Thursday, April 28, 2005
Vietnamese Refugee Explodes the Myths of the Vietnam War
I cannot stress too strongly how good an article this is. I wish I could reprint the entire article. Even to this day, we labor under these myths.
I would like to mention at this point that Congress in 1973, with the support of Ted Kennedy, made it law to back away from our promises of support to South Vietnam. This ultimately led to millions of deaths in the region.
To this day you will not hear Jane Fonda, John Kerry, or any other anti-war activist apologize for the carnage they helped wreak on mankind. Hindsight is 20/20. Which makes the lack of apologies all the more enraging.
I cannot stress too strongly how good an article this is. I wish I could reprint the entire article. Even to this day, we labor under these myths.
MANY myths and half-truths about the Vietnam War whipped up by the communist propaganda machine have been allowed to persist unchecked in discourse about Iraq. Today, on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, perhaps some lessons can be learned from this painful chapter in history.
A point of view held by the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 1960s and still taken as fact by some people today is that the Vietnam War was a civil war, not one fomented or directed by the communist north, which, in turn, was being instructed by China.
With that belief, the anti-Vietnam War movement denounced US involvement in Vietnam as an act of interference. The Vietnamese Communist Party's official biography on leader Ho Chi Minh and the Chinese Communist Party confirms that the communists in the north received instruction from China and were supported by the rest of the communist bloc with aid to foment the war and to spread Marxist-Leninist ideology.
The Vietnam War should thus be seen, rightly, as a fight to preserve freedom and democracy by the people of South Vietnam against communist invasion.
The anti-war movement supported the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (the Vietcong) portrayed by communist sympathisers in the West as independent from Hanoi. Party documents now reveal it was a product of the north.
As such, members of the anti-Vietnam War movement let themselves be deceived by the communists. Some influential people in the West, wittingly or not, abetted the communists in their deception.
...
Following their victory in 1975, the communists, hailed as liberators by their sympathisers, put more than 1million people in concentration camps, appropriated property, nationalised all means of production, evicted people from their homes and stripped people of their savings. Before the end of the war, South Vietnam was at par with other developing countries in the region. Now, after 30 years of "liberation", Vietnam ranks with the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world.
After 30 years of peace, intellectuals, artists, Buddhist monks, Catholic priests, tribal people, even communist war heroes, are subject to arrest, torture, harassment and imprisonment for peacefully demanding freedom and democracy.
What is occurring in Vietnam sparks protests from human rights organisations around the world. Amid all of these voices of protest, the deadening silence from the anti-war camp is telling. Those who supported the communists still refuse to see the stark evidence.
It was the pressure from the anti-war elite that forced the US administration to pull troops out of Vietnam. The hasty US retreat made South Vietnam prey to a ruthless enemy still fat with Soviet largesse and left behind it a trail of indescribable human suffering culminating in the boat people tragedy.
I would like to mention at this point that Congress in 1973, with the support of Ted Kennedy, made it law to back away from our promises of support to South Vietnam. This ultimately led to millions of deaths in the region.
To this day you will not hear Jane Fonda, John Kerry, or any other anti-war activist apologize for the carnage they helped wreak on mankind. Hindsight is 20/20. Which makes the lack of apologies all the more enraging.
Comments:
<< Home
I didn't read the article, maybe later when I'm not so tired. I think I see what you're saying. Communist dictatorships are horrible things, and our battle against it had its merits. Criticism of the war overlapped to often on the soliders themselves who were placed in that situation. I agree that Fonda and perhaps others should examine some of the things they did or said. However that being said, I'd like to comment on some things.
First, I don't think a lot of people think the Vietnam situation was a civil war. I would characterize it as a revolutionary war against a colonial power combined more than a civil war. I also believe there's somewhat of a debate about how much China was involved, but i'm not sure.
However my main issue with here the author is the following:
The Vietnam War should thus be seen, rightly, as a fight to preserve freedom and democracy by the people of South Vietnam against communist invasion.
This seems like an extremely naive statement. The author assumes a great deal of altruism here on the part of the US. If that were the case we'd been involved in many more wars/ police actions over the years.
To be fair, I didn't read the whole article, but while he says the VC was supported by the North, which is obviously true, it seems as if he's making a large jump here as if to say the whole south was unified against the North, which would be a joke.
It've no secret that the communists were bad and killed many people. That being said, I still think it was an unwinnable war (an idea supported by McNamara himself). I know you've posted before about the protest movements helping to bring about our loss, and while it probably was a factor, I don't think it was the decisive one. Chris J.
First, I don't think a lot of people think the Vietnam situation was a civil war. I would characterize it as a revolutionary war against a colonial power combined more than a civil war. I also believe there's somewhat of a debate about how much China was involved, but i'm not sure.
However my main issue with here the author is the following:
The Vietnam War should thus be seen, rightly, as a fight to preserve freedom and democracy by the people of South Vietnam against communist invasion.
This seems like an extremely naive statement. The author assumes a great deal of altruism here on the part of the US. If that were the case we'd been involved in many more wars/ police actions over the years.
To be fair, I didn't read the whole article, but while he says the VC was supported by the North, which is obviously true, it seems as if he's making a large jump here as if to say the whole south was unified against the North, which would be a joke.
It've no secret that the communists were bad and killed many people. That being said, I still think it was an unwinnable war (an idea supported by McNamara himself). I know you've posted before about the protest movements helping to bring about our loss, and while it probably was a factor, I don't think it was the decisive one. Chris J.
I think Kennedy/Johnson understood that communism needed to be contained. It was unwinnable in the way it was fought. But, little reported, is how Congress pulled the rug from under South Vietnam.
nice site about stripped down
i been interested in stripped down for ages now and when i was searching for stuff to do with stripped down
i came across here your ranked high for stripped down
Check my site :) stripped down
Post a Comment
i been interested in stripped down for ages now and when i was searching for stuff to do with stripped down
i came across here your ranked high for stripped down
Check my site :) stripped down
<< Home