Ex-Radicals of Left Support Military Build

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,946
Points
113
http://articles.latimes.com/print/1987-10-18/news/mn-15283_1_military-buildup

'60s Activists Now Converts of the Right : Ex-Radicals of Left Support Military Buildup to Deter Soviets

October 18, 1987|ERIC LICHTBLAU | Times Staff Writer

Two decades ago, David Horowitz was an editor of the radical Ramparts magazine, a leader of the frenzied student movement against the Vietnam War who called publicly for "revolution by any means necessary."

This weekend, wearing a suit and tie while sitting at a posh Washington hotel that he once would have denounced as bourgeois, Horowitz faced more than 200 fellow "refugees from the '60s" and declared dead the liberal tenets of a movement that he once believed in passionately.

Now a best-selling author who voted for Ronald Reagan, Horowitz is leading former left-wing activists of the 1960s--ex-members of the Young Communist League, Students for a Democratic Society and Marxist-Leninists among them--in a revisionist rebuke to a time of "destructive self-delusion."

Support Aid for Contras

Once violently and visibly opposed to the war in Vietnam, many of those from around the country who paid $100 to take part in this weekend's Second Thoughts Conference now favor U.S. support of the contras in Nicaragua and a military buildup to deter Soviet oppression.

Once marchers behind the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in civil rights demonstrations, several now say they believe that Judge Robert H. Bork should sit on the Supreme Court. And many who had once took pride in calling themselves "radicals" would now admit to being radical only in their conversion to the right of the political spectrum.

Dramatized by Mailer

The conference was held almost exactly 20 years after several thousand members of the "New Left" stormed the Pentagon in a tumultuous Vietnam War protest that was subsequently dramatized by author Norman Mailer in the book "Armies of the Night." But the memory of that protest--in which several here took part--generated neither homage nor nostalgia as the weekend-long panel discussions opened.

Instead, as conferees heard conservative scholars and writers turn their "second thoughts" back to that turbulent time of flag-burning and draft-resisting, those who lived through the movement talked of "chaos and brutality," "bigotry and anti-intellectualism," "political blindness" and "moral frivolity."

To be sure, the conference's 200 participants and two-dozen panelists, who included New Republic Editor Martin Peretz, author Michael Medved and political activist Arturo Cruz Jr., son of the contra leader, were not always in agreement in their shifts away from the liberal ideals of the 1960s and their current views on political issues.

Former SDS Leader

For instance, Jeff Herf, a former Wisconsin SDS leader who is now a research associate at the Naval War College, found himself forced to defend his contention that the "heady" war protests of the '60s were not a major factor one way or the other in the resolution of the Southeast Asian conflict.

And not all have undergone the same degree of change in political thinking. David Ifshin, another 1960s activist, now supports the contras and condemns his generation's "unthinking acceptance of tenets of the New Left," although he also served as general counsel to 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Walter F. Mondale.

But some consensus did emerge from the group, made up predominantly of white, male, middle-aged professionals. Panelists at one session agreed that their rejection of the "utopian" staples of the 1960s movement was not an overnight metamorphosis but a slow, often-painful process of realization, one marked perhaps most vividly by revulsion at the communist "gulags" of postwar Vietnam.

That shift away from liberal beliefs "is not about Damascus Road experiences or great conversions," said Father Richard Newhaus, a former civil rights activist and war protester. "It's about stumbling and trying to find your feet again."

Shaken by Experience

Many--shaken by the Vietnam experience and further disillusioned by a left wing that Horowitz said "rationalizes genocide" in countries such as Cambodia and Tibet--found the answer in conservativism. They are now convinced, several said, that military strength and resistance are needed to fight the global enemies they once thought to be only imagined by the far right.

During the student war protests of the 1960s, Herf said, he and fellow activists held a "utopian" view on the potential for democracy, world community and economic abundance. "We believed anything was possible," he said.

But his views began to drift from the widely held liberal ideals in 1970, heightened by the effects of post-withdrawal communist rule on the Vietnamese people. The one-time activist gradually retreated from the political scene to the world of scholarship.

Today, he said, "when I hear the word 'movement,' I reach for my books and word processor."
 
Many of those old hippie anarchists who rioted at the '68 convention have somehow made it to inside the government or top spots at main stream media outlets.
 
