'Reversing the Vietnam Verdict'

[Velothi]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=31296

Long story short - Obama is wanting to glorify the veterans of Vietnam "finally" and glorify the entire conflict. Likely as a way to gain more support for the militarism in Iraq and Afghanistan - but it's a real sickening event.

One of the Wars where we basically said 'Screw you' to the Self-Determination of Vietnam and caused far more harm than 'good'.

And your thoughts?

[Frost Mage]

The entire ideal makes my brain hurt, like most other "we're sorry we killed thousands of your people, here's a coupon to Applebee's" situations. It's a very nice thought, but honestly, the damage has been done, and while this will undoubtedly help the president, it just kind of makes me laugh, even though it does make sense, I suppose.

[Eltee]

I always find it so funny that the communist government of North Vietnam that was so demonized by the Americans, after the war, crafted Vietnam into SE Asia's most progressive and economically stable nation.

[Frost Mage]

America: The original motivation to get your economy going.

[MARS]

Communism is bad mmkay? They're red and red's the devil's colour!

[Eltee]

Pfft. Only devil's colour is Tyrian purple.

[MARS]

YOU'RE WORKING WITH THEM!

[Frost Mage]

Communism is bad mmkay? They're red and red's the devil's colour!

Those horrible things they're doing to North Korea. We should force our capitalism on them until they realize that they're plans are terrible! Plus, we have better colors.

[Eltee]

What's better than red, white and blue?

[MARS]

I need to get better at political satire. I'm just making fun of America's kokkinophobia.

[Frost Mage]

What's better than red, white and blue?

All of them are all the best together. *group hug*

Except for those Afghans, those people are crazy.

[Will Zurmacht]

Obama is wanting to glorify... Vietnam.... as a way to gain more support for the militarism in Iraq and Afghanistan...

My reaction when you apparently didn't know that Obama authorized and completed the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq last year, finally coming through on a campaign pledge that was part of the reason he got elected.

Spoiler:

And then announced the timetable for a complete 2014 withdrawal from Afghanistan as well. He's trying to gain support by demilitarizing the theaters of war, and shifting to special forces action and international policing to control terrorism. Exactly what he argued years ago that Bush should have done instead of invade Iraq.

[Eltee]

One does not argue with Velothi's vaguely propaganda-esque OPs!

[Frost Mage]

One does not argue with Velothi's vaguely propaganda-esque OPs!

Propaganda? The propaganda would to NOT take into consideration Velothi's thoughts.

[Velothi]

My reaction when you apparently didn't know that Obama authorized and completed the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq last year, finally coming through on a campaign pledge that was part of the reason he got elected.

Yeah. Except for those Military Contractors, right? And those bases.

And the fact that the fact he got troops out of Iraq seems to be more from the losing in Iraq as well as the population is not really liking the War.

So I really doubt that withdrawl of American troops in Iraq really equates to 'he's totally against Militantism!'.

Yeah. Let me tell Libyan citizens that, while their nation is still burning and under the lead (barely) through genocidal libyans. They'll love it. 8D

And then announced the timetable for a complete 2014 withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.

Now by complete do you mean completely all military installations, no military presence at all or are you BSing and complete merely means we don't have a military presence of regular ground troops?

Please inform me. This sounds like Gaul.

He's trying to gain support by demilitarizing the theaters of war

Not really. This is more so to gain support to re-militarize or at least glorify the old actions of the Empire.

If he really wanted to gain support by demilitarization of various theaters, I think he'd demilitarize Korea, Columbia, our various bases in Kazakhstan and so forth.

That and I don't think this little speech is 'anti-war' central.

"[E]ven though some Americans turned their back on you — you never turned your back on America.... And let's remember all those Vietnam veterans who came back and served again — in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You did not stop serving."

Yeah! Turned their back on - hey wait...

and shifting to special forces action and international policing to control terrorism.

Which is why we supported the Libyan rebels and Syrian rebels, both of which have ties and support from Al-qeada?

I must check the definition of control terrorism, pardon me for a moment.

[Frost Mage]

You guys keep satire-ing, I'll be back in about 7 hours... *snore* <-- American politics.

[Taters]

We went to war, among other things, to stop the spread of Communism into Thailand, an ally. Well, even after pulling out when we "lost", that didn't happen. Instead, with the support of the North Vietnamese government, it spread into Cambodia, killing 2 million in a bloody genocide, so I guess Communism's ok after all.

[Will Zurmacht]

Obama is wanting to glorify... Vietnam.... as a way to gain more support for the militarism in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Obama is wanting to glorify... Vietnam.... as a way to gain more support for the militarism in Iraq and Afghanistan...

