A view of this year's Presidential election and the hubbub surrounding service during the Vietnam War.....from a few people in Hanoi. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/nm/20040823/pl_nm/vietnam_usa_elections_dc Vietnamese Bemused by U.S. Poll Campaign War Debate HANOI (Reuters) - In the heart of what was once enemy territory for American forces, Hanoi residents seemed bemused Monday over the debate in the U.S. presidential campaign about who did what in the Vietnam War three decades ago. Nearly half of Vietnam's 81 million people were born after what is known here as the "American War" ended in April 1975 with the ignominious withdrawal of the last U.S. forces before the communist North reunified the country. Nguyen Lu Dung, a 23-year-old office clerk, was one of them. She said she did not know Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) had fought in the war or that he had later participated in speaking out against it. "Young people of my generation have little knowledge of the American war, so what Kerry did during a battle in Vietnam is not important for us," she said. "On the other hand, what Bush did in Iraq (news - web sites) mattered a lot, and he was wrong. For that he shouldn't win this election," she said, referring to Kerry's opponent, President Bush (news - web sites). A skirmish over ads about the two candidates' service during the most divisive war in American history has dominated the U.S. election campaign in recent days, elbowing aside growing concerns about the Iraq war among U.S. voters. Kerry -- who was wounded in the southern Mekong Delta and received three Purple Hearts, a Bronze and Silver Star -- asked the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) Friday to force a group accused of collaborating with the Bush campaign to withdraw ads challenging his service in Vietnam. The Massachusetts senator often cites his military record, which his supporters contrast with that of Bush, who spent the war in the United States serving in the Texas Air National Guard. Some Democrats have accused Bush of going absent without leave from the guard, citing gaps in his attendance record. Toi, an 18-year-old hawking lighters, shoelaces and other small sundries by Hanoi's scenic Hoan Kiem Lake, laughed when asked what he thought of the U.S. elections and the renewed attention on a war that still festers in the American psyche. "American politics is too complicated for me, and simply won't affect my life at all. So it doesn't matter who wins the presidency," he said. Hanoi, which restored diplomatic relations with Washington 10 years ago, has refrained from directly commenting on the U.S. elections. Since a bilateral trade pact went into effect in December 2001, the United States is now its biggest market. Although Vietnam lost three million people in the conflict, many people prefer to look to a brighter future with an important trade partner with huge geopolitical influence in Asia. "It depends on the Americans," said one businessman when asked about the war becoming an issue in the elections. "I think that we would always say the war is in the past," he said. "We forget the past and focus only on the future," adding it would matter less who was the U.S. president than how various lower-ranking officials interpret policy. For Jocelyn Tran, an American of Vietnamese origin working in southern Ho Chi Minh City, Iraq is the more important issue. "That has not helped the environment between Vietnam and the U.S. at all," Tran said. "People should pay more attention to what goes on in Iraq today. Also, what's happening in the economy? That means more to us." (Additional reporting by Nguyen Nhat Lam in HANOI)
For anyone that thinks Iraqis will hold a long term grudge, read that article. Wars are forgotten very quickly, and enemies become friends a lot faster than everyone thinks. In fact, no permanent damage has been done to our reputation world wide at all...... As the world turns..... DD
I don't know, DaDakota. We still seem to be fighting the Vietnam War today. Wars have long-term, unpredictable consequences. That's probably the one thing that can't be argued about going to war, and why you shouldn't do it unless there is no alternative.
Look what we did to Japan. How long did it take to get over that devastation? Yes, the Japanese government attacked us at Pearl Harbor but I doubt the average Japanese citizen feels responsible for that decision.
The average Japanese deals everyday with the consequences of their decision to make war on this country and a host of others.
I agree, and lets not forgeet the religous aspect. I don't think you can compare the two countries at all, totally different.
