When did Vietnam become such a great war?
 

Just curious listening to the right winged talking heads it seems they are re-writing history. They all seem to point to Vietnam as some great achievement that was destroyed by commie liberals. Thought that type of thinking ended ooooo 30 years ago.

I know it's to make Kerry look bad but come on, re-writing history? Let's ask Limbaugh, O'Reilly, President Bush and others how they served in Vietnam before they continue to harp about how we were so right to go there.

It's all a scam because too many people are starting to see Iraq and Vietnam as pretty much the same.

Vietnam... oh so touchy a subject and oh so misunderstood.

In a sense tho Iraq and Vietnam are the same.. not because of the fighting but put it this way..

Vietnamese have had a tradition of Confucianism - in Confucianism there is only one absolute truth.

Take American democracy for example - we can see two sides of the truth, and even more. We are a very pluralistic country where we can coexist with different view points.

In many parts of the world? Thats not true - there is only one truth and thats it.

Thats a large part of why when South Vietnam was transformed to the American model of democracy that it failed - Diem became a dictator albeit anti-communist, but still a dictator. The different sects and factions in Vietnam made democracy impossible there and eventually North Vietnam's emphasis on nationalism won over.

In Iraq? The Shiite/Sunii conflict is a tough one to gauge now but without a doubt one must realize that one cannot put American democracy everywhere.

This is where i say the similarity between Iraq and Vietnam lays - not the fighting, not the length, etc. - its the 'nation building' we are trying.

i frequently listen to what you would describe as "right winged talking heads" and i've don't think i've ever heard praise of the vietnam war be a recurring theme.

it is probably unfair for me to request a specific instance given the nature of the medium. still, i'm really not certain i share your perception of those programs in recent days.

But that doesn't answer the why? The Right is trying so desperately to make Vietnam some glorious campaign screwed over by crying liberals at home, yet the loudest are dodgers themselves.

I would think the Right would stay away from any similarity and not remind people of Vietnam at all. Instead of glorifying it and trying to badmouth a war hero who did fight over there.

Listening to Limbaugh today (Roger Hedgecock filled in) and there was a Vietnam Vet who argued that while he didn't see what Kerry saw, the vet believed Kerry had the right to say whatever he wanted when he got home because Kerry had fought for that right. When you think of what the Right says about patriotism and guarding the Constitutional rights we enjoy, how they can argue against that is hypocritical. Yet, they do.

I have a feeling the more the right shoves this issue the more people will see the hypocrisy of what they say.

Listen with complete open mind on the subject, no bias either way, and when they talk of Kerry and his "infamous" call before Congress listen how they refute every word he says. We didn't kill babies over there, we didn't do anything Kerry says he saw over there, we were righteous and defending the rights of people. If you can listen without prejudice and bias you can hear it.

Listen to Hedgecock fight with the lady that called after the vet I described above. She said her uncle fought in Nam and saw some nasty things and has never been the same since.

He hounded her first asking "did your uncle see anything like Kerry described?"

To which she came back and said "we don't talk about it because it is too terrible for him to remember."

After getting that out of her around 3 times he then hounded her saying she was an apparent liberal and kept repeating "do you support the troops in Iraq today?"

He did this is rapid fire and in contempt of her and gave her no chance to answer let alone her reasons for her belief.

I'm sure if you go to RushLimbaugh.com you can hear the archived audio. It happened roughly around 1:00-1:30 EST.

hmm...

i resent your admonitions for me to listen with an open mind and without biases. as if you knew me and for what purpose i tune into those shows. you, apparently, listen to some of those same programs... yet i made no assumptions about your ability to comprehend their meaning.

that being said...

i will not take the time to review the archived audio, but i will assume that your account of the radio discussion is accurate when framing a response.

i'll grant you that this specific call fielded by roger hedgecock appears to support your original post, but i still refute the notion that this is in any way indicitive of the usual agenda of said talk-show hosts. we must not forget that kerry did indeed fudge the truth when testifying before congress. his original statement was that he witnessed these events, when he later backtracked into saying that he had only heard of them. that isn't to say that Sen. Kerry's testimony didn't reflect realities of the war, but it does give legitimate footholds to his detractors.

also, i think you should not lump limbaugh o'reilly and the President of the United States in the same category while discussing this argument. the President has never cast aspersions on Kerry's war record in the context of a personal attack, never given an address on the merits and shortfalls of the Vietnam war and has never belittled anyone who has called into a radio show.

