The Vietnam War was an atrocity. Shouldn't the next US Prez know this?

[RichM]

Poll question: The Vietnam War was an atrocity. Shouldn't the next US Prez know this?

The action of the US government -- in invading SE Asia, bombing villages, using chemical agents to poison the land, killing perhaps 4 million people, & lying to the American public about what was being done, and why -- was an historic atrocity. True, it was not quite as bad as what the Nazis did in WWII. What is remarkable, though, is that it actually offers the Nazis a bit of competition, for the coveted title of "War Crime of the Century."

After all, the Nazis are the New York Yankees of 20th century war criminals. Very tough to beat. It's impressive if you can simply stay in the ring with them for a round or two. And the American action in Vietnam measures up to that challenge. It probably merits runner-up status, & at the very least was in the top 3 or 4 atrocities of the century.

And it was hardly an aberration. The US action in Nicaragua & El Salvador in the '80s was very much of a piece with the murderous lunacy that drove the mayhem in Vietnam. The present effort in Iraq is in many ways just a continuation of the same pattern of aggression and deceit. (A quick list of similar tragic stories is summarized at:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html )

With these things in mind, what is your attitude towards the proposition that the next US president should have a clear philosophical understanding of the fact that MANY of the military interventions undertaken by the US have actually been criminal atrocities? IOW - that the next president should understand that these interventions were not "flawed plans," nor "unfortunate results of efforts guided by noble intent" -- but that they were murderous, criminal, and unacceptable?

[Faygo Kid]

1. It would be nice to have a president with ANY understanding of history

One of the greatest disappointments of the 2000 debates was the lack of any questions about American history, what the candidates knew about it and what their interpretations were. I suspect Bush would have been exposed as an ignoramus on the subject. Would love to take him on in a Jeopardy-style game about American (or world) history. Doubt he could place the Civil War in the correct half century, let alone explain anything about its causes and effects.

[evil_orange_cat]

2. I agree... I'm hesitant about Clark...

I've heard Clark say that he still believes going into Vietnam was right. That disturbs me. Everything about that war was wrong. The draft, the lies about Tonkin, and the death of nearly 3 million people (including 35,000 Americans)...

I like Clark, but again, I'm hesitant in voting for a guy with such an opinion.

[Eloriel]

4. OMG

Every time I think it can't get worse about Clark, it does.

Where are the Clarkies to try to spin THIS? (Should be entertaining, tho not enlightening, probably.)

Eloriel

[FrenchieCat]

8. Stop trying to come up

with an excuse......you don't need one...you can just love Dean and Hate Clark. Nobody really cares.

In reference to Dean's draft dodging, I guess that it makes for a better President?

Clark didn't say that Vietnam was right....he said that he went to vietnam because duty called and he had quite a few friends that died there. When you are 20 years old and in the service, you might go and fight when they call on you.

Just don't take Clarks words and twist them....he did not say that vietnam was a right war. If you saw that, please give link....otherwise stop making shit up to make your candidate and his lack of military service look better.

[evil_orange_cat]

9. Dean isn't "my candidate"... I like them both...

And I've read Clark's book and paid attention to his public statements regarding Vietnam.

Draft dodging (or a legal deferment) has nothing to do with a President's ability. In fact, I like that Dean had principles and was honest about them.

I don't "like Dean and Hate Clark"... I like them both and will support whoever gets the nomination. But Dean is my favorite right now... with Clark a close second. And I have every right to express my dismay with anything regarding a single candidate. If you want to blow sunshine up Clark's (or Dean's) ass, that's fine... but don't attack other's for their opinions just because your favorite candidate has things that bother people. Instead, engage people in a civil discussion about their hesitations instead of attacking people.

[LeahMira]

16. Yes, it probably does.

In reference to Dean's draft dodging, I guess that it makes for a better President?

Apparently Gov. Dean had a legitimate reason for being excused from service. I certainly don't blame him for taking advantage of that fact to avoid Vietnam.

At the time, not a few young men actually did physical harm to themselves in order to be excused. Many who went to Vietnam wished they had not gone, not because it was hard but because it was wrong.

I would hope that any President would realize that wars are obsolete. They resolve nothing, they protect nothing, and they certainly improve nothing. With the weaponry available now, a war could extinguish all life on earth. A helluva lot of good it will do anyone to "win" when no one is left alive on the planet.

I see in the morning news that Shrub wants to go to the moon and then on to Mars. Perhaps he imagines that he will be safe there when the earth is no more? Send him now, and his PNAC buddies with him. Clearly, the whole crew of them have no clue about how to negotiate, compromise, and work out differences respectfully. Any candidate I vote for will have to know how to do those things, because war is no longer an option.

[knowledgeispower]

5. It betrays his views toward US foreign policy

He's got no problem with the goals of even the current administration. His only beef with the Bushies was HOW they went about the war in Iraq, not the war itself. There are a number of things I like about Clark, first and foremost being that he would beat the snot out of W in a general election, but I don't want a Republican hawk to be replaced by a Democratic hawk. All you accomplish with that is a friendlier face on the same (foreign) policy.

[TLM]

14. Bingo... then add to that the fact that CLark was a lobbyist

who worked for and with some very questionable people doing some very questionable things, and I do not want him in the white house.


Although I do think he would be an OK sec of defense... because that's a position where you really want a hawk.

[retread]

6. Link????

*

[MnFats]

23. actually, the number of Americans killed in Vietnam...