I don't know. I suspect some do, but not the vast majority. My wife's uncle spent 30 years there as a Catholic priest, as a missionary. He learned fluent Japanese. He wasn't hated. He may have been looked at askance, but I don't think he was hated. I wasn't talking about how they feel about us. I was talking about the consequences to their own country for going to war. They paid a heavy price, and still pay a price, to a certain extent. In Asia, from what I have read over the years, they aren't the most loved people in the region, and are still not forgiven for many of the atrocities their military committed. China, among others, is still trying to get an apology from them for what they did, one that satisfies them. They have yet to get it. How can we know what affect our invasion and occupation of Iraq will have 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the road? We can't know. And it's the not knowing that is one of the strongest arguments for not going to war unless there is no other choice, in my opinion.
This view of an 18 year old, from the article, is sad... Don't guess he realizes what a world economy is. What's worse is that we have people of all ages, stateside, that feel the same way.
Our only known "atrocities" have taken place at Abu-Grahb. I hope we are not trying to compare the WWII Japanese with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Bloody hell... where did I say that? Or hint it? Have you lost all concept of history and the fact that actions, wars in particular, have consequences, the long term affect of which we do not know? Our people could all be boy/girl scouts over there and it would have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. For crying out loud. Is it that obtuse??
Bloody this: "In Asia, from what I have read over the years, they aren't the most loved people in the region, and are still not forgiven for many of the atrocities their military committed. China, among others, is still trying to get an apology from them for what they did, one that satisfies them. They have yet to get it. Your focus was on Asian resentment of Japanese aggression, while you label the US as the agressors in the Middle East. I don't know if that is obtuse or not, but the parallel seems only obvious to me. You constantly go on about the future price we will pay for our actions in the Middle East while I think, in the future, most of our price will have been paid in the past.
This is pointless. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Perhaps you should read some history, or travel more, I don't know. What I do know is that I'm not in the mood to attempt, again, to explain myself. Take what you want from my posts. I know what I was trying to say, and what I did say, and I don't need to spend time splitting hairs with your misinterpretations. I'm just not in the mood.
Are you denying that obvious conclusion? What in the heck were you trying to say? This <b>is</b> pointless.. why do <b>I</b> bother? I don't know what renders you unable to explalin yourself better. If you mean something different, damnit man, just say it straight-out. You act petulant like I've distorted your words. To me it is as plain as day what you are saying; that you don't realize the implication of what you are saying is your problem not mine...
Yes, I am denying it. Go back and read the first post I made in this thread. Look at your next post, to which I responded. Look at your reply. Look at mine. I was speaking to the unintended consequences of war, and how it was something a country shouldn't do unless there was no other choice. There are repercussions that are unforeseen and can be very long lasting. I used Japan, a country brought up by you, as an example of that. If I did anything I regret, it is the choice of the word "atrocities." It didn't occur to me that this word would automatically be associated as a word I had used to point at our soldier's actions in Iraq, which was not something that I was thinking of at all. I was pointing out that Japan, which, again, I didn't bring up, was still paying for what they did by instigating war on it's neighbors about 65 years ago, if you go back to it's Asian wars which preceded the attacks on the US, France, Britain, and the other countries they made war on at the same time they suddenly attacked us at Pearl. I hate having to repeat myself again, but I respect you, and really would like you to understand what I am attempting to get across. Japan still pays for it's wars preceding WWII, and WWII itself. Over 60 years ago, they could not have seriously thought they could be in the situation they are in now, with foreign troops still stationed in their country in the tens of thousands, with a constitution imposed on them by a foreign power, with neighbors who still mistrust them. We don't know how our voluntary war on Iraq is going to affect this country years from now. You don't go to war unless you have no choice. Not if you have a modicum of intelligence. Vietnam was a war that we could have stayed out of. We choose not to. And the reasons we choose not to are more arguable than the reasons given by the Bush Administration for their war on Iraq. Do I make any more sense now? I thought I did before, but I'm giving it one more shot.
Thanks for coming back into the game. I promise I will re-read tomorrow. Maybe I misunderstood because I am tired. I've been up since 4:30 and have to get up at 6 AM tomorrow for an early AM meeting. I'll try to re-read carefully tomorrow and see if I can get your drift. Goodnight.
maybe a better comparison would be when the Brits ruled Iraq some of the situations seem eerily similar to ours http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml
