Should the Vietnam War matter to us now?

[NDP]

Specifically, is the stance someone took on the Vietnam War (pro or con) during the 60's and 70's relevant to American voters now (particularly those born after 1975)?

I've noticed that during the whole debate regarding Bush's and Kerry's comparative service records during Vietnam, many conservatives have attacked Kerry's public opposition to the war in an effort to devalue Kerry's military record. This has made me wonder what's the expiration date on this issue anyway? The Vietnam War ended in 1975. The Cold War (the central conflict from which it sprang) ended in 1989. The Soviet Union (America's primary opponent in the Cold War) dissolved in 1991. Our current enemies are not in any way taken with doctrines of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Still, Vietnam has apparently become the "bloody shirt" of the late 20th and early 21st century.

Let's discuss.

[elucidator]

If for no other reason, this: that those who will not learn from history are doomed to make other people repeat it.

[pantom]

That, and if you've ever read All Quiet on the Western Front, you'll notice the tendency for those who never experienced war to be more enthusiastic about it than those who did.
Disclaimer: the closest I ever came to war was on 9/11, first watching those buildings collapse right before my eyes, then having to see the smoke rise from those holes for months afterwards from my office window. That's as close as I ever want to come, and as close as I want anyone else to come also, absent a truly urgent and unavoidable necessity.

[Squink]

I've noticed that during the whole debate regarding Bush's and Kerry's comparative service records during Vietnam, many conservatives have attacked Kerry's public opposition to the war in an effort to devalue Kerry's military record. Thus proving the old adage that those who fail to learn from past damn fool wars are doomed to repeat them.

[Blake]

you'll notice the tendency for those who never experienced war to be more enthusiastic about it than those who did.

Like those old peaceniks Mao and Hitler.

I doubt there is much truth in that statement in reality. Many ex soldiers have been incredibly gung-ho while many people who have never been to war never went precisely because they did object.


I got the impression form AQOTWF that the enthusiasm came more from those old men who were unable to fight than from those who had never been generally. The women especially were portrayed as universally hating war.

[Spavined Gelding]

For those of us well into our middle age and approaching geezerhood, the war in Vietnam (1965-1973) is a sort of rite of passage. Some of us went because we thought we had a duty to go, just as our fathers had gone in 1943, and some of us suppressed convictions that the war was foolish and ill advised in doing so. Some of us answered when our government called us thinking we had a duty to do so, and some of us answerer that call because we lacked the moral courage to refuse to go. Some of us connived and string pulled to pretend that we going when in fact we were not going. Some of us refused to go, accepting exile or criminal prosecution as the better course. Lots of us took the course of pretense and many more would have gone that way if they could have. Regrettably our President took the course of pretense. Senator Kerry did not. Each had his own reasons.

For many of us of a certain age, Vietnam marks the time of a great winnowing. Those of us who lived through that time each have an idea of what choice marks the chaff and which the grain. It was a time of character testing. Each of us has an opinion of the character revealed by the choices made.

Some of us are saddened when we see men and women in the same uniform we once wore, wearing the unit insignia we once wore, serve in a strange place, separated from their families and communities, their lives put on hold, out of a sense of duty and responsibility in order to participate in what might be reasonably thought to be a foolish and ill advised national adventure instigated by middle aged men who made the choice of self preservation some 30 years ago.

That's why Vietnam is important. That's why it's legitimate to ask an aspirant to a public office of honor and profit, what did you do in the war, Buck-o. It 's not the only question but it's a legitimate question.

[Zoe]

It's important to know that there were no easy lines drawn. Those who protested the war still grieve for long dead friends.

It is important to know that even seemingly decent men tell cowardly lies that kill masses of human beings.

I don't blame Bush for joining the Guard. The instinct toward self-preservation during this particular war is very understandable. And I certainly think that John Kerry has more than paid his dues to be able to speak his opinions fully.

As far as that goes, the Revolutionaries took care of that for all of us.

[askeptic]

Damn, I knew there was a reason I liked you !


Blake: you are not a vet, huh?

To All.: You bet your ass the vietnam war is important. I wan't make it clear that I have as much respect for those people who refused to join the military for reasons of principle, as I do for the brave men and women who served. The issue confronting us today is one of character. Did George Bush do his duty. Had he not made it an issue by strutting around on an Aircraft Carrier, and had he not tried to claim the moral high ground by claiming honorable military service then vietnam era service would not be an issue. The issue is that HE FUCKING LIED.