You found one such article, 24 years old, out of 40 years. It must have been tough for you, because that's all there have been. Anyone with common sense knows that anyone who led an organization on the left, and later supposedly turned conservative, was a conservative informer to begin with.

It was different in the 60s. There were plenty of media mentions about how 1930s leftists had all seen the light and changed. But for the 1970 activists there has been this one propaganda article. I'm surprised that this game hasn't been played more. Must be because millions of smart people from the era would jump forward and call it out like I just did.

Speaking of humiliating conversions, how about the articles from a few years ago in which WMD believers admitted they were totally wrong and had killed a million Iraqis for nothing? Or are you still going with the weird conspiracy theory that Saddam buried his weapons in the sand instead of using them?
 
The age of the article is all you got?

These 60s radicals once believed so strongly in their principles that they took to the streets and rioted. They were willing to take a nightstick to the head and spend time in jail for their cause.

I came across the article while doing some reading about MLK Jr. and how those 60s radicals might have been among those who marched with King and others, or had taken part in the Freedom Riders' bus tours. Instead I find they didn't so much, though the one guy mentioned in the article was "Father Richard Newhaus, a former civil rights activist and war protester." King himself was a reverend. More recent civil rights leaders include the reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Get a whiff of religious influence in there somewhere?

These guys marched against the Democrats' 1968 convention and it was bloody violent. Today, guys like the late David Ifshin are influential in the party's politics. He was an adviser to President Clinton, and was on the short list to be Secy. of State.

I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Or something like that.

Anyhow, the theme isn't just some 24 year old thing. Obama's been linked to Weather Underground founder, Bill Ayers. That would be current events. Ayers is now a retired professor at UIUC. Quite an high position in society for a guy, back then, who was into making bombs to be used in terrorist type attacks on his own people (fellow citizens).

Aside from the influential and well paying jobs these guys seem to have settled into, their movement died a long time ago, and the article states the reason - they were shocked that the commies they supported (especially in Vietnam and Cambodia) committed some of the worst atrocities in history.
 
The reason they and I don't demonstrate now is that we've learned that it's impossible to influence the government about war, not because we've changed our opinions. The tiny number of names you mention never were true believers; they were frauds and informers.

Do you think the lack of demonstrations against the Iraq War was because everyone had learned to be pro-war? I've already shown you poll numbers that show that the majority of Americans have opposed that war right fron the start. The lack of demonstrations was because nowadays, everyone realizes the government is unresponsive to the people's will against a war.

The Vietnam War accomplished nothing. Whatever few hypothetical deaths followed (do you have a list?) were far exceeded by the 3 million deaths (according to the UN) that the US caused by fighting the war. If anyone has changed their opinion on that war, it's some of the pro-war side, not the anti-war side.
 
Aside from the influential and well paying jobs these guys seem to have settled into, their movement died a long time ago, and the article states the reason - they were shocked that the commies they supported (especially in Vietnam and Cambodia) committed some of the worst atrocities in history.

That's a strange spin, so you're saying that if I'm against the Irag and Afghanistan wars that means I support Saddam and the Taliban?

A lot of people who protested against the wars in Vietnam and Cambodia didn't support those countries, they just didn't feel we belonged over there.
 
That's a strange spin, so you're saying that if I'm against the Irag and Afghanistan wars that means I support Saddam and the Taliban?

A lot of people who protested against the wars in Vietnam and Cambodia didn't support those countries, they just didn't feel we belonged over there.

It's a deliberate spin, because people who still use terms like "radical left" and believe this sorta crap are the same ones who repeat this crap about how the left supported communists, hate America and that they're the ones who are intolerant.

this is no different then that. They've "learned the errors" of their ways, and obviously their errors were exactly what we told you they were back in the day. They supported evil communism, socialism and anti-Americanism. Once they "grew up" and get "real jobs" they changed into what real "adults" are like and back your (right leaning, white bread, pro America, anti-"looney left") side of how the world really is!

(I'm using "you" in the sense of conservatives who read and believe this sort of shit, not you personally spd)
 
Last edited:
That's a strange spin, so you're saying that if I'm against the Irag and Afghanistan wars that means I support Saddam and the Taliban?

A lot of people who protested against the wars in Vietnam and Cambodia didn't support those countries, they just didn't feel we belonged over there.

