Reps/Dems switch positions on Vietnam?

[Tonio]

Christopher Hitchens

So the Swift Boat Veterans seem to be describing Vietnam as an unjust war in order to denounce Kerry, while the Democrats seem to describe Vietnam as a noble cause in order to boost Kerry. Weird.

 

[vraiblonde]

What Republican is calling Vietnam an unjust war?

 

[Tonio]

What Republican is calling Vietnam an unjust war?

No one is, explicity. But the Swift Boat Veterans are using Kerry's 1971 testimony about atrocities against him. I thought I would NEVER see a conservative or Republican-allied organization admit that those things took place. As recently as 20 years ago, those type of groups dismissed that stuff as anti-American propaganda put out by the Commies, and groups on the other side would never have called Vietnam a noble cause.

 

[grandpa]

Tonio, I will have to say that atrocities happen in (ALL) wars.

Now , let me say that we (Americans, the good guys , don't do it)
Get real, look at your morning newspaper -It happens in Washington DC every day of the year. People kill people!

The real diffrence is in how we are raised. We tend to believe that human life is a blessing and is worth something. In other societies, life is just a passage to a better time.Killing someone just helps them along the way.

We have (nuts) here, just the same as they have nuts there. Do our crazies
have more morals than theirs? Good question.

What I am trying to say is , in the heat of battle ,who is a (crazed nut) or a hero that saved lives by taking a life.

Pick your war , the same things always happen , and depending on which your political leanings , are just , or condemed.
The conflict that I was in , is being raked over the coals for the um-teenth time.

Why don't we put this period behind us?

 

[Ken King]

Tonio, I will have to say that atrocities happen in (ALL) wars.

Now , let me say that we (Americans, the good guys , don't do it)
Get real, look at your morning newspaper -It happens in Washington DC every day of the year. People kill people!

The real diffrence is in how we are raised. We tend to believe that human life is a blessing and is worth something. In other societies, life is just a passage to a better time.Killing someone just helps them along the way.

We have (nuts) here, just the same as they have nuts there. Do our crazies
have more morals than theirs? Good question.

What I am trying to say is , in the heat of battle ,who is a (crazed nut) or a hero that saved lives by taking a life.

Pick your war , the same things always happen , and depending on which your political leanings , are just , or condemed.
The conflict that I was in , is being raked over the coals for the um-teenth time.

Why don't we put this period behind us?

I had thought that it was behind us also, but someone made it significant again. Right JFK? We hadn't heard much about it for four or so years until it was a topic during the Democratic race to the convention as they once again bashed Bush's Guard duty and had that lame retro convention as if they wanted to go back in time to the days of Carter.

 

[Penn]

Having read the article posted, I have to echo the question put forth by the author:

"John Kerry claims to have shot a fleeing Viet Cong soldier from the riverbank, something that I personally would have kept very quiet about. He used to claim that he was a witness to, and almost a participant in, much worse than that.
So what if he has been telling the absolute truth all along? In what sense, in other words, does his participation in a shameful war qualify him to be president of the United States? "
_________________________________________________________________

What part of his service in Viet Nam would singularly qualify him to be our Commander-in Chief?

Since the time he quit that conflict, what has he done to deserve the nation's highest office?

Does going over to France and participating in anti-war protests, while still in the US Navy, qualify him?

Would joining a Anti-war movement, such as VVAW, and going up to the Washington Mall, tossing away those medals he so preciously coveted, would that qualify him?

Would his voting record as a US Senator in the last 23 years - raising taxes, underfunding our intelligence apparatus, voting against military weapons our soldiers need to defend our land, qualify him?

Just what has J.F Kerry done to deserve our vote?

I've looked high and low, east to, well whoa there, (the left coast), and I'm at a loss why he thinks he should be qualified for anything higher than a Johnboat.

 

[Tonio]

Grandpa, thanks for your thoughts about war. You're absolutely right that we need to put this period behind us. The baby-boom generation hasn't done that, and it remains bitterly divided over the war almost 40 years later. That was part of the point I was originally trying to make. My other point was that the left and right seem to have switched positions on the war.

 

[SamSpade]

My other point was that the left and right seem to have switched positions on the war.

