Not so, mhendo, I just tried to correct your liberal use of
the English language. You are semantically incorrect in that…
The US and the allies could not logically INVADE Vietnam
because the villages and hamlets of Vietnam had already been INVADED
by the Communists. No. You are searching for another word.
And I think that word is “set free”. No wait! That’s two words.
The word is “liberate” Yes that’s it, “liberate”.
Again you err. Unsurprisingly.
The logical problem you assert is simply nonexistent. The fact that Communists had already invaded* these villages and hamlets does not logically preclude the US from invading Vietnam. Furthermore, the Communists in question were themselves Vietnamese, not an invading Russian or Chinese national army from which the sovereign nation of Vietnam needed to be defended.
It may be that the US invaded Vietnam in order to liberate its people from the Communists, and many soldiers certainly believed that to be the case. But even if “liberation” was the excuse or the reason, the fact remains that it was an invasion.
Similarly, the US claimed it was invading Iraq last year in order to liberate the Iraqi people. Some believe this was a good reason to invade, others didn’t. But i don’t recall even pro-Bush dissemblers from denying that it was an invasion.
Well first off I don’t think we “invaded” Vietnam when the Vietnamese invited us there, unless of course you think Ho Chi Min’s government was the legitimate one, in which case you’re a fool.
Second, it doesn’t matter. We invaded Germany in WW2, and the Japanese Empire in WW2…is this a “Bad thing”?
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Which Vietnamese gave the invitation? Oh, that’s right, a puppet government put in place largely by US influence after French decolonization.
As for the legitimacy of Ho’s government, if you believe in democracy then i’ll just refer you to my observation about Eisenhower, above. In the end, because of the US efforts in scuttling the 1956 elections, we never really found out what Vietnam’s legitimate government was.
As for your last question, that’s exactly the point i was tying to drum into Milum’s skull. If you’ll look above, you’ll see that Milum was suggesting that because the Communists invaded first, it was “semantically incorrect” to call the US efforts an invasion. By that logic, the allied invasion of France was not an invasion, because the German’s got there first–just the sort of logic at which Milum has proved so adept.
[QUOTE=mhendo By that logic, the allied invasion of France was not an invasion, because the German’s got there first…[/QUOTE]
Please excuse the rogue apostrophe.
Oh come one braintree, the weapon sales to Sadaam were in the past, the medals incident was…
The point is relevance. Rummy only sold weapons to a guy we went to war with a few months ago. Kerry was against fighting in Vietnam, a country which has plagued us ever since with its, um, you know…
Okay, but look, it’s hipocrasy that’s important. Kerry threw the ribbons and kept the medals. Rummy and his compatriots stood steadfastly by their decision to create a strong Iraqi military. Oh wait…
Good Lord, people, this is as pointless, circular and as inane as a back seat squabble between six year olds – he touched me first; did not; did too. All of you repeat this phrase:
SYMBOLIC POLITICAL GESTURE
And, it seems to me, a symbolic political gesture to be judged by people who have the right to wear those same decorations. That judgement was made in 1971 by men and women who did. They thought that it was bold, brave and effective. The rest of this is just partisan and mindless bickering. This election is just going to be awful. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Kids these days, huh, Spav. No concept of political theater. Wouldn’t know Che from Cheez-Whiz. They’ve had it too soft, I tell you, Spav, too soft! And that music! Just a bunch of noise, you ask me…
Spavined Gelding, I work with several Vietnam era veterans. I work with one guy who served three tours in country in the Army. Two others are Navy veterans who supported strike operations in Vietnam from carriers closeby.
These guys were in the mix. They’re in a position to judge. And none of them are impressed by this act of political theater.
John Kerry is actively courting the veteran vote. This act of medal throwing will haunt him, unless he explains it, as I have said all along.
