are wimps?

Berz, I'm talking about Iraq, you know, the other half of the discussion in this thread.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bac Ho's communism was home grown. Convenient to the USSR and China, but imposed by neither.

And like it or not, it had far more support of the Vietnamese peasants that made up the mass of the population than did the French, their lackey Bao Dai, or any of the collection of "elected" SVN generals and thugs.

Well, we'll never really know, will we, since the commies imposed their authority at the village level by ruthless assassination of any leader who dared question their authority. Sounds just like Arafat's and Hamas' method of exactly "loyalty", does not? Kill anyone who may be an opposition leader.

And you call such people who rule like this "legitimate"?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bac Ho's communism was home grown. Convenient to the USSR and China, but imposed by neither.

And like it or not, it had far more support of the Vietnamese peasants that made up the mass of the population than did the French, their lackey Bao Dai, or any of the collection of "elected" SVN generals and thugs.

No wait! Ho is "illigitimate" because he was a CIA (OSS)stooge during the war.

[Barinthus]

Is Vietnam really a vital issue for the presidental campaign?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-parsons3sep03,1,5764952.column?coll=la-headlines-california

It's Time to Move Beyond Vietnam
Dana Parsons

September 3, 2004

As a noncombatant in Vietnam, I may have little standing when it comes to talking about the war that never seems to go away. But surely I can't be the only voter wondering how a discredited war that ended 30 years ago can possibly bear on this year's presidential election.

Yet here we are, with a drumbeat echoing all the way from the Mekong Delta of the 1960s to the presidential campaign trail of 2004.

Any wonder why people tune out to politics? Who could blame them for feeling detached from reality as they're told to consider that John Kerry is unfit to be president because he protested the war as a returning veteran in 1971? Or that George W. Bush should be penalized because he got a cushy post with the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s and then blew off some of his duties? And, the icing on this crazy cake: that Kerry's heroics in Vietnam are overblown and that he didn't deserve the medals he got.

I have strong opinions on each issue, but here's my point: Even if the absolute worst about either man is true, I don't care. To my mind, nothing their critics are saying about the candidates from 30-plus years ago — with the implication that it says something about their character today — is relevant.

If you want to call Bush a hypocrite for being a war president but taking an easy assignment during Vietnam, isn't there a statute of limitations? Call Kerry an opportunist and say that reflects his character, but how about a more current example than when he skippered patrol boats in enemy territory, knowing that snipers and the fates held his life in their hands?

Bush, understandably, has avoided bringing up his Vietnam-era record. Kerry has made a point of his war record and, in so doing, brought out the wolves. I understand why he thinks he needs to do it, but I wish his advisors would tell him to please stop doing it.

If it's appalling to hear Kerry's critics attack his war record, it's getting a bit unseemly to continually hear him say, "To those of us who know what it's like to be in combat…."

Why does this Vietnam talk rankle?

Why not let it go in one ear and out the other?

To those of us for whom the Vietnam War dominated our lives for several years, these are echoes we'd like to drown out. We'd like to forget the graceless bashing of returning vets. We'd like to forget the families and communities that were split wide open by opinions on the war. We'd like to forget the horrible things that happened during the war and the lingering effects on so many participants' lives.

For a war that we learned, belatedly, was cynically waged by the men running it, about the only thing worth remembering is the valor that servicemen no doubt showed and the national lessons we learned.

Thirty years after the war ended, that strikes me as all that matters. Kerry's heroism is to be applauded, but I don't link it to presidential capabilities. Bush's safe port during the war is worth raising an eyebrow over, but not even close to being a significant consideration of someone's presidential mettle.

Anyone old enough to remember the Vietnam era well probably thinks of it as something from a previous lifetime. As a 1971 college graduate who missed being drafted only because of a midrange lottery number, I recall it that way.

The current Vietnam redux is a total turnoff. If the masterminds behind it are trying to disengage the voters, they may be succeeding brilliantly.

If, on the other hand, people actually want an honest campaign decided on important issues, there's still time.

They used to say that the "real" presidential campaign begins on Labor Day. If that's still true, let's crank up the 2004 campaign this weekend with no more talk about Vietnam.

[Straybow]

I believe Uncle Ho asked us for help, recognise them and stop backing the French. We declined that request and insisted on supporting the corrupt government we helped create in the South.

That's rich, Berz! "Uncle Sam, please help Uncle Ho build Marxist peoples' paradise. Love you long time!"

Ho could have partaken in the legitimate political process of a free Vietnam. He chose otherwise. I doubt Japanese POWs would have been used for troops if Ho weren't causing trouble. You can't analyze a decision in a vaccuum.