[TheQuagmire]

. Did George Bush do his duty. Had he not made it an issue by strutting around on an Aircraft Carrier, and had he not tried to claim the moral high ground by claiming honorable military service then vietnam era service would not be an issue. The issue is that HE FUCKING LIED.
I view Bush in the same contemptous light that I do people who claim to be war heros and wear fake medals at vet conventions. People like Dubya must "create" an image in order to sell themselves to the American people because real courage and honor is a mystery to them. They want to live vicariously through those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice and laid down their lives. It's even more disgusting that he's doing it for political reasons but that's another topic really.

[NDP]

Reviving this thread because, now that the SBVT claim that Kerry obtained his medals through dubious means is collapsing when confronted by the facts, the Bush backers are now emphasizing Kerry's vocal opposition to the Vietnam War during the 70's in order to discredit him. This shift in rightwing tactics has me again wondering, aside from the question of whether a person served in the war or not, why one's position on Vietnam in the 60's and 70's should matter today. What relevance does a politician's stance on a war that ended nearly 30 years ago have to a voter born after 1970?

(I hope I'm not being too insensitive in my phrasing of this issue.)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

While the question of whether the Viet Nam war does or should have bearing on our thinking and actions today is a worthwhile one, I would like to suggest that it should not be confused with the current smear campaign being conducted by the compassionate conservative himself. Do not think for a moment that Bush/Rove is really concerned about the Truth about Viet Nam. It is simply a target of opportunity for smears, and if Kerry had a history noteworthy for service in the Peace Corps, we would be hearing about how he nailed some indiginous girls or pilfered the petty cash box.

I read a quote earlier today from someone in the Bush campaign from back in the end of 2003, saying that they would be targeting Kerry's war record. Don't believe this BS about how he brought it on himself.

[furt]

What relevance does a politician's stance on a war that ended nearly 30 years ago have to a voter born after 1970?Little, if any. I was born in '70, but if I was born in 1950 I might have dodged the draft, too. Who knows. I'm not going to vote for or against someone for something they did before I was born. Frankly, the slim chance I had of voting for Kerry expired when I saw he decided Vietnam was his best attribute. If he's not impressed by his more recent efforts, why the hell should I be?

I'm amazed that the Kerry campaign didn't see this coming; if nothing else they had to know that Kerry's post-active-duty anti-war activities would be recounted, and that some vets would still be angry 30 years later. Whoever is in charge of "oppo research" ought to be fired.

[Rashak Mani]

Well I guess the first moment Bush might have thought of bringing up Kerry' vietnam service was to reinforce the "flip flop" mantra... by claiming that Kerry wants to be a war hero and war protestor as well. Bush by reinforcing his "attachment" to the military with Aircraft Carrier gimmicks... speeches with neatly lined up soldiers behind him.... etc... brought the whole military image to the forefront of the presidential race.

Clinton was a draft dodger too... but he wasn't enthusiastic about War like Bush... that is the big difference. There is a perception that Bush is callous about casualties and more than a little high on being "war" president. Kerry by being a war hero in theory would be more careful about how the troops are exposed to danger.

In the end the issue isn't Vietnam but the perceived morals and honor of both candidates.

[elucidator]

Thus proving the old adage that those who fail to learn from past damn fool wars are doomed to repeat them.

I wish. They fail to learn, and we are the ones doomed to repeat it.

[Declan]

Specifically, is the stance someone took on the Vietnam War (pro or con) during the 60's and 70's relevant to American voters now (particularly those born after 1975)?

Not particularly people born after the war , all you might see is the character or either of the two candidates, and judge from there.

I've noticed that during the whole debate regarding Bush's and Kerry's comparative service records during Vietnam, many conservatives have attacked Kerry's public opposition to the war in an effort to devalue Kerry's military record.

Back room boys will use anything and everything to win. Winning is not everything , its the only thing. This time its Viet Nam , last time it was Willy Horton

This has made me wonder what's the expiration date on this issue anyway? The Vietnam War ended in 1975.

2020 most likely, but then you might have politicians coming up who served in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom , so it passes like baton in a relay race.

Declan

[elucidator]

"Georgie Tirebiter served with distinction in Grenada, helping to free a couple hundred people from the dreadful tyranny of Whats-his-face.....

Georgie! Tirebiter! He's Not Insane!..."

(with apologies to Firesign Theater....)

[Atticus Finch]

you'll notice the tendency for those who never experienced war to be more enthusiastic about it than those who did.

Like those old peaceniks Mao and Hitler.

I doubt there is much truth in that statement in reality. Many ex soldiers have been incredibly gung-ho while many people who have never been to war never went precisely because they did object.
Wha? Both Mao and Hitler fought in wars - Mao as a guerilla commander against the Japanese and against the Nationalists, Hitler in the front lines during WW1.