I've made no real commentary about the article - what I've posted is the gist of the article itself.

However, you might want to read up on Ifshin. As president of the Natl Students Association, he actually went to North Vietnam where he signed a peace treaty with them on behalf of US students.

These guys really did support those countries, the article states. The reason these guys became disillusioned with their own ideals is how those countries butchered their own citizens once we bailed.
 
The reason they and I don't demonstrate now is that we've learned that it's impossible to influence the government about war, not because we've changed our opinions. The tiny number of names you mention never were true believers; they were frauds and informers.

Do you think the lack of demonstrations against the Iraq War was because everyone had learned to be pro-war? I've already shown you poll numbers that show that the majority of Americans have opposed that war right fron the start. The lack of demonstrations was because nowadays, everyone realizes the government is unresponsive to the people's will against a war.

The Vietnam War accomplished nothing. Whatever few hypothetical deaths followed (do you have a list?) were far exceeded by the 3 million deaths (according to the UN) that the US caused by fighting the war. If anyone has changed their opinion on that war, it's some of the pro-war side, not the anti-war side.

Pol Pot murdered 21% of his people in a four year period in Cambodia. 2.5M people. Not hypothetical.
 
I'm surprised that people think that the US military is a catalyst for mass murderers, power-seekers and just plain villainous people to start doing their thing. Did we invade China and cause the "cultural revolution?" Did we invade Russia and cause Stalin to wipe out all of his military leaders, engineers, intellectuals and their families? Did Pol Pot only start thinking about grabbing power through fear AFTER the Green Berets showed up? How many troops do we have in Rwanda or Sudan? How many people died in Iraq and Iran in the 80's (prior to Gulf War I)? Has there been a genocide in Central America from our dealings there in the 80's? How many millions are dying in the Balkans, since we've had people there for 15 years?

Those with the viewpoint that people are generally good, until the US military shows up, are either naive or intellectually dishonest.
 
I've made no real commentary about the article - what I've posted is the gist of the article itself.

However, you might want to read up on Ifshin. As president of the Natl Students Association, he actually went to North Vietnam where he signed a peace treaty with them on behalf of US students.

Signing a peace treaty doesn't imply support for the counterparty.

These guys really did support those countries, the article states.

Oh, well, if the article states that... it must be true!

The reason these guys became disillusioned with their own ideals is how those countries butchered their own citizens once we bailed.

Does the article state that, or is that your own spin?

The anti-war movement wasn't made up of robots. People joined for a variety of different reasons - everything from moral convictions to meeting chicks to wanting to cause trouble. It follows that some of them also now believe it was a mistake for a variety of reasons.

barfo
 
Honest question: do those of you who "protest war" (whether individually, or by philosophy, or riots, or whatever) lump all action that a member of the military participates in as "war?" Is there a difference b/w a police action, a peacekeeping mission, a training cooperative, full-scale shooting/bombing, supplying combatants, disaster relief, security of sea lanes, etc?
 
Honest question: do those of you who "protest war" (whether individually, or by philosophy, or riots, or whatever) lump all action that a member of the military participates in as "war?"

Yes. If you are making love to your wife, you are making war.

Is there a difference b/w a war, a war, a war, war, war, war, war, etc?

No. If those were different we'd use different words for them.

barfo
 
Honest question: do those of you who "protest war" (whether individually, or by philosophy, or riots, or whatever) lump all action that a member of the military participates in as "war?"

I personally don't.
Is there a difference b/w a police action, a peacekeeping mission, a training cooperative, full-scale shooting/bombing, supplying combatants, disaster relief, security of sea lanes, etc?

yes. disaster relief is obviously not (at least, imho) war.
 
but there are people with American flags on their shoulders with guns, who are providing security for the disaster relief, and people (civilians!) who get killed. Maybe not on the "millions" scale, but definitely not on the "zero" scale. If someone gets shot by a US soldier/sailor/marine/airman, even in something like Banda Aceh or Haiti, does that count as "war?" What about training militaries to go after insurgents and paramilitary/vigilante organizations (like in Colombia)? Because ununiformed people are being killed, does that make it war?
 
Signing a peace treaty doesn't imply support for the counterparty.



Oh, well, if the article states that... it must be true!



Does the article state that, or is that your own spin?