If a bunch of people don't have a government, that doesn't justify imposing one upon them. But of course they had government, a localised agrarian system. At least until Marxists discovered resources. It's the same story over and over... one group of people with more strength threaten weaker groups to get what they have. That's what Vietnam was about...

OK, I admit I substituted "Marxists" where Berz said "Europeans." The point is made, though. It doesn't matter whether it is the French, the Japanese, the Chinese, or Ho and his Viet Mingh. Nobody was "respecting" the localized agrarian system.

[Straybow]

Of course America was so revolted by the perpetrators of genocide in Cambodia that following Viet Nam's successful liberation of the country from the Khmer Rouge America cosied up to them, supporting them in maintaining their seat in the United Nations and ensuring their fighters received food aid and medical supplies, and arms and money.

That was Carter, you know, the guy who said he saw the "love of God" in Idi Amin's eyes. (Where's that puke smiley when you really need it?) More likely it was syphalitic insanity.

Oh, that's Amin, not Carter.

As for the United States being concerned with the millions slaughtered in the neighbouring states, if they were so concerned why undermine Cambodia's legitimate government in the first place?

Why reduce parts of Cambodia to a moonscape?

Why bomb Laos and Cambodia until the peasant farmers sick of the incessant rain of high explosive, defoliant and napalm willingly joined the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge?

Yes, the old "What if you held a war, and nobody showed up?" You're probably sure that the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao would have laid down their arms if the US hadn't been bombing and had withdrawn from Vietnam. Ho's VM and VC would've withdrawn from Laos and eastern Cambodia, respecting the legitimate governments.

Yes, let's just rewrite history.

[Kropotkin]

Well that seems like a very convienient way of looking at Cambodias recent history. As a lot of FNL hid in the remote areas of cambodia, the US helped Lon Nol to take power and bring the war to cambodia. The heavy bombing of the region then made Lon Nol very unpopular and raised the support for the khmer rouge. But you can look at the combination of cause and effect in what ever way that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Well that seems like a very convienient way of looking at Cambodias recent history. As a lot of FNL hid in the remote areas of cambodia, the US helped Lon Nol to take power and bring the war to cambodia. The heavy bombing of the region then made Lon Nol very unpopular and raised the support for the khmer rouge. But you can look at the combination of cause and effect in what ever way that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

K, given the occupation of large areas of Cambodia by NV troops, it is a strange preversion of cause and effect to accuse the US of "bringing the war" to Cambodia.

Similarly, FDR brought the war to Guadacanal and Bush "brought the war" to al Qaida in Afghanistan and the Tojo and Osama bin Laden bear no responsibility for the war whatsoever.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Barinthus
Is Vietnam really a vital issue for the presidental campaign?

No but Kerry keeps making an issue of it.

[Kropotkin]

I didn't claim that, or at least didn't mean for it to look that way. I pointed out that the US policy and bombing in the country helped to give a lot of support to the Khmer Rouge and in general make the situation even worse. The Khmer Rouge was surely an expericence the world could have been without. Not that the US, or anyone else, should be blaimed for their crimes, but it seems strange to claim that the bombings was what held them back. it's quite possible (even if we'll never know for sure) that the khmer Rouge wouldn't have become what hey where without the US messing about with the govt of yet another country. Great way to stop the dominos.

FNL was already there en masse of cource, I'm not at all refuting that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned

And you call such people who rule like this "legitimate"?

You need glasses, or just reading lessons?

Less illegitimate doesn't equate to legitimate. As far as wasting opposition leaders, shall we talk about VCI and things like Phoenix and it's predecessors, going all the way back to the French prior to WW2?

[Ned]

You know, MtG, I have become convinced that you have to have security first before you can have "democracy." You were right when we discussed Iraq. You insisted that we must take control of places like Fallujah before we could ask the local Iraqi's to function. You were right.

There are parallels between Indochina and the ME. The non democratic factions are extremely ruthless and rule by terror. They win unless confronted by superior force.

[MrFun]

During the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese had a choice between a corrupt, cruel government under communism in the north, or a corrupt, crule government under capitalism in the south.

a no-win situation

[Ned]

K, the Khmer didn't get "support" because of the bombing. They got support by having the King ally with them and by being supplied heavily by the NV.

[Kropotkin]

Popular support. You know, that small thing on the great scale that in the end kicked US butt in the region.

(maybe the coup against him, after trying to keep out of it all for a long time, made Shianouk change his mind? Again, an issue of cause and effect, right?)