Quite a bit if you believe President Obama's words as he welcomed the Vietnamese president to the White House this week. Obama's remarks have caused outrage among many Vietnam veterans.
For the benefit of you University of California at Santa Cruz Community Studies and History of Consciousness majors, who are too young to remember Vietnam and have learned all you know about it from professors like Angela Davis and Bettina Aptheker, here is Ho's Wikipedia bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
I recall with great fondness when I visited Moscow in the 1990s and happened to see a plaque on a building near Red Square proclaiming that this was the building where Ho had resided during his sojourn there. I still get choked up thinking about it.
I also (really) get choked up thinking about the 58,000+ American troops who died in that war, which was launched by Ho. So I also object when our president makes a comment like that.
But, as a great secretary of state once observed, "What difference at this point does it make?" You see, when we twice elected a man to the White House who used trickery, lies and deceit to avoid military service during that era, we set the bar pretty low, did we not? But what a coincidence! That secretary of state and that president just happen to be man and wife (sort of).
What a small world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ho Chi Minh didn't launch a war against the United States. He based the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence on our own, earnestly sought alliance with the U.S. (which purported to oppose restoration of European colonial empires after WW II), and only found himself at war with the U.S. when our government, unfortunately, sent troops there.
When our troops can't carry out their assigned mission without engaging in atrocities against the population we are allegedly there to defend, they should not be sent. That is no shame on the vets, who were competent soldiers acting under orders, but it is a shame on the leadership that sent them in.
Americans will sooner or later have to come to terms with the many things Ho Chi Minh got right -- and how what he might have accomplished was deferred if not destroyed by the necessity of fighting another war until long after he died. The current president of Vietnam, to coin a phrase, is no Ho Chi Minh, but Ho was indeed at least as great a man as Thomas Jefferson.
"but Ho was indeed at least as great a man as Thomas Jefferson."
A bold but quite inaccurate statement, at least in my view. Siarlys reminds me of Jane
Fonda/John Kerry, et al.
However, if true, then let us put him on one of our pieces of currency, since he did so much good for us.
Ho chi Minh invaded South VN and thus caused the death of millions.
Ho Chi Minh did not "invade South Vietnam." According to the accords which settled the war of independence against the French occupation, the southern zone was a temporary regroupment area, after which free elections were to be held. President Eisenhower acknowledged that Ho Chi Minh would have won 80 percent of the vote, ergo, the U.S. did not allow elections to be held. Therefore, a good part of the population of the southern zone took up arms against the Diem regime, imposed with U.S. connivance. Ho really wanted time to develop the area he actually ruled, in the northern zone, and tried to urge patience on the southerners. But, having to live under Diem's brutality was too much for them.
Their revolt would have been too much for Diem, had not the U.S. sent in troops. That in turn motivated regular troops from the north to join the fray.
elwood's penchant for making analogies leads him into unfortunate blind alleys. I'm rather indifferent to who I remind him of, since he knows so little about any of those he mentions. For the record, when Jane Fonda joined the anti-war movement, I wished she had continued making Barbarella movies. My favorite Doonesbury cartoon is Jane Fonda trying to offer exercise videos to the woman who cleans the building where her studio is located, while the woman explains the difference between working because you gotta and exercising because you wanna.
Siarlys,
Was North Vietnam not supporting the NLF in the South even before they committed their own troops?
At first, no, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, in the northern demobilization zone, was discouraging the National Liberation Front from stirring things up prematurely. Then, when it was obvious people in the south were NOT going to sit quietly, for Diem, or the U.S., or the priorities of the north, sure they provided aid. Did we provide aid to the anti-Nazi resistance in WW II?
They did not "invade South Vietnam." They aided a spontaneous revolt by the people of South Vietnam against the psychopathic despot imposed on them by the United States.
Siarlys,
Yes! And Hitler aided a spontaneous revolt by the Sudenten Germans against a despotic Czech regime, just as he aided a spontaneous revolt of the Poles against Pilsudski after the Poles raided that radio station at Gleiwitz. The fact remains that there were two Vietnams, rightfully or wrongfully. Did the South invade the North?
Gary, I think that you're confusing the Vietnam War with the Korean War.
Ho chi wan kenobi,
You are right. It was Kim Sung Il that was an admirer of Thomas Jefferson.
How silly of me.
Post a Comment