[SnakeSpirit]

If for no other reason, this: that those who will not learn from history are doomed to make other people repeat it.
elucidator beat me to it....

that's all

[Dio2112]

I stared at the title of this thread with gaping jaw for an age before hitting the reply button.

Should the Vietnam War matter to us now? Are you kidding me? Is this a joke thread?

As far as I know, there is only 1 member of the Bush inner circle who served in Vietnam, and he is (according to Woodward's book) the only member of that inner circle who urged caution and careful consideration about invading Iraq. Colin Powell saw first hand in Vietnam that overwhelming might doesn't mean you automatically "win". That's the kind of wisdom I would like in my leadership.

We still apparently have no exit plan in Iraq. It is now becoming possible, 16 months after "winning", to entertain serious thoughts that there may have been no exit plan contemplated in the first place.

A candidate who served in Vietnam, and who was aware and active in the political movements that surrounded that war, is armed with experience that is eminently relevant to the current world situation, which is in many ways analogous to the situation around the time of Vietnam.

I truly get the feeling from the American zeitgeist ever since 9/11 that a great portion of our electorate doesn't remember just how threatening Communism seemed to us in the sixties. "Clear and present danger" and "imminent threat" (duck and cover, anyone?) was a cloud that hung over our heads just as ominously (I suggest more so) than terrorism or WMD from a tinpot dictator.

Reasons for applying military force in Vietnam were really quite similar to reasons for applying military force in Iraq (natural resources, indirect threats to us, ensuring markets for western business, humanitarian concerns, etc). Both situations also seemed like no brainer wins due to our overwhelming military advantage. Both situations turned out to be much more challenging than originally envisioned.

The OP suggests to me that much of the electorate thinks the debate over service in Vietnam is all about who was macho and who chickened out. I submit that the question of service in Vietnam is vastly deeper than that. Who has the life experience to evaluate possible outcomes to applications of military force? Who has lived through the repercussions of a plan-gone-wrong? These are very serious, and very relevant questions.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Should the War of 1812 matter?
Should we obsess about it every day, & weigh all of our Political, Diplomatic, Intelligence & Military decisions against it?

How about the War of Spanish Succession? Do we base or decisions on that?
:dubious:

[David Simmons]

That, and if you've ever read All Quiet on the Western Front, you'll notice the tendency for those who never experienced war to be more enthusiastic about it than those who did.


All wars are a pain in the ass - at the very least - including that wonderful, magic, 100% patriotic extravaganza of WWII, . After the war is over we still have to resolve the original problem, such as the existence of terrorists, and in addition to that, solve those that are created by the war.

[NDP]

I stared at the title of this thread with gaping jaw for an age before hitting the reply button.

Should the Vietnam War matter to us now? Are you kidding me? Is this a joke thread?

As far as I know, there is only 1 member of the Bush inner circle who served in Vietnam, and he is (according to Woodward's book) the only member of that inner circle who urged caution and careful consideration about invading Iraq. Colin Powell saw first hand in Vietnam that overwhelming might doesn't mean you automatically "win". That's the kind of wisdom I would like in my leadership.

We still apparently have no exit plan in Iraq. It is now becoming possible, 16 months after "winning", to entertain serious thoughts that there may have been no exit plan contemplated in the first place.

A candidate who served in Vietnam, and who was aware and active in the political movements that surrounded that war, is armed with experience that is eminently relevant to the current world situation, which is in many ways analogous to the situation around the time of Vietnam.

I truly get the feeling from the American zeitgeist ever since 9/11 that a great portion of our electorate doesn't remember just how threatening Communism seemed to us in the sixties. "Clear and present danger" and "imminent threat" (duck and cover, anyone?) was a cloud that hung over our heads just as ominously (I suggest more so) than terrorism or WMD from a tinpot dictator.

Reasons for applying military force in Vietnam were really quite similar to reasons for applying military force in Iraq (natural resources, indirect threats to us, ensuring markets for western business, humanitarian concerns, etc). Both situations also seemed like no brainer wins due to our overwhelming military advantage. Both situations turned out to be much more challenging than originally envisioned.