The anti-war movement wasn't made up of robots. People joined for a variety of different reasons - everything from moral convictions to meeting chicks to wanting to cause trouble. It follows that some of them also now believe it was a mistake for a variety of reasons.

barfo

Miss the "communist gulags of Vietnam" part of the article?

These guys were the actual leaders of the New Left movement, not your everyday high school student. They were very influential.
 
Miss the "communist gulags of Vietnam" part of the article?

These guys were the actual leaders of the New Left movement, not your everyday high school student. They were very influential.

No, those guys weren't "the actual leaders". They might have been "actual leaders", but they weren't the main or most prominent names.

Come to think of it, the way I heard it told here in 2008, Bill Ayers was the biggest, baddest anti-war guy of all of them. And he hasn't repented so far as I know.

barfo
 
but there are people with American flags on their shoulders with guns, who are providing security for the disaster relief, and people (civilians!) who get killed. Maybe not on the "millions" scale, but definitely not on the "zero" scale. If someone gets shot by a US soldier/sailor/marine/airman, even in something like Banda Aceh or Haiti, does that count as "war?" What about training militaries to go after insurgents and paramilitary/vigilante organizations (like in Colombia)? Because ununiformed people are being killed, does that make it war?

who are you addressing?
 
in that particular post, you since you brought up disaster relief as "not war."

Again, I'm seriously not being snarky, but trying to see where the line is drawn. I understand that there are some that (for whatever reason) think the military personifies evil and shouldn't ever leave the shores, but that they are a small minority. I understand that there are a larger group (probably still a minority) that doesn't like/doesn't agree with/doesn't want our military spread all over the world for reasons that aren't articulated well by our leaders, so that the only people to listen to in the public eye are generally those who have no clue and are spreading garbage (regardless of what station they work for). (As an aside, did you know that between 6-28% of people, depending on who is asked, think that no one ever landed on the moon?!?!)

In this thread, there have been allegations that "we" (I'm assuming the military that was sent to Iraq) killed millions of Iraqis. And that the government is "unresponsive towards the people's will against a war," as if any type of military action is unwarranted. And that the military was responsible for 3M Vietnamese being killed.

My question was: "what constitutes a 'war' in the eyes of those protesting?" Is it when a uniformed American shoots someone? That happens in all of the cases I wrote about above, including disaster relief. Is it "declaring war" through Congress? Is it sending X number of troops somewhere that a majority of people couldn't find on a map? What is being protested, and for what reason?

And for barfo, I'd submit that Jane Fonda is in the category of "big, bad liberals who caused actual harm to Americans through aid and comfort to a declared enemy." I'd surmise many more people know her than Ayers, in a Outlaw-over-Kingspeed type of situation.
 
My own issue with Vietnam was it appeared the military industrial complex run amok and rudderless.

The most powerful military in the world couldn't roll through a tiny country like we did in Iraq? The military was handicapped by the civilians in charge, no doubt. It sure turned out to be a nice proving ground for new weapons technology, which I think was the point.

A declaration of war would gave been a real start.
 
My question was: "what constitutes a 'war' in the eyes of those protesting?" [...] What is being protested, and for what reason?

Wouldn't that sort of depend on the protester?

And for barfo, I'd submit that Jane Fonda is in the category of "big, bad liberals who caused actual harm to Americans through aid and comfort to a declared enemy." I'd surmise many more people know her than Ayers, in a Outlaw-over-Kingspeed type of situation.

I agree Hanoi Jane is much more famous than Ayers. I don't really see what harm to America(ns) she did, I doubt the Viet Cong fought any harder because they had her approval, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree that American soldiers didn't give up because a movie star consorted with the enemy.

barfo
 
Wouldn't that sort of depend on the protester?



I agree Hanoi Jane is much more famous than Ayers. I don't really see what harm to America(ns) she did, I doubt the Viet Cong fought any harder because they had her approval, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree that American soldiers didn't give up because a movie star consorted with the enemy.

barfo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/mccains-own-60s-radical-p_b_132032.html

But what about McCain's own associations with former 60's radicals. Indeed, until just a few years ago, McCain openly boasted not only about his passing friendship but also his deep collaboration with one of the most prominent of Vietnam-era student radicals, David Ifshin. The same David Ifshin who denounced America on Radio Hanoi as McCain sat locked up as a POW.