Irate,

I did not mean to offend you, I was just stating that if you listen and have biases left or right you'll hear what you want, as opposed to just listening to see what is said and then making a judgement. I have no doubt on your intelligence and wisdom, I am truly sorry if it seemed I did.

As for Bush, no personally he has not said anything about Kerry and VietNam. I do believe though that the talking heads need to come clean with their draft records and where they were during the war. If they cannot come clean then one has to ask why and how can they disparage others who did.

PS I do listen to Limbaugh, as a matter of fact I am a 24/7 member to his website. Overall his politics are very screwy and he towes the party line no matter what but he is entertaining. And he has gotten me to rethink certain issues, I am not as liberal as I once was because of him and hopefully an open mind.
Beck, Hedgecock, O'Reilly and Hannity however are true fakes who are just Limbaugh wannabes with no talent but to spew hatred, lies and anger. Those are the guys that will go with the wind and the money. But that's for another thread and another time.

for the most part, agreed.

Vietnam is a topic on both sides and it's entirely due to the influence the conflict had in shaping the opinions of those who are doing the talking.

I don't get what's so hypocritical. The right never argued that he can't say or do whatever he wants. It seems that your suggesting the constitution somehow protects you from criticism or accountabilty for the things you say and do (unless of course it's Bush).

Here's a little more perspective on the whole Kerry/Vietnam thing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004881

It isn't the war that was good, it was the comradery, friendships made, battles fought and lost. Soldiers bound together by being disrespected upon returning home. Piss poor medical services for years after returning home.

Its sad people, what we did to our own soldiers. Soldiers doing the job they were ordered to. FUCKING SAD. I hope we ALL learned from it.

Bush has always criticized Vietnam as a politicians war. He has in no way ever said that it was a "great" war. Some conservatives, whom must be gravely mistaken, may have said this but try not to make the generalization that they all or even most of them actually believe this.

Not only that, but they were conscripted - they had no choice but to go. And the majority of them were those too poor to get a college deferment...

The Vietnamese war was an exercise in humiliation and murder.

I wont condemn anyone who fought in it, because most were drafted and felt it was their duty, but I would never praise anyone for being involved in such a colonialist war.

what now a colonialist war you are very mistaken we were not try to create an american colony our goal in that unpronounced war was to stop the spreed of communism which we felt was morally wrong and our dubty to stop or slow

we had no intention what so ever to create a colony there and if that is what you believe than you are a sorly mistaken person :(

You better double check your history on that. We "had no intention what so ever [sic] to create a colony there?"

Our involvement began with military and economic aid to the French who had already colonized Vietnam.

Because the French were our allies and they were fighting against a communist-supported independence movement. Once they left and the country was split, we got involved to keep it split.

I don't how far from the topic this is going, my apologies.

The French were our allies and so were the British. They had colonies all around the region and the people were kicking them out. I mean, what do you think the reasons were for people supporting communist governments? They certainly weren't moving from democratic rule to communist rule--they were throwing off their colonial masters' yokes.

It doesn't particularly matter. The two of you are citing the communist agenda as if it's evidence that we weren't colonialists; that colonialism and anti-communism are independent factors.

The point I'm making is that the two factors, communist forms of government rising up in all these underdeveloped nations rich in resources but not wealth, and old world colonial powers getting their asses handed to them abroad while they were trying to rebuild domesticly post-WW2, are actually linked.

I might even suggest that we were anti-communist because we were colonialists.

If you do a search on "oil in the Gulf of Tonkin" or just "Gulf of Tonkin" and you read up on why and what started VietNam's war, you'll find it is not that much different than Iraq. Oil was afactor in both, as were lies about terrorism and shots fired, both started by Texas oilmen, both supported strongly by the military industrial complex, and so on. Interesting stuff there are many more similarities than dissimilarities.