The OP suggests to me that much of the electorate thinks the debate over service in Vietnam is all about who was macho and who chickened out. I submit that the question of service in Vietnam is vastly deeper than that. Who has the life experience to evaluate possible outcomes to applications of military force? Who has lived through the repercussions of a plan-gone-wrong? These are very serious, and very relevant questions.
I'm sorry if I came off as too glib in my OP but the subject of this thread is not so much about who served in the war and who didn't but instead whether the fact someone opposed the war more than 30 years ago should still be an issue today. It's all but obvious that the real motivating factor behind the anti-Kerry campaign of SBVT and their supporters is not the half-assed accusation that Kerry's medals were fraudulently earned but his public opposition to the Vietnam War. It just seems that a lot of people on the right want to keep fighting the war and refuse to move on. About ten years ago, after Clinton was elected (despite his avoidance of service) and the U.S. resumed diplomatic and economic relations with Vietnam (with the support of former P.O.W. Senator John McCain), I naively thought we were finally putting the whole unpleasant episode behind us, letting our wounds heal, and getting on with the future. Unfortunately, the ugliness and animosity of the smear about Kerry's medals and position on Vietnam seem to indicate otherwise. I'm afraid colunmist David Broder was right when he said that the people when the Boomers end up in nursing homes, they are going to be beating each other over the head with their canes as they lean on their walkers over this issue.

[Dio2112]

About ten years ago, after Clinton was elected (despite his avoidance of service) and the U.S. resumed diplomatic and economic relations with Vietnam (with the support of former P.O.W. Senator John McCain), I naively thought we were finally putting the whole unpleasant episode behind us, letting our wounds heal, and getting on with the future.

So did I. I naively thought that we had learned our national lessons there and were ready to move forward--if nothing else at least we had gained wisdom from the whole horrific experience. I think most citizens felt the same way, hence the fact that service in the military wasn't considered a major election issue in any recent election until this one. 9/11 changed that. We now find ourselves in a militaristic environment, with two wars in the books and the possibility of any number of more wars in the near future.

I recently viewed the documentary on McNamara, "The Fog of War". IIRC, McNamara stated that Vietnam's biggest lesson for him was: never unilaterally undertake a military operation that your allies don't agree with.

Another figure who was intimately involved in that war, Colin Powell, formulated a whole Doctrine about it: never project military power without overwhelming force, clearly stated objectives, and a realistic workable plan for withdrawal.

John Kerry no doubt drew similarly profound lessons from Vietnam. Without knowing his internal thoughts, I can guess at some of them from his public pronouncents:

1) It is not "unpatriotic" to question your government during wartime.

2) It is not "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" to demand openness from your government regarding justifications for war.

3) It is not "betraying the troops" to insist that the Geneva Conventions be followed in prosecuting a war.

4) Wars of "liberation" are likely to be seen differently from the POV of those who are being "liberated", so plan accordingly.

Knowing that my President has been through the ring of fire and has internalized the above lessons (among a great many others) would give me comfort as a citizen in these newly paranoid times.

I am the sort of voter that the Kerry campaign is striving to win over. I voted for Bush in 2000 because he seemed to espouse the principles of conservatism that I have always found sensible. The rush to war after 9/11 alarmed me deeply, but the prospect of a tax-and-spend, wimpy Democrat in the White House was also deeply disturbing. I was well on my way to sitting this election out when the Vietnam stuff started making headlines.

In researching Kerry's service and his anti-war activities, I uncovered a picture of a man that I can feel comfortable with as my President. For example, his 1971 speech to the House Foreign Relations Committee (http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/index.html#1970) shows a man who is thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, moral, and socially aware.

I suppose, given what I've said above, my answer to the OP "Should the Vietnam War matter to us now?" would be, "only if you are struggling with casting an anti-Bush vote and need some hand-holding in making that decision."

[Zoe]

Welcome, Dio2112. Well said.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I want to second what Zoe said, but more to the point tell you that I dig your handle.

[NDP]

I'm sorry but my last sentence came out muddled. It should read:

I'm afraid columnist David Broder was right when he said that when the Boomers are in nursing homes, they are going to be beating each other over the head with their canes over this issue.

[elucidator]

Sneak up behind NDP, jump out yell "Boo!" (I'm a stealth Boomer...)

Sure, I used it already. No, I don't have any shame. So?

[sqweels]

Furt:
I'm amazed that the Kerry campaign didn't see this coming; if nothing else they had to know that Kerry's post-active-duty anti-war activities would be recounted, and that some vets would still be angry 30 years later. Whoever is in charge of "oppo research" ought to be fired.

But thus far it appears that most of the criticism is focused on Kerry's combat record rather than his anti-war activitues. His war record is impeccible, so how could they be expected to have anticipated attacks on it?

Having said that, it's getting to be a slight peeve of mine that occasionlly we spend more time criticizing a candidates campaign tactics than criticizing his positions on issues.

IMO, Kerry is running as an Empty Suit as the ideal alternative to Gilligan The Hun.