I met Ifshin about the same time he came into McCain's life. But under very different circumstances. In 1970, as president of the left-leaning National Student Association, Ifshin traveled to North Vietnam with other anti-war radicals and it was then that he went on Radio Hanoi to denounce his own country's war effort. That broadcast was piped directly into POW McCain's cell in the Hanoi Hilton and he was understandably enraged by what he thought was a traitorous act by a fellow American.

I crossed paths with the same David Ifshin a few months later when he showed up in Chile with folksinger Phil Ochs and Yippie leader Jerry Rubin. We spent some days together n Santiago and I can personally attest that while Ifshin never went as far as Ayres did in becoming a literal bomb-thrower, he was very much emblematic of a generation of radical dissidents. Ifshin had risen to notoriety by leading the takeover of his Syracuse university campus. He opened up his NSA offices to radicals trying to shut down Washington DC with streets protests in May 1971. Just after their sojourn in Chile, Ifshin and Ochs went on to Uruguay, joined a local university takeover and were arrested and deported.

As the years passed, Ifshin - just like Ayers-- eventually moved into the American political mainstream. Ayers came out of the underground, took up education as a profession and staked himself out on the non-violent political left. Ifshin moved more quickly to the center and eventually became General Counsel to the Bill Clinton campaign as well as a prominent leader in pro-Israeli causes. But until the day he died, at age 47 in 1996, Ifshin never renounced nor apologized for his youthful, radical past.
 
But until the day he died, at age 47 in 1996, Ifshin never renounced nor apologized for his youthful, radical past.

So, what you are saying here is that the article you posted to start the thread is misleading.

barfo
 
So, what you are saying here is that the article you posted to start the thread is misleading.

barfo

Nah, more like HuffPost is full of shit biased.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/mccain-and-ifshin/32880/

It's hard to remember a more moving moment in college oratory than the one that came yesterday when Senator McCain, speaking at Columbia College on the subject of division and unity in American politics and war, suddenly started telling a personal story. "I had a friend once, who, a long time ago, in the passions and resentments of a tumultuous era in our history, I might have considered my enemy," Mr. McCain said. "He had come once to the capitol of the country that held me prisoner, that deprived me and my dearest friends of our most basic rights, and that murdered some of us. He came to that place to denounce our country's involvement in the war that had led us there. His speech was broadcast into our cells. I thought it a grievous wrong and I still do."

...

"He had believed America had made a tragic mistake and done a terrible injustice by going to Vietnam, and he still did. But he realized he had let his criticism temporarily blind him to his country's generosity and the goodness that most Americans possess, and he regretted his failing deeply," Mr. McCain said.

The man of whom the senator was speaking was an American idealist named David Ifshin, whose life has much to teach us all. "When he returned to his country he became prominent in Democratic Party politics," the senator said. "He still criticized his government when he thought it wrong, but he never again lost sight of all that unites us. We met some years later. He approached me and asked to apologize for the mistake he believed he had made as a young man. Many years had passed since then, and I bore little animosity for anyone because of what they had done or not done during the Vietnam War. It was an easy thing to accept such a generous act, and we moved beyond our old grievance," Mr. McCain said.
 
Nah, more like HuffPost is full of shit biased.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/mccain-and-ifshin/32880/

It's hard to remember a more moving moment in college oratory than the one that came yesterday when Senator McCain, speaking at Columbia College on the subject of division and unity in American politics and war, suddenly started telling a personal story. "I had a friend once, who, a long time ago, in the passions and resentments of a tumultuous era in our history, I might have considered my enemy," Mr. McCain said. "He had come once to the capitol of the country that held me prisoner, that deprived me and my dearest friends of our most basic rights, and that murdered some of us. He came to that place to denounce our country's involvement in the war that had led us there. His speech was broadcast into our cells. I thought it a grievous wrong and I still do."

...

"He had believed America had made a tragic mistake and done a terrible injustice by going to Vietnam, and he still did. But he realized he had let his criticism temporarily blind him to his country's generosity and the goodness that most Americans possess, and he regretted his failing deeply," Mr. McCain said.