In fact, the in the beginning of VietNam a vast majority were ok with the war. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Act allowing the war to start, 416 - 0 in the House and 88 - 2 in the Senate. I was doing a bit of research and found history repeating itself.

agreed, but you're stretching to apply this to the US involvement in SE Asia.

supporting an democratic ally who possesses colonies against a communistic upheaval hardly qualifes as colonialistic. especially considering that the expansion of the USSR was the major foreign policy concern of the time.

call me crazy, but in order to be a colonialist... it seems like you'd have to try to establish actual colonies.

the word that describes what you're talking about may not be positive in nature, but it certainly isn't related to colonialism.

The act of imposing democracy on a nation that wants to be communist is a colonialist act.

Please post for me what you are using as a definition for colonialism, because we may be using different definitions. I get mine from sociology and international affairs textbooks. I can post them if anyone likes.

I suspect that when people think of colonies they think of garrisons and exploitation of the natives. That's part of the picture. But colonialism has its roots in a Social Darwinian paradigm.

That is, it stems from the belief of an objective notion of progress. Industrialization and democracy form the backbone of this progress to Western society. The imposition of this ideology on various cultures was understood to be the White Man's Burden. Have you read that poem by Rudyard Kipling?

Imposing our belief of what constitutes progress in the form of warring with a native population over the form of government they desired is colonialism.

This shouldn't even be a discussion. The notion that democracy is superior to communism, and that we have an obligation to eradicate it from the world, is the purest expression of colonialism I can point to in modern history.

Taking the oil [replace oil with whatever resource]? That's bonus. A consequence (or repayment) for the gift we gave the native population. The gift of democracy, which sometimes isn't even wanted. Do you see the irony in that? Establishing democracy in a region that doesn't want it?

I'll just point out that Kerry threw another man's medals down in protest while his own were kept safely at home.

OK then, if we're lucky, the people will see the hypocrisy of both the Republicans and the Democrats (I'm hesitant to use Right and Left).

Please stop shocking my heart with all these statements I agree with!!!

I must have pulled you into the dark abyss of the Left becaue I know I'm still a flaming Liberal! :)

;) actually, I think I told you about a year ago that I thought most people share common values, but political discourse is used to polarize the public so they can't speak to each other. I guess that's how long it took before we finally got to some common beliefs that haven't been exploited yet.

Yes, that is as hypocritical as the Right. To me it shows if Kerry had the convictions of what he was saying he would have thrown his own medals down. It also shows me that the man had no political aspirations for his future.

He did what many were doing at that time and that is living for the moment and trying to change the world, but that's another debate, the Baby Boomer Generation.

IMO vietnam is way too generalized as a fight for a "democratic" ally - reading some pieces including Henry Kissinger's book Diplomacy on the Vietnam War, one realizes this:

The U.S. ended up choosing South Vietnam because between the two authoritarian regimes, one was communist and the other was anti-communist.

Ngo Dinh Diem was hardly "democratic" as my post way above said and indeed numerous coups and hardly democratic procedures passed through the years until finally another leader came about - and by then the war was pretty much a lost cause.

On the topic of colonialism.. colonialism isn't simply ruling natives, garrisons, etc. as traditionaally seen. Colonialism and imerpialism can simply deal with economic matters.

On French Indochina... after World War II the U.S. at first supported Ho Chi Minh for many empires were giving up their colonies and the U.S. has traditionally been the anti-colonial member of the Western nations.

However, with crises in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Greece, and finally the Korean War, Truman decided to send aid to France for he believed that the French had to hold back the revolutionaries.

At that time it seemed as though Ho Chi Minh was just another part of the great Soviet communist conspiracy and was part of the world revolution.

Truth be told Vietnam years later when unified would prove to be more like Tito than part of any bloc and indeed traditionlly has been against China.

As for Vietnam in general...

With so many troops drafted and sent to fight for a nation they had little interest in, I salute the vets and am greatful they fought.

But I cannot stand those today who criticize the vets who don't like the war - because you know what, many soldiers sent didn't like the war but fought anyways. They fought and died and IMO they easily earned the right to protest the war.

It could be noble a goal as to protest the sending of their brethren to fight and die in a lost cause - that simple.