[ralph124c]

I think the Vietnam "war" is pretty irrelevant at this stage of the game. I say "war" because it was NOT a declared war. The strange thing about Vietnam was that it was close to being a total disaster..it had no stated goal, no clear strategy, and no benefit (that I am aware of) to the US, in case we "won". Lyndon Johnson seemed to have a death wish about Vietnam-he was told by everyone of his advisors, that getting involved would bring more problems, yet he plunged in, deeper and deeper.
That said, we had a president (Bill Clinton) who used all means at his disposal to avoid serving in Vietnam..people didn't hold that against him-so why should it have any bearing on Bush?
As for the lessons of Vietnam (that Bush should have learned)" if something isn't working, don't repeat the same thing. Wither you decide that this waris worth it (and totally crush the enemy), or you get out!

[Rashak Mani]

That said, we had a president (Bill Clinton) who used all means at his disposal to avoid serving in Vietnam..people didn't hold that against him-so why should it have any bearing on Bush?

I think this came up in many discussions... and though I agree that criticizing Bush but not Clinton for not serving is hypocritical. Still like I said before... its Bush Jr's perceived enthusiasm for War and warmongering ways that contrast heavily with his AWOL and comfy National Guard duty. Clinton did bomb stuff and so forth but wasn't advocating invading other countries for "freedom".

Dio 2112... great stuff you posted... can I copy it ?

[capacitor]

I think Kerry's extending the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's 15 minutes of fame is actually working. Seeing that he is losing support with vets, especially those who have issue with his strident anti-Nam war past, he is using the issue to wedge moderate Republicans, many who happen to be vets, and conservative Republicans apart, so the Republicans slouch into New York next week.

The Republicans have to put Giuliani in prime time, so the free networks will broadcast him.

[Captain Amazing]

it had no stated goal, no clear strategy, and no benefit (that I am aware of) to the US, in case we "won".

Well, we had a stated goal...to prevent the takeover of South Vietnam by North Vietnam/the communists. We also identified benefits from winning...an allied South Vietnam, naval basing at Cam Ranh, and a way to limit Soviet expansion and communist subversion in South East Asia

[Dio2112]

Zoe, Hentor, Rashak, thanks for the welcome. Lots of big brains here, a bit intimidating, but good to be aboard.

sqweels, I am going to shamelessly steal the "Gilligan the Hun" thing if you don't mind, lol.

Rashak, of course you may distribute any comments of mine anywhere. I'm curious though, your location says you are Brazilian. My admittedly weak understanding of international issues and globalism suggests that the US and Brazil don't really interact much. Does the outcome of the US 2004 election actually matter to you? Does it matter to anyone outside of the US who isn't about to get the smackdown, or about to be drawn into "coalition of the smackdown"? Forgive my ignorance.

NDP, not my place to say as a newbie, but thanks for a thread topic good enough to induce thoughtful responses.

Anyone, should I take Elucidator seriously? He is a master of wit, no doubt, as I've noted in my lurking. And he has a lot of posts. Can he bring it? Or does he serve as the court jester?

Carry on...

[Rashak Mani]

Rashak, of course you may distribute any comments of mine anywhere. Does the outcome of the US 2004 election actually matter to you? Does it matter to anyone outside of the US who isn't about to get the smackdown, or about to be drawn into "coalition of the smackdown"? Forgive my ignorance.

Thanks...

The US is the only superpower left. I would warrant that all countries should follow US politics. Economically Bush has been bad too... especially regarding high oil prices. When the USA coughs the world sneezes is a common saying. Brazilians of all classes loathe Bush and come november we hope to comemorate.

Directly Brazil isn't menaced... but intelectually I certainly find Bush abhorent. I majored in International Relations and Bush is wreaking havoc into the system without really making anything good or enduring. I would love to see terrorism stamped out... and instead the flames of islamic hate are being fed. The US as an example of democracy and western civilization is failing badly and giving a boost to the "enemy". (BTW I'm US educated and I do have family in the US.)

Naturally the more paranoid brazilians think that the US and UK want to make the Amazon into some sort of international reserve and see Bush's preemptive doctrines as anathema to sovereignty (sp?).

[China Guy]

but the prospect of a tax-and-spend, wimpy Democrat in the White House was also deeply disturbing. First, very nice post.

Second, a complete hijack but just curious how one can not call the current admin's actual economic policies of slash-taxes-and-jack-up-spending as worse than the liberal stereotype of tax-and-spend

[Eureka2]

Furt:


But thus far it appears that most of the criticism is focused on Kerry's combat record rather than his anti-war activitues. His war record is impeccible, so how could they be expected to have anticipated attacks on it?