And I disagree. Thus far I haven't heard any Republican suggest that Vietnam was unjust. I think maybe it has a lot to do with what you think of war and military service.

Kerry's admission of guilt in taking part in war crimes depicts the typical viewpoint in his day by those on his side - that committing war crimes by individual soldiers reflects badly on the *war* and on those who sent them there.

I don't. I think it reflects badly on the character of the soldier. If he does those kinds of things, he should be court-martialed and shot. These are crimes, and not only are soldiers instructed not to do them, any human being with an ounce of character and moral fiber will fight it. Some things are always unacceptable. Ask Lt. William Calley. Ask Adolf Eichmann (well, you CAN'T, because he was put to death, but I thought I'd add it in there).

So now we have a man who said "hey, I committed those war crimes and I want to be President" and conservatives are saying "you have GOT to be *kidding* me. Who let YOU loose?".

It has NOTHING to do with the 'justness' of Vietnam.

 

[ylexot]

I think SamSpade summed it up pretty well.

 

[Tonio]

Thus far I haven't heard any Republican suggest that Vietnam was unjust. I think maybe it has a lot to do with what you think of war and military service.

Kerry's admission of guilt in taking part in war crimes depicts the typical viewpoint in his day by those on his side - that committing war crimes by individual soldiers reflects badly on the *war* and on those who sent them there.

I don't. I think it reflects badly on the character of the soldier.

I agree with you about character. Still, during Vietnam many on the right were claiming that any accusation of war crimes by American soliders was unAmerican, because "our clean-cut boys wouldn't do that." And many on the left were using the war crimes to claim that the war itself was unjust. Both were extreme viewpoints, sure. That proves your point about perspectives of war and military service.

When the Swift Boat group brought up Kerry's admission of guilt, I would have expected the left to scream, "Aha! So you admit the war was wrong!" even though that isn't what the group is saying. And when Kerry began running on his military record, I expected the right to scream, "Aha! So you admit the war was right!"

 

[jlabsher]

I agree with you about character. Still, during Vietnam many on the right were claiming that any accusation of war crimes by American soliders was unAmerican, because "our clean-cut boys wouldn't do that." And many on the left were using the war crimes to claim that the war itself was unjust. Both were extreme viewpoints, sure. That proves your point about perspectives of war and military service.

When the Swift Boat group brought up Kerry's admission of guilt, I would have expected the left to scream, "Aha! So you admit the war was wrong!" even though that isn't what the group is saying. And when Kerry began running on his military record, I expected the right to scream, "Aha! So you admit the war was right!"

Yeah, interesting take, I remember those days when the left said any soldier was a baby killer and the right said if you didn't support the war you were a commie. Now the tide has turned, it is interesting to see the chain of events that caused this.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yeah, interesting take, I remember those days when the left said any soldier was a baby killer and the right said if you didn't support the war you were a commie. Now the tide has turned, it is interesting to see the chain of events that caused this.

I don't understand why you say this. As far as I can see, the liberals are still anti-war and the conservatives are for kicking the collective asses of anyone who messes with us.

 

[Tonio]

As far as I can see, the liberals are still anti-war and the conservatives are for kicking the collective asses of anyone who messes with us.

Seems that way for any current war, doesn't it? It was that way for Desert Storm and it's that way for Iraq.

 

[ylexot]

I haven't seen anybody, right or left, saying anything about the right or wrong of Vietnam. It's all about Kerry and his character.

 

[jlabsher]

Kerry has come out sword rattling to prove he isn't weak on terror. The republicans countered with the fact that he shot a kid in nam. So it is kind of a switch from what was happening 35 years ago when the left was totally anti-war (remember McGovern) and the right was totally kill them all (remember Goldwater).

I know it is just campaign rhetoric, but it is an interesting study in how things change. And I will agree that on a whole the left & right haven't changed that much, only the current campaign rhetoric has.

 

[itsbob]

I don't understand why you say this. As far as I can see, the liberals are still anti-war and the conservatives are for kicking the collective asses of anyone who messes with us.