For reference, this was the core mistaken claim, and the claim responded to, not any irrelevancies about Syria, Libya, Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, ancient Roman provinces etc. Seeing as my rebuttal wasn't seriously responded to, I've completed my tour of duty in this thread. Further, I'm not for expanding threads about pretty specific issues (Vietnam and/or Obama's exploitation of the memory thereof for current political gain) into huge generic "whatever I don't happen to like about American foreign policy during the last 100 years" threads. Though, I'd be happy to demolish any similar half-baked statements made in an appropriate thread designed to discuss all the broader issues. Why not start one sometime, and bring all your beef with and resentment of the US? I'd humor you.

[Velothi]

Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Your Borat references wound me.

For reference, this was the core mistaken claim,

That would be the only reason doing this, as basically doing a 'the Veterans gladly served America in Vietnam, were very much mistreated and should be supported through any endevour' is only to be used to get back into the Jingoistic feel of 'Empire'.

And I sincerely doubt he genuinely cares about the troops or their Shell Shock/PTSD.

Why not start one sometime, and bring all your beef with and resentment of the US?

'Discussions toward US Imperialism, Genocide and War ambitions in the past centuries'.

Or maybe 'Discussions on US Imperialism in the 21st century'.

Maybe those are too broad...

"whatever I don't happen to like about American foreign policy during the last 100 years" threads.

Completely referenced in my response to 21st century and 20th century foreign policies not a century apart from each other.

Seeing as my rebuttal wasn't seriously responded to,

Then here's a serious rebuttal.

First - please give a definition of 'Complete Withdrawal'.

Second - If we are to assume we've completely withdrawn from Iraq, then how come we still have a military presence (bases, contractors and so forth) within Iraq. This contradicts with 'complete', and thus it's incomplete. With can say a standard withdrawal as taken place. Where normal ground troops are no longer on the ground.

Unless there is contrary evidence.

Second - he hijacked the anti-war movement to gain support, yes. However, he has not demilitarized warzones or theaters. He has just barely demilitarized Iraq. (The beginning process of it)

If he really wanted to demilitarize - then we wouldn't have troops in Korea, Japan, Columbia, round CAR and DRC, Kazakhstan, and so forth.

So his reasoning of being elected was merely (as the internet says) bandwagoning then abandoning when he got in power.

All Iraq is a 'oh look I kinda did my goal'.

Now my remark towards 'to control terrorism' is that we have not controlled terrorism at all. Rather let it expand, using Reagan's 'Good terrorists' and 'bad Terrorists' mind-set is hardly what I'd call 'controlling terrorism'. So I apologize if I wasn't serious at a not-so-serious statement that had little support.

We went to war, among other things, to stop the spread of Communism into Thailand, an ally.

More so we sent military advisers to South Vietnam to 'help' them with some guerilla incursions. Then we happened to 'get into' the Vietnam War of a Dictatorship in the South vs. the North. We then spent many years prior making Vietnam to submit to french rule and then to our rule.

With Cambodia - we didn't really help by bombing the industrial centers allowing Pol Pot to send the people to the rural areas and leading to all type of crap.

Hell Lon Nol (our temporary sponsored dictator) did more to screw up Cambodia and place it in the position that allowed the Khmer Rouge to take control.

[Will Zurmacht]

Thanks, Velothi; that gives me more to work with. I'll respond in a proper fashion in the near future with links, arguments, and what have you, but some things are happening over the weekend that will delay this.

'Discussions toward US Imperialism, Genocide and War ambitions in the past centuries'.

Or maybe 'Discussions on US Imperialism in the 21st century'.

Maybe those are too broad...

Sounds good. Perhaps the broader the better, so the topic can tolerate more fun tangents.

[Avron the S'wit]

I just want to remind everyone that the moderator squad would appreciate serious comments in threads like this. We've all been a little lazy lately but the s'wit is getting grumpy. Or is that just because my coffee is cold? Well, regardless, let's not "post for the sake of posting" and that, if you would be so kind!

Governments and militaries make mistakes; it's the old cliche of history. The Turks could have had Vienna, you know, but we did get croissants out of it so it can't be all bad. Anyhow. The situation was tragic but our troops did still go where they were asked and do what they had to do. I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging the fact they did their job. That's what the military is, after all...a job.

[House of the Wolf]

And, in Vietnam, many of the soldiers that served were drafted, and most of them fought hard and bravely in nightmarish conditions. What we are, now, officially recognizing is that they were severely mistreated when they returned home by everyone swept-up in the emotions of the time. As Avron said, they did what they were asked to do, and many died for it. I see absolutely nothing wrong commemorating their bravery and service.

And Velothi, it's not as though the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan, themselves, or sell their own weapons to despots and factious groups in other countries, right? Again, as Avron stated, people make mistakes; the more responsibility a person, or group, is awarded, the bigger the mistakes they are likely to make. The Cold War saw two superpowers making a lot of daft maneuvers and decisions. Modern times, post-Cold War, see both sides severely compromised by corruption and capitalistic interests making more of the same mistakes--in different ways.

[Dark Lord Cam]

I see nothing wrong with a warrior culture and honoring the fallen and the old heroes. I only see the wrong in politicians using such ideals for political gain.