Kerry is running as a war hero, so it's not unreasonable for a bit of scrutiny of his war record to be had during a presidential campaign. McGovern never made his war record an issue, for example. In those days, it was just expected that people of his age group had served in the war. It wasn't cause for comment.
Vietnam, of course, changed the dynamic, and Sen. Kerry, along with various other scrofulous types, played a major role in the transformation of popular sentiment about the military, "the establishment", etc., in general that has taken decades to expunge.

[elucidator]

"...scrofulous types, played a major role in the transformation of popular sentiment about the military, "the establishment", etc., in general that has taken decades to expunge."

One politely assumes you mean "scruffy".

It has not been expunged, it ain't gonna get expunged. Cold, dead hands. Rusty Calley ain't Audie Murphy.

A considerable portion of the outrage was the shattering of illussions. We grew up believers, there was no doubt, no question. Ours was the Army of the wise and the just. When the poor and oppressed in the world heard "The Americans are coming!", that meant help was on the way, no need for the timid to fear, the Americans are coming.

Wasn't so, of course, and from our vantage point it seems clearly foolish to have believed otherwise, but we did, and that's the fact. The rupture of that malignant illusion was one of the very few good things to come out of that nightmare. Wasn't worth it, but to spurn the wisdom of a bitter lesson is even more foolish.

We must have soldiers, they must be willing to kill. But I demand to be the citizen of a moral nation, made up of moral people, to the extent that is possible. If my President stands there and tells me that there is no choice, all the options are exhausted, war is an unavoidable necessity, it must be so! Anything less is entirely unacceptable, no excuse is sufficient. If that is a demanding and harsh requirement, so be it, nobody gets drafted President.

This President has "miscalculated" (oh! the endless variety of euphemism!). "Mistakes were made". Well, that's too bad, I'm sure you did your best.

Now git.

[GIGObuster]

Anyone, should I take Elucidator seriously? He is a master of wit, no doubt, as I've noted in my lurking. And he has a lot of posts. Can he bring it? Or does he serve as the court jester?

"Just because you can laugh doesn't mean you can't tell the truth. The truth is often told by the jester." - Anonymous

[elucidator]

Yeah, that's how it starts, Dio, that's how it starts. First couple hundred posts, everybody's nice, always complimentary. Then it starts to fade. That first dink who can't help but point out you made the same lame pun 6 months ago. Or worse, somebody else did. Start shortening your username derisively, can't be bothered.

Then you got a reputation, quick on the drawl. Every time you come to some new thread, there's always some fresh-faced poster, wants to know, can you "bring it"?

(E. gazes intently across the bar, into the mirror, throws down a shot of Red Eye....)

Boot Hill is full of 'em.

(Walks away through the swinging doors, spurs, leather, sunset....)

[WoodCM]

That, and if you've ever read All Quiet on the Western Front, you'll notice the tendency for those who never experienced war to be more enthusiastic about it than those who did.
Disclaimer: the closest I ever came to war was on 9/11, first watching those buildings collapse right before my eyes, then having to see the smoke rise from those holes for months afterwards from my office window. That's as close as I ever want to come, and as close as I want anyone else to come also, absent a truly urgent and unavoidable necessity.


The book 'All quiet on the Western Front', is a very bad one, though a good piece of proganda for the time. Just because the German National Socialists hated it does not make the previous sentence less true. A far better read (by a German author) is Junger's 'Storm of Steel' (reworked a little and published under different titles). Junger was no nazi-lover.
There are many excellent accounts by British soldiers of that conflict. Norman Gladden, George Coppard, David Jones, to quote a minuscule few.
It is true that those who have had no experience of war tend to support it more, though it does take some time(usually) for those who have had this experience to fully realise the truth of it, and even then with some complications!
For example, there is mass war on the roads every single day. Every time you get (all by yourself) into your giant-motor-vehicule and storm off, you are waging war. Sure, somewhat different to soldiers fighting soldiers, but it is still war!

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Then you got a reputation, quick on the drawl. Isn't that a contradiction in terms? :p

[Eureka2]

[QUOTE=elucidator
A considerable portion of the outrage was the shattering of illussions. We grew up believers, there was no doubt, no question.

[/QUOTE]

Illusion shattering goes both ways, of course. For many years, it was a given that McCarthy was a nut, "free love was where it's at" and drugs were the way to enlightenment. Prior to this 2004 campaign, millions of voters were hardly aware of Sen. Kerry, other than a vague confusion with that other "Kerrey", from Nebraska. The former had successfully morphed his popular image into a ho-hum liberal politician from Massachusetts. Whoops!

Thanks to the Swift Vets, his activities during the war and subsequent to same have caused justifiable outrage. Not that long ago, the left-leaning major news media outlets would have ignored or white-washed Sen. Kerry's involvement with the V V A W. This is no longer possible.