...was about 58,000.
Roughly half of them came after Nixon, through Kissinger, sabotaged the negotiations that were going on between the Johnson Administration and the North Vietnamese to end the war. Kissinger suggested that NV would get a better deal if they waited until after the election.....more blood on Kissinger's hands.
Of course, seven years later, the U.S. accepted terms almost identical to those on the table when Johnson left office.

but then Ronald Reagan proclaimed it a "noble cause."

[RichM]

3. Good point. Certainly the format (60 second response, then BUZZ!)

makes that type of probing discussion virtually impossible... Which is exactly what's intended.

[knowledgeispower]

7. I'm not sure it was "intended" but rather a fortunate side effect

A good book to read, if you haven't, is Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death." The intellectual void in the media has really been in the making for a few hundred years (ever since the telegraph was invented, according to Postman). It isn't anything that could have been planned but certain people certainly do benefit from it.

[RichM]

10. Granted. But the mechanism operates like this: even if no one planned

it, the fact that a particular development benefits a ruling class interest, contributes to its being continued & institutionalized. IOW, suppose a spontaneous unplanned cultural development was seen to benefit a WORKING CLASS interest, & was thus harmful to the ruling class. It is likely that "something" would arise to defeat it, or to marginalize it in some way. If the benefit is instead to the ruling class, it tends to gain sponsorship & longevity.

Thus the dumbing-down (& celebrity-worship, and Lacy Peterson stories, etc). No one may have planned it this way originally, but the usefulness of such "journalistic standards" to the ruling class is clear. So they become institutionalized.

[Bombtrack]

11. Vietnam did help end the Cold War, I'd call it a shame not an atrocity

The war in SEA showed the Soviets that we could fight a substained war half a world away and not tax our economy. If only we had better generals and not an edsel car salesman as defense sec. things may have turned out different. Our troops certainly had the will, hardware, and drive to smash the enemy but the DC "suits" ran the war like a corporation and not like a real war. To them it was a game that they played inside the beltway with a micromanager for a President

I do not feel it was worth the lives of 58,000 Americans. Or 2 million Vietnamese. Or the lies.

But I reject the Chomskyite opinion that it(or Iraq) had no rational whatsover other than corporate profits

[evil_orange_cat]

12. baloney! Vietnam gave Communism a shot in the arm!

... as the American's ducked their tales between their legs and left Vietnam. Vietnam only helped Communists feel proud that the great American superpower couldn't even defeat a country of peasants carrying supplies on their backs through the jungles. America dropped more bombs on Vietnam than every other war combined. And what did it get us? NOTHING

The Soviet Union collapsed because of corruption and because it couldn't sustain it's military. Authoritarian regimes always crumble.

And 3 million+ deaths for a war based on lies IS an Atrocity. If it isn't than I don't know what is...

[LeahMira]

19. Vietnam gave the Vietnamese a shot in the arm.

Vietnam only helped Communists feel proud that the great American superpower couldn't even defeat a country of peasants carrying supplies on their backs through the jungles.

And I think Iraq is going to give the Iraqis a shot in the arm (if that's your favorite metaphor) because they knew all along that they couldn't possibly win against our bombs but they can win by taking our soldiers out a few at a time.

It's really amazing when you think about it. These guerillas know that probably they are going to die, yet they would rather die than live under U.S. control. Shrub is all about bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East, yet the people would rather die than have what we have. Either someone is really not communicating, or what we have is just not that great.

[RichM]

20. Iraqis are not being offered "what we have." For them, it's not a choice

of having what we have, or fighting. It's a choice of fighting, or having their country used as a US military base, while we steal all their natural resources and control their entire government.

[RichM]

18. An amazing opinion. You think that murdering millions of civilians & using

chemical weapons to poison millions of acres of their land was in a sense justified, because it made some sort of point to the Soviets? Isn't that a rather steep price to pay, just to make a point?

And you don't think the Vietnam war "taxed our economy?" Any simple review of the economics of the late '60's and 1970's would demonstrate otherwise.

You seem to be of the camp that believes the main problem with the Vietnam war was that "we didn't win." :eyes:

[TLM]

13. It makes me sick to see so many so called democrats...

Using lack of service in nam as a way to attack other dems. I do not want anybody in the white house who thinks that it was wrong to refuse or avoid going to vietnam.

[Pastiche423]

15. Thank you for this poll, RichM

This really needs/ed to be brought up and spotlighted.

Having served/not served in VN as a litmus test for the presidency has made me ill. It is especially nauseous hearing it from DUers old enough to have experienced it.

But the topper for me, is a candidate that still revels in it and promotes it as a good thing.

There was not one friggen good thing about the Viet Nam War!

[KG]

17. well said.

[ajacobson]

21. Attention Attention

It has been announced on DU that some people who don't like Clark, have never liked Clark, don't like anyone who does like Clark, STILL don't like Clark.

Shocking.

This breaking news message will repeat as as the need arises, which is approximately every two minutes until the Democratic National Convention.

[Pastiche423]

22. "Attention Attention"

It has been announced on DU that some people who don't like the Viet Nam War, have never liked the Viet Nam War, don't like anyone who does like the Viet Nam War, STILL don't like the Viet Nam War.

Shocking.

This breaking news message will repeat as as the need arises, which is approximately every two minutes until the Democratic National Convention.

[KG]

24. gee. i don't see clarks name in that post.

i see a post about the VN war.

but a rabid attack by a clarkie, well, that isn't shocking at all.