Along that line.. the dems are making a BIG deal about OUR presidents rating overseas.. Like how our president has a 5% approval rating in GREECE!! I say GOOD job, he's not working for GREECE he's working for us, and if he pisses off 10 million greeks. SO WHAT!! I'm thinking that Bush's approval rating in places like IRAN, SYRIA, LIBYA N KOREA are at an all time low too.. and ALL would be supporting Kerry for president.. THAT should be a CLUE as to who should be president...

 

[ylexot]

Kerry has come out sword rattling to prove he isn't weak on terror. The republicans countered with the fact that he shot a kid in nam.

First, that is not what the republicans countered with. Second, it still has nothing to do with Vietnam being right or wrong.

 

[Steve]

I haven't seen anybody, right or left, saying anything about the right or wrong of Vietnam. It's all about Kerry and his character.

I agree, I haven't heard anything, pro or con, about the righteousness of the Vietnam War. The argument today is about the actions of one man while in Vietnam. Concerning Vietnam, I'd like to add a few differences between that era and today's, and the impacts of these differences on the characters of the candidates.

First, Vietnam was fought with a majority of draftees, so most didn't want to be there to begin with. I think it has been established at this point that both Bush and Kerry opted for the lesser of two evils in choosing their military service paths at the tme. They can criticize each other all they want, but they are both somewhat guilty of avoiding a full commitment to supporting the Vietnam effort. Self-preservation was more important to both than was a sense of National duty. But that's a whole other subject.

Second, media communications in that time were sorely lacking in timeliness. Opinions on the issues developed slowly, taking weeks and months to come to fruition. This allowed both supporters and detractors of the War to build their cases using snippets of the truth. Look how many years it took for much of the things that occurred in Vietnam to become known. Contrast this with today, when we get live footage of just about everything from anywhere on the globe, shown on tens of stations with myriad opinions and spin added. Abu Ghraib would have been a footnote in the history of today's Iraq war had it not been for digital cameras and the Internet. Instead, it became instant fodder for anti-war protestors and politicians.

I use this contrast to point out that detractors of the Vietnam War, like Kerry upon his return, were able to build their case against support, by making all kinds of allegations about attrocities, poor command decisions, etc. Proof to the contrary was slow to develop. This allowed Kerry and his ilk (a group very steadfast against the draft because they wanted to protect their butts too!) to sway popular support and opinion regarding Vietnam. He was ultimately successful, of course, as the US pulled out just a few years after his return.

So it's not about Vietnam. It is about the continuing revelations of the character of someone who wants to be "leader of the free world". Has Kerry done enough since Vietnam to merit that title? Personally, I am sick of hearing about swift boats, the Mekong Delta, Cambodia, and all of it. But if Kerry continues to stick with the Vietnam approach, I really do think that it will hurt him in the end.

 

[Sparx]

Along that line.. the dems are making a BIG deal about OUR presidents rating overseas.. Like how our president has a 5% approval rating in GREECE!! I say GOOD job, he's not working for GREECE he's working for us, and if he pisses off 10 million greeks. SO WHAT!! I'm thinking that Bush's approval rating in places like IRAN, SYRIA, LIBYA N KOREA are at an all time low too.. and ALL would be supporting Kerry for president.. THAT should be a CLUE as to who should be president...

This doesn't fit into daddy bush's New World Order philosophy.

It's becoming a global economy and we DO need to keep good relations with non-communist countries for the war on terrorism and many other subjects.

And to Vrai, not all Dems hate war. We DO need to kick ass on terrorists and communists but Iraq did nothing but be beligerant with weapons inspectors. They had nothing to hide and now it's proven. But here we are at war anyway.

 

[Larry Gude]

jlab!!!!!!

Kerry has come out sword rattling to prove he isn't weak on terror.

How can you say that with a straight keyboard?

If that was Kerry's goal then he is dumber than previously thought!

John Kerry has GOT to know that the middle of the roaders, the people who decide elections are going to be far more interested in what he's done lately.

They are the LAST group who will give a rats ass about Nam. The right and left are already set REGARDLESS of 1968 or whatever year it was.

Kerry Co thought they could make hay over this. You must agree that the left has to look upon their own denigration of W's Guard record as dishonest and dishonorable in light of the visceral reaction to the swift guys. At least they are real people making claims and have evidence, not inuendo.

Kerry made a HUGE mistake bringing this up and is now trying to get out of being held responsible.

Kerry is not very bright.