[NDP]

Thanks to the Swift Vets, his activities during the war and subsequent to same have caused justifiable outrage. Not that long ago, the left-leaning major news media outlets would have ignored or white-washed Sen. Kerry's involvement with the V V A W. This is no longer possible.
But why should this matter now (especially to those who are 40 or younger)? What good does it do to keep refighting the Vietnam War over and over again? At a certain point, you just have to move on.

[flickster]

The vast majority of the American public would love nothing better than to not be beaten over the head with the Vietnam War every day, unfortunately Kerry decided to make that the cornerstone of his entire campaign.

Makes me wonder why he would put the primary focus on a 4 months time period that happened 30 years ago instead of his entire Senate record (unless of course that's on purpose ;) ).

[Eureka2]

At a certain point, you just have to move on.

One would hope he would have; but Sen. Kerry and his supporters inexplicably chose to make his service, such as it was, a centerpiece of his campaign. I agree, it's nauseating.

[NDP]

One would hope he would have; but Sen. Kerry and his supporters inexplicably chose to make his service, such as it was, a centerpiece of his campaign. I agree, it's nauseating.
The only thing that's "nauseating" is the blindly stubborn refusal of some rightwingers to keep fighting the Vietnam War. The SBVT campaign really had nothing to do with any alleged fakery of combat heroics by Kerry but instead for his critical stance on Vietnam. Never mind the fact that the war's been over for nearly 30 years, it's payback time!

I guess some people just love to hold a grudge.

[flickster]

The only thing that's "nauseating" is the blindly stubborn refusal of some rightwingers to keep fighting the Vietnam War.
Time for a reality check - Nothing about the Vietnam War would be anywhere in the news if Kerry hadn't insisted on bringing it up in the first place. Yes, there has been a lot of rightwing rebuttal, but it's all been in response to Kerry's insistence of making this the biggest issue in the campaign.

[rjung]

It's his best example of his leadership skills in a war situation; why shouldn't he use it?

Kerry's Vietnam tours are nothing to be ashamed about, despite the efforts of the right to smear him otherwise. Especially since he actually showed up and got his ass shot at, unlike some other candidates we can mention...

[Clothahump]

Specifically, is the stance someone took on the Vietnam War (pro or con) during the 60's and 70's relevant to American voters now (particularly those born after 1975)?

I've noticed that during the whole debate regarding Bush's and Kerry's comparative service records during Vietnam, many conservatives have attacked Kerry's public opposition to the war in an effort to devalue Kerry's military record. This has made me wonder what's the expiration date on this issue anyway? The Vietnam War ended in 1975. The Cold War (the central conflict from which it sprang) ended in 1989. The Soviet Union (America's primary opponent in the Cold War) dissolved in 1991. Our current enemies are not in any way taken with doctrines of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Still, Vietnam has apparently become the "bloody shirt" of the late 20th and early 21st century.

Let's discuss.

It's not his political stance per se that's in question.

It's the fact that he served, then stabbed his fellow servicemen in the back. It's the fact that his statements served to hearten the enemy. It's the fact that he committed treason and is now running for President.

[elucidator]

Well, why didn't you say so! That clears up everything! All right-thinking real Americans agree that unstinting and unquestioning obedience to The Leader is required of all real Americans.

Except, of course, for American interference with the Balkans. That's differerent, because the men who criticized Clinton were real Americans, on a noble crusade to unseat a President who had waged war under false pretenses and had stained the dignity of the Oral Office. That's an entirely different matter, and all right-thinking Americans agree.

I am sure friend Clothahump will be amongst the first in line to accept installation of his Patriot Chip.

Sarcasm aside, Clothahump, when telling the truth is treason, we no longer have a country to be loyal to. Merely a geographic entity, a set of borders in which we happen to reside.

[Liberal]

Amen and amen, Elucidator. The Vietnam War is important mainly because it illustrates what free people can do when they become vigilant — the war ends, and the administration that delays its end is toppled.

[AZCowboy]

... unfortunately Kerry decided to make that the cornerstone of his entire campaign.
One would hope he would have; but Sen. Kerry and his supporters inexplicably chose to make his service, such as it was, a centerpiece of his campaign.
Time for a reality check - Nothing about the Vietnam War would be anywhere in the news if Kerry hadn't insisted on bringing it up in the first place.
Equine feces.

I sincerely doubt that Kerry would even be the Democratic nominee if not for his military service. The Republicans chose the battleground here. Well before the Democratic primaries began, the Republicans made it clear that national security and the War on Terror were to be the centerpiece of the re-election campaign strategy. The Democrats knew that they were going to have to go up against the self-proclaimed incumbent "Dubya-A-R president". Don't you remember "Mission Accomplished"?