The man of whom the senator was speaking was an American idealist named David Ifshin, whose life has much to teach us all. "When he returned to his country he became prominent in Democratic Party politics," the senator said. "He still criticized his government when he thought it wrong, but he never again lost sight of all that unites us. We met some years later. He approached me and asked to apologize for the mistake he believed he had made as a young man. Many years had passed since then, and I bore little animosity for anyone because of what they had done or not done during the Vietnam War. It was an easy thing to accept such a generous act, and we moved beyond our old grievance," Mr. McCain said.

I dunno. What is the mistake that McCain claims he apologized for? Letting his criticism blind him to generosity and goodness? That's hardly a recanting, and the text you bolded says he still believed Vietnam was a terrible mistake and injustice.

I'm not getting your point.

barfo
 
Pol Pot murdered 21% of his people in a four year period in Cambodia. 2.5M people. Not hypothetical.

What's this conservative rewrite of history now? You say that if the U.S. had won the Vietnam war there wouldn't have been a bloodbath in Laos?

Nonsense. The bloodbath (by the way, the false 2 million dead number was later abandoned by U.S. propaganda after spreading that number for a decade) occurred only because of the Laos war started by the U.S. leading up to the Vietnam war. The U.S. created the divisions in traditionally socialist Laos, polarizing it into capitalists vs. the new Khmer Rouge which was born in order to fight the new capitalist takeover. Without the U.S. trying to overthrow all Southeast Asia tradition, Laos wouldn't have had any war, and no one would have ever heard of Pol Pot.

The bloodbath happened because the U.S. fought wars in Southeast Asia, not because the U.S. lost those wars.

(By the way, after communist Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge after the Khmer Rouge killed a bunch of people (although the 2 million number has no justification), the U.S. then made the Khmer Rouge its ally under Reagan for a few years to oppose Vietnam. Then when Pol Pot went down, the U.S. returned to claiming it was against him.)

Back to the thread topic--Out of tens of millions of Americans who opposed the Vietnam War, you found a dozen lying infiltrators and informers who claim they changed their minds later. Big deal.
 
In this thread, there have been allegations that "we" (I'm assuming the military that was sent to Iraq) killed millions of Iraqis.


Where are the multiple allegations that multiple millions of Iraqis were killed? I don't see them. I do see my one statement, the sources of which I have cited twice before on this board, that a million Iraqis died because of the Iraq War. You want to see this as a direct criticism of the military, since you have assumed a personal mission to defend all things military, but I blame the existence of the war itself (i.e. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, the decision-makers).

And that the military was responsible for 3M Vietnamese being killed.


Same answer. I said that is the UN estimate of how many people died due to the war. You internalized that objective fact into your ego as personal criticism of anyone in the military.

And that the government is "unresponsive towards the people's will against a war," as if any type of military action is unwarranted.


No, "unresponsive towards the people's will against a war" obviously means what it says. The government is unresponsive to demonstrations against a particular war, even if polls show the majority of Americans oppose fighting the war. This happened with 1) the later Vietnam War, 2) the Iraq and 3) Afghanistan wars right from the start, and worse yet, happened against even the majority of Congress in 4) the Contra War: Congress voted 3 times over several years to stop the Contra War and finally conducted the Contra Investigation (renamed by the controlled media as the Iran-Contra Investigation to obscure what it was about) to discover how Reagan and the CIA were funding the war against the consistent votes of Congress.

In summary, there is no way that anyone can rationally claim that "the government is always unresponsive towards the people's will against a war" equals "any type of military action is unwarranted." So how do you make that claim?

And for barfo, I'd submit that Jane Fonda is in the category of "big, bad liberals who caused actual harm to Americans through aid and comfort to a declared enemy."


How did a show biz idiot being in a few photographs, a slim blonde looking silly in a helmet next to a cannon, cause any harm? How did her saying that the Viet Cong were the good guys affect the war in any way? The war was almost over when she did it, and it wasn't even in the American media till a couple of years later, and only then because veterans groups publicized it. This is just a trivial event that pro-war types keep alive to self-motivate and self-energize. "I am offended--what an outrage and an insult!"
 
I dunno. What is the mistake that McCain claims he apologized for? Letting his criticism blind him to generosity and goodness? That's hardly a recanting, and the text you bolded says he still believed Vietnam was a terrible mistake and injustice.

I'm not getting your point.

barfo

The war was a terrible mistake. I don't think many will disagree with that.

