Looking back at VietNam

"Vietnam is one of the most tightly controlled societies in the world," reports Freedom House, the human rights monitor. "The regime jails or harasses most dissidents, controls all media, sharply restricts religious freedom, and prevents Vietnamese from setting up independent political, labor, or religious groups."

Late last month, for example, the regime sentenced Nguyen Dan Que, a 62-year-old physician, to 30 months in prison for the crime of "abusing democratic freedoms." Translation: He wrote essays condemning government censorship and posted them on the Internet.

I was one of those who at one time felt that armed intervention was not the answer to situations in the world, especially in VietNam. Peaceful efforts would work. Even caused a hell of a rift with my Dad (career Army) when I asked his advice on whether I should consider declaring myself a consciencious objector. Over the years I found myself over there, met with the VietNamese boat people as they arrived in the Philippines, I've worked with them here in the states, and I've attended meetings with disposed leaders of the old South VietNam regime (the ones who made it out). I wanted to know the truth of our involvement over there and the aftermath. Their stories always confirmed the above statement, and more. A VietNamese woman I worked with told me of the reasons and events that surrounded her amazing story of escape (that equalled any Bond movie) from VietNam 11 years ago. Looking back, did the peace movement do right to affect things the way it did? Did it's successes doom a people? Did we end up meddling in a way that caused a nation to suffer, only in a non-military way, but still to exist under oppression?

 

They've had a long history of suppression,including our allies the french.The turmoil we caused over there only helped to condem their country even more.Having lived and worked with refugees from there (Westminister,Ca.Little Viet Nam)i ate dinner at their houses.They were my friends.i was told how those in command of the south's army would buy their position with gold.Where did they get this gold?China was the answer i got.It was a mess and it still is,but that was no reason to kill them.

 

I am wondering who gave AMERICA the authority to step in everywhere there is something going on which we find offensive. So, maybe it IS offensive, but why US? Why do we need to meddle? They are a country. Why does everyone just sit around and wait for us to do something? What if there were no world travel or world communication? We would never have known. Their country would have evolved as it was supposed to.
Ever watch any good movies in which people time travel? There is always this law which dictates that you MUST not do anything which causes history to change. Do you catch my drift?

I think the more we try to control others, the more complicated things get and the more has to be controlled. A spiral down hill. What in Gods name will you think if some other country looks at us and finally says "their government is out of control, they are a danger to the rest of the world, They have become a dictatorship, lost most of their freedoms, and soon they will be taking over more and more small countries that can't fight back. So we need to go over there and take charge. A little shock and awe......." Get my drift again? It COULD happen, because that is already how we are being looked at. But I suppose THAT would be wrong. Because somehow, being an AMERICAN is different, and we are the only ones who know how to live, right? I see a never ending string of war and violence from the earliest beginnings of recorded history up into the distant future until, what, the US controls the entire world and what happens in it? A macdonalds on every corner. Great. That's about the time that SOMEONE will get fed up with us and.....Boom. And I wouldn't blame them. AMERICA, the police of the world. America, the babysitter of the world. No one can function correctly, no one can think the right thoughts or behave in the appropriate ways with out the US to take care of things... We must change the collective diapers of all these ignorant and underprivilaged countries so that they meet our standards. Are we so much more than animals as compared to the rest? Because humans are only very dangerous animals with big fancy weapons. The meanest will survive. The ones with the biggest guns. The ones with the biggest bombs. The biggest bully wins. What a lovely thought. Really makes me proudernshit to be human.

 

So in all of this, What is the answer. Where does the change come in. What do we change it to.

Wars have been faught since man steped onto the planet, before Amercia was even a country.

It's not the Countrys doing. It the leadership or lack of, that is bringing bad karma on us, even hatered

The USA is no more currupt then any other country.They are all liers and war mongers, their greed preceeds all of them. None are better then the rest.

The meanest survives is all of creation. I still have hope for humanity. The hope is to evolve into a better, stronger (health wise) more compassionate people.

Humans have to be lead or nothing would get done. We just seem to choose the wrong one.

It seems war is a means of population control. The thing is if that were so then we are sending our best to die. While the bottom feeders are all 4F procreate more 4Fers. I use the term 4F bc every one knows what it means.And our nation is becoming a breeding place for undesirables.

I love the earth, I love the country I live in. I want to be free to live my life as I see it needs to be lived. There will always be wars. I see no end to it. There would have to be a massive event to change the gov'ts mind. It would have to affect all human kind for it to be effective.

Screaming No More War is gone unheard over the missel launchers. WE have been screaming for 40yrs. Where the answer lays, I don't know. It would have to be in the way of a out and out Miracal.

sh

 

The only way freedom and liberty comes about is when people stand up and fight for it because they must live free or die. We can't inject our brand of freedom into a culture.

 

"We can't inject our brand of freedom into another culture."? What was the American Civil War? Or the American War of Independence. Shouldn't have done it?

I was hoping to keep on subject about whether the past 31 years that the VietNamese have endured an oppressive regime, a regime that we helped secure through our peace movement, was a consequence that we didn't acknowledge and have since turned a blind eye to. Do we own up to the failures of the peace movement just as we expect the government to own up to theirs? I consider VietNam a failure of the peace movement because we, the peace movement, didn't have an exit plan that would have protected the VietNamese people from being turned over to a Chinese/Soviet backed regime that has oppressed their people up until this very moment and will continue to oppress. What did we do to ensure THEIR peace? Or were we just in a hurry to push our own peace-at-any-price agenda that wasn't responsible to these people for the obvious outcome of our peace policies? Did we care what would happen to these people after we left? Did we demand peace but also demand to put certain safeguards in place that would have helped them fend off the same group that eventually won and have suppressed them all these years, with no end in sight? I feel very much responsible for their situation because at one time I supported the very real ideals people in this country pushed that got them where they're at. We got what we wanted, but we screwed these people in our blind rush to obtain a selfish goal.

 

Your examples are not of a different culture. But I see your point. It could have ended up like Korea, where the south is democratic. Best case scenario, don't you think?

Vietnam was a political game. Only one way to win: kill and demoralize your enemy until he surrenders unconditionally. It really is that simple. We were not willing to do that with China and Russia looming in the background. We could have nuked China after WW2, and conquered the real heart of oppression. Did we let the Chinese people down?

 

Rather we let them live in an endless war.Nixon wanted to carpet bomb.That would have ended the war.It would have also wiped out a large population and created a very dependent nation.The peace movement stopped him.That's when he decided to pull out and abandon their country.By abandon i mean boycott,cut economic ties and let them suffer in the mess that we left.

 

What if there hadn't been an American revolution?We're tied at the hip to England anyway.Let's say there was no civil war.No other free country in the world has slaves,would the south not have followed suit?Pat Buccanon has an interesting scenario about how the Germans and the Russians battling it out,saving the rest of us a lot of trouble for years after.Then there was Korea,no wait,they're still a problem.

 

But my examples ARE of different cultures, very much so even though they existed within the same country. During the Civil War the South followed a cultural autonomy that allowed for it's own unique music, literature, social customs, language and view of slavery based on a rural economy. In many ways totally different than that found in the industrial North. And the ex-pats of the European empires during revolutionary times were far removed culturally from their old masters mostly because more people were able to partake in the good life if they worked for it. Yes, we have experienced the same points of conflict that have, and still exist, within our own history and borders. Yet we have used different standards of rule and comparison to judge our involvements with. After WWII it was more the Soviets that were the bigger threat to us and the Chinese. Patton and McArthur both wanted to settle with the Soviets because they saw the desire of those nations to expand into economic areas that they desperately needed, and China was one of their targets also. Communist dogma was never as big a threat as ambitious Communists. And no peace movement ever stopped Communist or Marxist aggression. Peace movements ONLY work in democratic countries, that's why many anti-war types are so vocal. It's because there is no threat to what they practice while under the protection of democracy. But try the same thing in the countries they say we interfer with and it becomes a reality check damn few would be willing to buck or to back. VietNam was an economic strategy, the political angle was only used because if you say it's about stopping communist expansionism it makes more sense to the globally challanged American than to say it's about raw materials our economy would grind to a halt without, like it or not. And after Katrina disruputed our oil imports for a short while to just one refinery, I know we won't like it. VietNam was a line drawn in the sand, but we drew it, and didn't finish it. And the poor VietNamese have been paying the price ever since and will continue to do so. This needs to be avoided in Iraq at all costs. We're there, now we need to have an exit strategy that doesn't leave the country another VietNam. The Iraqis deserve better. This country's peace movement should be helping to work out a plan that will give the newly freed people a chance, not a return. Looking back at VietNam I know there is a better way, but it's not just up to the government. We need to help work it out, so put your thinking caps on and work with the system, not just oppose it.