Had this not been the situation, Dean was a much more likely candidate. Edwards may have had a better shot at the top of the ticket. The caucuses in Iowa went for Kerry for this very reason. None of the other Democratic candidates had the necessary national security foundation to withstand the inevitable assualts from the Republican guerilla tactics.

It wasn't Kerry and his campaign that put Vietnam front and center. It was, however, the Democrats. But only after the Republicans chose the venue.

[flickster]

Equine feces.

I sincerely doubt that Kerry would even be the Democratic nominee if not for his military service. The Republicans chose the battleground here. Well before the Democratic primaries began, the Republicans made it clear that national security and the War on Terror were to be the centerpiece of the re-election campaign strategy.
Laughable response. If prior military experience was the only qualifier, there was a much better candidate available during the primaries.

[Aitara]

This is not a new issue for Kerry, I think what is different is that O'Neill is once again well-funded and is starting to gather a number of ther Vietnam Vets that sympahize with his point of view.


Perhaps, more significantly, Mr. Kerry has also used Vietnam as a proxy for the issue that has given him the most trouble in this campaign: Iraq. Because he has struggled to define how he would use American power, Mr. Kerry counted on his Vietnam service to prove his standing as a soldier-patriot, and his Vietnam protest to show his willingness to question well-intended policies gone bad

But the old culture wars followed him into the 21st century, and he now finds himself bombarded by veterans who question not only his patriotism but his honor - in a sometimes distorted discussion that has nevertheless played into public doubts about the Democrats' strength abroad and values at home and that has hurt Mr. Kerry's standing in the polls.

The truth is that in every campaign since his bruising defeat for Congress on an antiwar platform in 1972, Mr. Kerry's journey from medal-winning Swift boat skipper to medal-throwing protester may have hurt him as much as it has helped

New York Times-Week in Review 8/29/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/weekinreview/29purd.html)

[AZCowboy]

If prior military experience was the only qualifier, there was a much better candidate available during the primaries.Did someone suggest that it was the only qualifier? Didn't think so.

What is laughable is the assertion that the Dems (or Kerry) were the first to put "war", and the credentials of leading this country in times of one, at the forefront of this election.

[flickster]

Did someone suggest that it was the only qualifier? Didn't think so.
I sincerely doubt that Kerry would even be the Democratic nominee if not for his military service.
True, you didn't say only, but you certainly implied primary.

Our complaint was being drug through the Vietnam War again - which IS Kerry's doing.

IMHO, a long term Senator should be able to distinguish themself as a leader by standing on their record (or in Kerry's case - maybe not - he's certainly chosen to ignore it).

[Eureka2]

None of the other Democratic candidates had the necessary national security foundation to withstand the inevitable assualts from the Republican guerilla tactics. It wasn't Kerry and his campaign that put Vietnam front and center. It was, however, the Democrats. But only after the Republicans chose the venue.


I see your point, but far better candidates could have been chosen, in my opinion. Guys that did a couple tours come to mind, not a fello who did a few months, and then started smoking dope and talking shit about the government at the earliest opportunity, negotiating with north vietnamese communist leaders, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Gen. Clark might have been the guy, what happened to him?

[Liberal]

Insufficient political clout.

[SnakeSpirit]

Sarcasm aside, Clothahump, when telling the truth is treason, we no longer have a country to be loyal to. Merely a geographic entity, a set of borders in which we happen to reside.
elucidator, even though I hate your guts, have driven all night to Nipples, MN, to spit on your father's grave and have alerted all branches of government that you are a dangerous terrorist, I agree with you.

perhaps I can ask the FBI to back off....

[SnakeSpirit]

Equine feces.

I sincerely doubt that Kerry would even be the Democratic nominee if not for his military service. The Republicans chose the battleground here. Well before the Democratic primaries began, the Republicans made it clear that national security and the War on Terror were to be the centerpiece of the re-election campaign strategy. The Democrats knew that they were going to have to go up against the self-proclaimed incumbent "Dubya-A-R president". Don't you remember "Mission Accomplished"?

Had this not been the situation, Dean was a much more likely candidate. Edwards may have had a better shot at the top of the ticket. The caucuses in Iowa went for Kerry for this very reason. None of the other Democratic candidates had the necessary national security foundation to withstand the inevitable assualts from the Republican guerilla tactics.

It wasn't Kerry and his campaign that put Vietnam front and center. It was, however, the Democrats. But only after the Republicans chose the venue.
I thought it was "Dean all the way" until he over-reacted AT HIS ALMOST NOMINATION.

Set me straight.