First off, a couple of bonus links for everyone to enjoy. I especially recommend the first one which is a surprisingly kick-ass refutation of the neoconservative mindset by, of all people, Pat Buchanan. Way to go Pat! If only you weren’t such a nefarious bigot.
http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/print/coverprint.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/
I suppose for any number of reasons that I shouldn’t do this, but I can’t help but notice that the latter link leads to a very obvious question: If there really are all these Vietnam vets who are prepared to “haunt” Senator Kerry because of that medal thing — which I take to mean spoil his chances for the presidency — where exactly are they? This is an especially pertinent question in view of the fact that it was the Vietnam veterans who rallied around Kerry in his hour of need that are largely credited with saving his campaign in Iowa. Not exactly a match, is it?
And now on to the main business:
Insurgents killed two American soldiers Thursday in a roadside bombing west of Baghdad. Those deaths brought the total of American soldiers killed in Mr. Moto’s war to only 545.
Mr. Moto continues to be upset over Senator Kerry and his medals.
Gee.
A link to a Pat Buchanan article.
And a link saying veterans are all for Kerry - from John Kerry’s website.
Nice work. I’m really impressed by your research, braintree.
Sure, some veterans are for Kerry. I never claimed that there weren’t veterans who supported him. But there are many who don’t, and have good reasons for doing so.
True enough, friend Braintree’s cite of John Kerry’s website does not offer any substantial proof relative to veteran’s support of Kerry. Equally true, neither does Mr. Moto’s assertion that “many don’t”. Of course, the latter assertion simply has to be true, if one can define “many” as any number more than, say, a hundred.
Indeed, how could any valid numbers ever be derived, even with the most correct and impartial of intentions, how does one go about sampling a pool of “veterans”. Is GeeDubya a “veteran”?
Perception, in this instance if not in all such instances, is more important than fact. GeeDubya is hardly ever seen outside of pre-vetted circumstances, circumstances that assure him a sympathetic and enthusiastic audience. For an instance, his almost weekly Pep Rallies for Death at military bases, where his sternly vacuous rhetoric about “protecting America” is guaranteed a warm reception. Hence, the perception that “Our Troops” just positively love thier C-in-C.
Deftly countered by images from Kerry speeches, where the camera invariably pans the audience and rests portentously on a middle aged man in fatigues. Sometimes there is some obvious labeling of “Nam Vet”, sometimes not, but the point gets across.
The point is not to entirely negate Fearless Misleader’s image as a virile and robust military commander, but to deflate it, the little boy who points out that the Emperor has no flight suit, nor does he deserve one.
Personally, I find Mr. Moto’s implication that “many” veterans will use Kerry’s medal-throwing incident as a primary factor in deciding whether to vote for the guy to be rather insulting. After all, it implies that they’re sufficiently shallow that the candidate’s positions and ideas and leadership skills are irrelevant – all that matters is whether or not the guy gave “appropriate” respect to a set of icons.
I never implied that at all. In fact, at one point in this very long thread, I said this wasn’t sufficient reason to vote for or against Kerry, or, if the issue attached to Bush, for or against him.
As in abstract jazz, you have to listen for the arguments he’s not making.
I’m bumping this thread because of a recent news story.
ABC NEWS is reporting that Kerry admitted to throwing his own medals is 1971, in an interview on local television in Washington, DC. This contradicts statements made as a candidate for president.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425.html
With any luck, this will spur Kerry to give a direct answer on the medals issue for a change.
Heh. They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning…
Hmmmm… I’m not a veteran but if I was I’d reason things as follows:
Kerry:
1- Served in active duty when he could easily have ducked it.
2- Put himself in harm’s way and was wounded in combat
3- Threw his medals away in protest of what many thought to be an unjustified war
4- Would send soldiers into combat only as a last resort and only after gaining support of the international community
Bush:
1- Dodged the draft by enlisting in the National Guard
2- Dodged the dodge by not completing required service
3- Lied about dodging the dodge
4- Has history of sending soldiers into combat at the flimsiest excuse
How any veteran could look at both men and decide that Bush is their man is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Thanks, pal. Now I’m having flashbacks to the thrills, chills, and subtle nuances of guerilla theater 1968 style. [shudder]