 

Yet we don't have to support the killing in order to work with the system.Nor should blind alegence shouldn't be mistaken for working with the system.

 

Lucky for me, I was too young to remember much of that one.

Doing kid stuff. first day of school stuff.
But we should remember the past. How the human race was once.
How else can we decide as a species, where we wanna go?

 

Timetraveler, I think a lot of what you're talking about is a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences. And as I recall, the Peace Movement had lots of parts. We were protesting not just the war, but how we got into it, how it was being fought, the draft, the disproportionate racial mix of those sent to fight, lots of stuff. I think that the terrible suffering of the people of Vietnam(and Laos, and Cambodia, and ...) was not caused by the end of fighting. I think it's because of what happened & didn't happen afterward. Like Gate mentioned, the abandonment due to the boycott made a bad situation worse, not better. Same as with Cuba.
I think it's good to also point out that U.S. involvement in Vietnam wasn't limited to the U.S or the Peace Movement. The very first protests against U.S. involvement in Vietnam were in 1945, when United States Merchant Marine sailors condemned the U.S. government for the use of U.S. merchant ships to transport French troops to "subjugate the native population" of Vietnam; these protesters opposed the "recolonization" of Vietnam. As far as I know the first anti-war protest was in August 1963, but in spring of '63 buddhist monk Trich Quan Duc, 73, immolated himself in front of US embassy in Saigon in protest against US-sponsored South Vietnamese dictatorship.

As to the use of force by the U.S. To me there's a boundry that's at the same time razor thin and also not clear & vaugely defined. I strongly, fully think that the U.S. has no right to invade to make (or try to make) changes "we" want. Actually, it's changes "they" (those in power) want. But I continue, within myself, to struggle with the question of is it sometimes not our obligation and responsibility? As the strongest nation is it not our responsibility to step in and protect the weak from bullies? To protect the weak from those committing genocide within a country (as has NOT happened in Africa) or to remove an invader (as did happen with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). I don't know, like I said, it's something I still struggle with.

Peace,
poor_old_dad

 

----We owe nobody anything!. We helped those people as an act of kindness and a show of good humanity-Then; just as now; we went in to help their army; not to take over and recreate our own

form of government-If we had just provided limited support along with other nations doing the same; we would have had an exit stradegy-When a foreign army invites itself to take on all the bad guys in the world; then proceeds to get beat up and ostracised for it's trouble; well who;s fault is that?-Now as then the host country is not ever going to fight as hard as they need to as long as we are willing to do it for them-Thats human nature-Why would you be willing to take a bullet for someone else?. Only in the movies.-The worldwide peace movemnt (yes-it was worldwide) was the best thing to happen to this world in the 60s-How can you even suggest that it did harm to anybody-That is the most rediculas statement I have ever heard..You must have some kind of guilt trip working in ya to think that as how can anything that stops the killing be bad?-My God man!-I am shocked! Not only were our people being slaughtered in the jungles but many Americans at home were getting their heads split open for objecting to that war-We are not to blame for how that mess ended-We can never predict what a country will do after the American Police Department goes home-We give countrys everything to get them on their feet-We give more to Iraq ten the our own disaster victams at home!-It would be great if this world would calm down. There are way too many power hungry warloards out there-We can never find and kill them all-Nor should we try-We need to educate through the media that people have the right to freedom; but they have to be willing to fight and die for it; just as American did against the British. We have overstayed our welcome in Iraq. There needs to be an exit date and their army needs to get ready to defend itself-We have done way more then the rest of the world and lost way to many brothers and sisters. There is nothing wrong with fighting for your rights.And when the bad guys head this way; we will hopefully be ready.A world peace conference needs to be set up with all nations invited.This planet is out of room..Remeber when they said the Iraq oil would pay for the war?.well?; still waiting and so is Louisiana-

