Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Henri:

I appreciate your viewpoints on Kerry, and on honor. I agree that Kerry served his country honorably in Viet Nam, though he seemed to have taken a hard line against many of his fellow servicemen upon his return. Perhaps he was exaggerating accounts of what happened over there, or if not, then was implicitly guilty of them himself.

Regardless, I view Kerry as a war hero; that does not mean that I find him to have the potential to be a good president. I have seen far to much waffling and middle of the road positioning from him in regard to his votes on war etc. In 91 he voted against a war that he later supported, and in 03 he voted for a war that he later decided not to support. He appears to play the middle ground efficiently, but I dont see the kind of decisiveness in him that i want from a president.

People may think what they will about Bush, but he has shown solid decisiveness in his direction and goals. Agree or disagree with his positions, yet he holds steadfastly to them—-something which I have yet to see from John Kerry.

Additionally, I dont see that Kerry’s war experience gives him any great ability in global politics today. Wes Clark’s experiences at a high level give him some validity since he was at a high level. To think that a Microsoft shipping clerk could fulfill Bill Gates’ duties as president BECAUSE he played a small role in Microsoft is the same as saying Kerry is equal to the presidency by virtue of his Nam experience.

Again, though, I will say that I thank Kerry for his valor and honor in fighting for his country, as I think all who did. But he will not get my vote on that basis.

I enlisted in the Army in June of 1972. Combat Medic and Psych. Tech. Fortunately, I did not have to endure the hardships of Viet Nam. I was 22. I had participated in demonstrations against the war prior to enlisting. I had argued as Bob Dylan did in his song, The Universal Soldier, that if conscientious young men refused a war that was unjust and immoral resulting in hundreds of thousands dead and more maimed and scarred for life, the war would come to an end. It did. And the draft dodging and emmigration to Canada, and protests by Viet Nam era Vets, helped to bring the bloodshed to an end.

And they were right to do so. History has shown the world was no worse off, and the U.S. was no worse off, for having let the Civil War of Viet Nam resolve itself. The Communists won, and now we are trading partners with them. Kerry was right to protest that war and try to save the lives of his comrades who would continue to have been slaughtered in response to an irrational fear of Communism abroad in a little country called Viet Nam.

It took courage for Kerry to do what he did in and after Viet Nam. I won’t vote for a Democrat, but, Kerry deserves no denigration for his participation in denouncing a war that simply made no sense except to the Communist paranoids and the military industrial complex of the time.

Watching “HardBall” last night with guest Lawrence O’Donnell, I got mad as HELL whem Mr.O’Donnell said the “Vietnam War was meaningless”. And he was not challenged by the host to back that snide comment up.To me..It’s a disgusting thing to say and I wondered if Mr.O’Donnell would loudly proclaim that sentiment if he were to visit the Wall in D.C.?

Logboom, I totally agree. How can anyone say that war was meaningless? That war shaped American foreign policy from dearly paid for lessons, for decades. In fact, until GW Bush came into office. Then, the lessons of Viet Nam were cast out as meaningless.

I believe that what Lawrence O’Donnell meant was that the War in Vietnam was meaningless as an issue in this election. Not that the war was meaningless!
BTW - I too joined the National Guard to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. I see no shame in that. But I waited my turn on the list to be accepted and I was present every weekend I was supposed to be.

This seems to be a generation for throwing away hard-earned lessons. We think, somehow, that because our society has advanced in electronics, in our networks and internet service, that the tendencies of human behavior would somehow change, that utopia would be within reach as it has never been before.

I get this same sort of feel out of Christian Right politics, out of Neo-Con foreign policy, and out of free-market libertarianism. Each one of them promises that submission to their system would create a better world for all, and we are told to ignore the problems that occur in the execution of the policy.

I recent read a book called Wittgenstein’s Poker, a book about a famous argument between noted philosophers Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, in which the famously hot tempered Wittgenstein brandished the titular fireplace tool at him.