Velothi, I understand that you know the US has made many mistakes, but why are you talking about it here? Go and do something in real life. Be an activist. Protest, or something. Talking about it here does about as much good as Romney.

[Velothi]

Talking about it here does about as much good as Romney.

I honestly must say the election is so bland now.

Go and do something in real life. Be an activist. Protest, or something

Attempts at this now, talk with friends about it and so forth. However it requires time, effort, and obviously experience. I attempted an SDS. It failed so I went with the BHO and Humanitarian club and participated within those organizations.

Occasionally go with those christian Six-Stones things.

However - it's doesn't mean I can't speak about it here when I'm bored or felt it needs to be talked about.

it's not as though the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan,

Actually interesting story with that - the DRA asked the USSR several times to come in and send aid to them. However they rejected several times. Until they finally did proceed in and began to modernize the Afghan Army.

This is a difference between the Soviets going into Afghanistan and the Americans into Vietnam. That and not making Afghanistan go back to its colonial overlords is also a biggie.

Again, as Avron stated, people make mistakes;

I am really critical about mistakes that usually result in a million innocent deaths and supporting of a military dictatorship that is not worth defending.

So pardon me while I don't "forgive" a mistake that screwed up Vietnam and the same "mistakes" to screw up Korea, South America and Europe itself. Be it with countless lives lost (around millions repressed or killed depending on which region you inquire) or supporting of military dictatorships on the securing those markets and preventing any type of political opposition that resembles a left-wing movement.

The Turks could have had Vienna, you know,..

You confuse military defeat and mistakes made on the battlefield with actual orders of killing innocents or bombing locations that either had ties with Vietcong activity or to actually flush Vietcong units out.

To be more accurate with the actual situation you'd be trying to tell me the Armenian genocide was a "mistake" on behalf on the Ottomans.

Not a battle with the Habsburgs. That goes into line with military mistakes that cost the day - like with Hannibal and Varro.

but some things are happening over the weekend that will delay this.

Alright. I'ma be waiting. And hopefully said things are not bad things, are they?

The situation was tragic but our troops did still go where they were asked and do what they had to do.

At the near cost of Vietnam Self-determination, many Vietnamese innocent lives, several thousand troops lives and more mental conditions on a war that was more 'Terrorist' and 'Imperialist' towards the Vietnamese people than any pre-supposed threat Vietnam held against the US.

Honestly that argument can be turned on its head if we go into the Ohio National Guard and the Kent State Massacre. An event which we don't talk about much.

It honestly does not matter if they did what 'they had to do'. This 'deed' concerns with killing and fighting in a war that was a suppression of a people. A nation. (forcibly divided none the less!) Honestly that makes the 'deed' all the more controversial and not to be 'honored'.

It'd be like me stating we should completely honor the Roman sack of Carthage. Why? Because it had to be done to take out the Carthaginians. They had no other choice.

I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging the fact they did their job.

It's more so with the fact they're indirectly saying Vietnam should not have been opposed and neither should the soldiers who participated in it. (Despite the fact more soldiers were against it and joined in with the anti-war movement) It's the fact Obama is using the veterans and the war as a way to appeal to both conservative militants but also show he's not 'afraid' to stand up for American Jingoism.

This is ignoring what the job was of course. Honestly, the way to give respect to the veterans of Vietnam? Make sure the future youth doesn't have to go into a meaningless, brutal and destructive war that destroyed their lives.

Not give them this 'Honor Parade' and 'Honor' as if they saved the world and didn't get their just dues. As if this entire thing is a 'We should honor our veterans more!'. It becomes a 'Let me pull an Octavian' maneuver. And not even a Good-Octavian.

[JimDaniels]

May I ask how old you are Velothi? (just beause I'm curious) Firstly, Only an idiot could seek to "glorify" a war. Honouring the servicemen who were basically forced to go to said war under the treath of imprisonment however, is NOT glorifying a war, It is, however, a small way of attempting to acknowledge that the system/government/state/nation had failed these men in its treatment of them after the war.
No veteran wants to be glorified. but also no veteran wants to have their sacrifice forgotten and worse, demonised by the very people they believed they were directly protecting by fighting. Be under no illusion, communism was a very big treath to everyday americans in the 50's/60's and even upto the 80's. Government propaganda saw to this.
I do not support war. the conscripted soldiers, sailors and airmen/women who fought in these wars did not make the decision to go to war, nor did they make the decision to start the war. They went where they were told because they were were told to. Looking after it's veterans is a key responsibility of all governments, unfortunately, many governments and citizens tend to forget that veterans are men and women, with names and faces and families, and friends. they are people who need support and help at times. They should not be forgotten or demonised just because the government at the time made them go to a place they shouldn't have been.


*edit* as long as there is capitalism, there will be war. and no war is "meaningless" to a soldier who has lost his/her friends, or a family who has lost their son/brother/father etc.