 

Dad - Excellent post! But my years on this planet have taught me not to accept that 'Unintended' part, at least as best as I can. Like I said before, the government had it's role in what it did, and as most people are willing to point out, it's share in the responsibility for the aftermath , but the peace movement, for all it's involvement in the processessing of the war in VietNam, also bears a responsibility for the aftermath. I'll say it again, that the movement can't just say that it was only up to the government to be concerned with the conditions of the people and the material condition of the country when agressions had ended. That would make it 'unintended' on the movements part, that would allow me to be responsible for the act, but blameless for the reaction. It doesn't work out to be that convenient. Not by a long shot. I can't look at todays VietNam and say, 'Damn, who'd think you'd have to suffer this long! And it's still going on? I didn't think of what would happen if we got our way and just split on ya. Maybe we should have changed our tactics that would have allowed for more mediation for at least a compromise. Sorry!' Looking back I'd say we were myopic and impatient in our goals. I'd say we were irresponsible to those that we sought to do good for because we didn't look down the road far enough. So let's look back and see if we can't still learn.
Rob - How could I say it did harm to anyone? You didn't read one thing I wrote, did ya? I didn't say one bloody thing about the fighting. I said we didn't figure into our motives the fact that how we impliment a peace initiative MUST also take into consideration the conditions and environment of the area/country when aggressions hopefully cease. In the 60s and 70s WE DIDN'T. The present and continual shitty state of VietNam bears this truth out. We just wanted the fighting to stop...period! End of the movements involvement. Pat yourselves on the back and go home. And all some of you can do is point a finger at the government and say 'It was all their fault for what happened after!' That is not good enough. We should have been smarter. This person of that time sees a suffering people and says, "We could have been better at what we did to avoid this." I learned and am admitting my mistakes. To me that's not a guilt trip, it's the maturity I hope I picked up along the way. We shouldn't stick to the old ways of conducting a peace movement. It turned out to be as devastating to the principles as the conflict itself. More so. So far their misery has lasted over 3 times what the war did.

 

Namaste

I certainly agree that we (individuals, groups, movements, countries, what ever) must own up to or accept our responsibility for the consequences, intentional or unintentional, of our actions and/or lack of actions. Did the Peace Movement have good intentions and good sincere people? Sure, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But, was enough effort put into the successful transition from life in a combat zone to a life of peace & happiness? Clearly not, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. And we're at a spot in time where there'll soon be another case of the people of a country needing to make the combat zone to peace & happiness transition. If we accept that in southeast Asia it could have been done better, than maybe we can look back and learn, then do an even better job this up coming time.

Peace,
poor_old_dad

 

TT you do have a point.After ravishing their country we as a movement could have done more in the aftermath.However 30 years after we pulled out would still be 30 years if we pulled out tomorrow.Our interferance only prolonged everything.How long did it take for Russia to heal itself?Only after a sucession of leaders did they change(Had nothing to do with Reagen).China the same.Mostly it boils down to economics,not killing.World pressure plays it's part,but killing them just pisses them off.

 

Did we end up meddling in a way that caused a nation to suffer, only in a non-military way, but still to exist under oppression? ---------Traveler-I believe you were talking about the Peace Movement here weren't you?

 

Rob - Yes.

 

Dad - Spot on about the here and now and how all of us should at the very least understand that there is going to be an aftermath to contend with, success or failure. No matter what your stance is on the war in Iraq, we are in the involvement stage of that war, the rules of consideration of how the war is processed now automatically must include how to affect the outcome of that war so that the VietNam result is not repeated. The key point is that we all need to adjust our objectives so that the outcome is not devastation for the country. The government has it's role, and the anti-war types must be willing to develope a protocol that works right along with what the government is responsible for in a post war scenario, again, win or lose. That is an absolute responsibility that can not be given away or ignored. I appreciate the posts.