This matters because Karl Popper is the guy behind the Open Society philosophy that underlies so much of free market and democratic idealism that we take for granted as political orthodoxy. We wouldn’t be far off the mark as saying that the Neo-Cons are in some sense heirs to that tradition.

Except it’s not so simple. Karl Popper advocated open societies, but not so open their brains fell out. Popper was also the man who crystallized the notion of testability as a benchmark for any theory that claims to be scientific. He also believe in that notion of the testability of a theory being relevant to politics and financial markets.

George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundation, named in honor of his old teacher’s seminal work, made his money on his teacher’s idea of theoretical testability. It’s no wonder he opposes the latest administration so bitterly.

Bush and his colleagues take the idea of the open society and twist it, taking out the accountability of theoretical testability. They don’t want their ideas to be discredited. The problem is, that is what one is supposed to let happen. You are supposed to let your theories be changed by the evidence. You are supposed to learn from mistakes.

Popper would likely be horrified of the current administration, and it’s emphasis on nationalism, on government secrecy and its aggressive military doctrines. He would be equally horrifed to hear that Bush was using his notion of Open Societies to justify otherwise illegitimate wars.

I avoided the draft in 1966 by enlisting. For 3 years. Trained and served in the infantry. For some strange reason, I did not end up in RVN. I was/am so grateful to my country for the opportunity to grow up and earn a chance to go to college, I joined the Reserves and later the National Guard to repay my debt. Served another 19 years in the infantry.

I have known many, many combat veterans. True warriors and genuine heroes. None of them ever professd to have enjoyed combat. The real heroes (my words) never, ever made an issue of their service. Not for advancement. Not for favors. Not for political gain. Nor would they ever question the value of anyone’s worth based on their branch of service (regular or reserve), or not.

In my opinion, Sen. Kerry forfited his right to be called a hero when he renounced his military achievements by returning “his” medals. He has shown his distain for the military over and over in his speeches and votes. Now, he wants to be the Commander in Chief? Now, he tells us (over and over angain) how big of a hero he was. No thank you. I’ve known lots of real heros, and Sen. Kerry does not measure up.

Go to www.witnessreport.com to read more about the right and left.

Dan, I assume you include Bush in your assessment along with Kerry given Bush’s use of his military record and flight suit proclamation that the war is won, for his own political benefit.

No? Hmmm…

Dan, please provide a reference where Kerry has shown disdain for our military since he has held elected office. That may give some credence to your claim.

David, you said:

“History has shown the world was no worse off, and the U.S. was no worse off, for having let the Civil War of Viet Nam resolve itself. The Communists won, and now we are trading partners with them.”

I wont directly argue that point (unless you wish me to), what I would prefer is to tell you a story.

I had always listened to this sort of stuff that you just said from my professors in undergrad, many of whom came to maturity during the anti-vietnam movement. Having heard no real arguments on the other side, I believed them. Then one day I was working my summer job up in Boston, and as I walked to lunch in this nice park we have downtown, I saw a group of people standing there, with a big sign. I came up to them and they handed me a paper, explaining they were vietnamese immigrants who were on hunger strike. As I read the paper, it detailed the horrors have have occured in Vietnam, since the U.S. left Vietnam. I think those people would strongly disagree with your claim above. I am not saying I now think the war was a “good” war (I havent made up my mind), or well run (obviously it was not), but I definetly think what you said above is untrue to a large extent.

(By the way, the reason they had come from California to protest up in my neck of the woods is because John Kerry was single-handedly blocking Senate resolution condeming the human rights abuses in Vietnam today.. just some food for thought).

Vietnam will forever be a complicated issue for this country, and most people will never know the truth, because it’s not pretty, it can’t be packaged to benefit the left or the right. Being closely involved with the Asian communtiy, I get to hear first hand accounts of atrocites…not just from the many books out there.