What Ifshin apologized for was going to Hanoi with Jane Fonda, sympathizing with the enemy, and having his speech there turned into propaganda by the North Vietnamese. His speech was piped over loud speakers for our men held as POWs to hear.
 
What's this conservative rewrite of history now? You say that if the U.S. had won the Vietnam war there wouldn't have been a bloodbath in Laos?

Nonsense. The bloodbath (by the way, the false 2 million dead number was later abandoned by U.S. propaganda after spreading that number for a decade) occurred only because of the Laos war started by the U.S. leading up to the Vietnam war. The U.S. created the divisions in traditionally socialist Laos, polarizing it into capitalists vs. the new Khmer Rouge which was born in order to fight the new capitalist takeover. Without the U.S. trying to overthrow all Southeast Asia tradition, Laos wouldn't have had any war, and no one would have ever heard of Pol Pot.

The bloodbath happened because the U.S. fought wars in Southeast Asia, not because the U.S. lost those wars.

(By the way, after communist Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge after the Khmer Rouge killed a bunch of people (although the 2 million number has no justification), the U.S. then made the Khmer Rouge its ally under Reagan for a few years to oppose Vietnam. Then when Pol Pot went down, the U.S. returned to claiming it was against him.)

Back to the thread topic--Out of tens of millions of Americans who opposed the Vietnam War, you found a dozen lying infiltrators and informers who claim they changed their minds later. Big deal.

This is akin to holocaust denial.

Yale University's Cambodian Genocide Program:

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/

The Cambodian genocide of 1975-1979, in which approximately 1.7 million people lost their lives (21% of the country's population), was one of the worst human tragedies of the last century. As in the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide, in Nazi Germany, and more recently in East Timor, Guatemala, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot combined extremist ideology with ethnic animosity and a diabolical disregard for human life to produce repression, misery, and murder on a massive scale. On July 18, 2007, Cambodian and international co-prosecutors at the newly established mixed UN/Cambodian tribunal in Phnom Penh found evidence of "crimes against humanity, genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, homicide, torture and religious persecution."


bones.jpg


pol_pot_in_cambodia1.jpg


cambodia1.jpg
 
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/

The Cambodian genocide of 1975-1979, in which approximately 1.7 million people lost their lives

I said that the Khmer Rouge killed a lot of people, but that the 2 million number widely used in the media has no detailed backup. Your source claims 1.7 million and has maps purporting to show

i. the locations and names of Cambodia’s 13,042 villages (phum)

ii. a spatially referenced display and description of the 115,273 sites targeted in the 231,467 US bombing sorties flown over Cambodia between October 1965 and May 1975, dropping 2,757,107 tons of munitions

iii. the locations of 158 prisons run by the Khmer Rouge (Democratic Kampuchea, or ‘DK’) during April 1975-January 1979

iv. 309 DK mass-grave sites (including 258 estimated to each contain six or more bodies; 125 sites, 1,000 or more; 27 sites, 10,000 bodies or more; and 7 sites, 30-70,000 each); in an estimated total of 19,000 grave pits.

v. 76 sites of post-1979 memorials to victims of the Khmer Rouge.
Paragraph iv. is the relevant paragraph to the 2 million calculation. It adds to
1548 = 258 x 6
125,000 = 125 x 1000
270,000 = 27 x 10,000
210,000-490,000 = 7 x 30,000-70,000

These total 606,548 to 886,548, not the 1.7 million your source says. As I said, the Khmer Rouge killed a lot of people and shouldn't have, but I've seen no backup for the 2 million number.

All I have ever seen for how the 2 million number was calculated, is that they found some villages with hundreds of skulls, and extrapolated the percentage killed in those villages to every city and hamlet in the whole country. They assumed the ratio for the worst villages was the same everywhere else. I have never seen any exact method in their estimates.

By the way, did you see paragraph ii.? If each of the 231,467 U.S. bombing sorties killed an average of 7.3 people, there's 1.7 million deaths, the same as your source's estimate for how many the Khmer Rouge killed. As I said, had there been no Vietnam War, then there would have been no Khmer Rouge created to fight the U.S. and bookend the war with a bloodbath.

In summary, the Khmer Rouge bloodbath is a justification against the war, not one for the war, as you claimed when you brought the bloodbath into a thread which is about whether we should have fought the Vietnam War.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top