If, one is to say that Kerry has “disrepsected” or shown “Disdain” for the US military, all I ask is that one also does their own research beyond opinion columns and talk radio, and I guess our mainstream news which is pretty much owned by 6 companies.

Kerry is not my canidate, but it disturbs my how the media has decclared him the nominee, and then also goes after him, just so they can get their sensationalist scoops.

I know its all over talk radio about the photo with Kerry and Jane Fonda, there is one where both are sitting in an audience, that was taken 2 years before she became Hanoi Jane, in this photo, Kerry is sorta sitting off to her side and behind here, to me, it doesn’t really look like they are even together, but just sitting in the same area—as a performer and speaker, I often sit with people that I know nothing about, I guess if I ever run for public office, it will be said that I had affairs withthese men.

And then there is another altered photo that you can read about at this link

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp

Misha, thanks for the reply. We have human rights abuses right here in the U.S. Should we be condemned by foreigners and have our government overthrown as a result? If not, then the argument that we should have remained in Viet Nam committing atrocities in the name of preventing future atrocities by corrupt authorities, does not make sense to me.

The Reason we went into Viet Nam as advisors was because we perceived (incorrectly) that Hanoi was led by and motivated by a coordinated effort by China and Russia to spread communism around the world. But, that perception, erroneous as it was, was the general concensus of our Intel community and DoD. Given that perception, it is understandable why we escalated the war in Viet Nam.

However, we had no effective plan to win the war in Viet Nam, we had no exit strategy for getting out before costs exceeded benefits of waging that war, and we found ourselves supporting a corrupt South Vietnamese government that hampered our efforts and profited handsomely from our staying there as long as possible.

Check out the CIA Factbook for Viet Nam. Then come back and tell me Viet Nam has not prospered and the peoples of Viet Nam are not better off since our departure. Think I am wrong all you wish. I don’t have a problem with folks thinking in opposition to me. The facts however, support my conclusions above. Viet Nam is far better off now than they ever were with U.S. presence within their borders.

David- you have used this technique several times of comparing our abuses to those in other countries, and saying this somehow invalidates what I am saying about how they are wrong. I think you need to put things into proper perspective. Let me give you one example- the other day CNN.com had two articles next to each other on its main page. One was that Padilla was finally going to get lawyer access (about time), and the other was that North Korea has been torturing and performing medical experiments on political prisoners. The situation kind of reminds of those people who said the United States had no business condemning Stalin for slaughtering millions of human beigns because we had a red scare in our country in which a couple hundred people lost their jobs and were dragged in from of Congress. now the red scare and Padilla’s situation were certainly rights violations, and ones that need to be condemned, but if you look at this in perspective, I should hope you can see that they do not undermine our ability to condemn MUCH MUCH worse abuses around the world. Its like if I am guilty of a stealing something- does that mean I have no right to pass judgement on Osama Bin Laden or some mass murdered? Surely, I would have less moral authority than someone who has never commited a crime- but if there are no people like that in the world (as there are no countries who have no “human rights” violations), that doesnt mean that NO ONE has the right to stand and condemn Osama or the mass murderer? I think when looking at countries like Iraq and Vietnam, we are pretty damn good on human rights- and in fact, pretty damn good on human rights compared to most of the world- but of course we should still work to improve ourselves while condemning them as well…

On January 20, 1969, when Richard Nixon became the fifth U.S. President in twenty years to confront the question of American involvement in Vietnam, there were 540,000 American troops in Vietnam sent by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, more than 325 men being held prisoners of war, and America was sharply divided over our purpose and our presence in Vietnam.

Over the course of his first term, President Nixon charted a course which did not yield to the demands of a vocal, disruptive, and sometimes violent majority. With the support of the majority of the American people, he sought to conclude America’s role in Vietnam without concluding America’s role in the world.

His leadership resulted in the signing of a peace agreement on January 27, 1973, which earned with it the hope that the people of South Vietnam might enjoy freedom and peace in the years to come.