Let's not forget that there were other US prisoners of war held by the North Vietnamese. Many of them were injured. But McCain got preferential treatment for two reasons. One is that he was the son of a prominent US military figure. The other was that he agreed to broadcast propaganda for the North Vietnamese.

Even if you disagree with Rall and think the Vietnam was was just (which I don't), that doesn't strike me the ultimate in heroism. And since he was freed, he has devoted his life to visiting far more suffering on countless innocent civilians all over the world. What a guy.

Dang, Ted. Comparing McCain to Atta? Despite the fact of them being on the same payroll (on on budget, the other off budget), I think most people would object to the comparison. Not me, of course. McCain is no hero-- he's just a below average jet jockey with extremely good luck. He's lucky he was dropping bombs on Vietnamese women and kids, since apparently the Vietnamese are gracious enough to merely beat his ass when they got their hands on him rather than string him up or necklace him like we might do in a similar situation. All that truth aside, you are going to catch a ration of shit for this one. Hang tight, bud.

Between 1 and 2 million Vietnamese? I think the academic estimates are higher than that (2 million as a bit of a lowball). You might want to look it up. I doubt you'll get much flack over that if it's a lowball (what's a million Vietnamese, right?, when you said something negative about WarHero McCain).

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Of course it's not. But McCain is white and Obama is black. And that's why McCain is going to be the next president. QED.

A fellow POW in Vietnam:

Why I Will Not Vote For John McCain

Vietnam, a war to try to save a failed French empire. Everyone needs a myth to follow but 'protecting America from falling Communist dominos' is silly.
This is like our own Chicken-Little-In-Chief's 'the sky is falling' mantra. What will they pull next? Pledge your money, allegiance, and first born and our Overloards will 'protect' us from the Dreaded Tyrannosaurus Rex? Nuts! We all pay our taxes and 'they' can't even protect us from Killer Tomatoes. It is US that needs protection from THEM!

Ted Rall is correct.

Answer his question: Can those who fought in that[Vietnam] immoral war really be heroes?

Wesley Clark, is also correct, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president"

"By most accounts, John McCain demonstrated courage as a P.O.W., most notably by refusing his captors' offer of early release"

And therein lies the problem - that is simply not true.

JM was shot down, then offered to rat out his country in exchange for hospital treatment, and continued to rat out his country to the point where both the Vietcong and his fellow US POWs nicknamed him "Songbird."

He's admitted to being a war criminal to 60 Minutes, and, until recently, often told of how the worst part of his experience was not getting shot down or captured, but of learning that his Adm. daddy was listening to the radio broadcasts of his treason.

Too bad WClark was too chicken to finish his thoughts...

type in....vietnam veterans against john mccain....in google (no spaces),he is no hero

The Vietnam War started long before the Tonkin Gulf incident (and it wasn't the first time that an event was fabricated to start a war, remember the Maine?) The Vietnam War started in the late forties with France struggling to hold onto what they considered theirs, a colony. The US officially became involved in 1954 (I may be wrong about that, someone correct me please) when the French handed everything over to us and left. The US started with "advisors" who were really special forces and although they weren't officially supposed to engage in combat... Well, that was another lie the government fed the people. As for heroes, think about Mai Lai, tiger cages (a product of KBR, yes that KBR), carpet bombing, agent orange...

I don't hold anything McCain did while imprisoned to get medical care or what ever. As a pilot he hit targets given to him by the military. He was shot down so his imprisonment was involuntary so not exactly a "heroic" act like throwing your body on a grenade to save other lives. What really saddens me is Obama dissociating himself from Clark who stated the obvious.

McCain is lucky he isn't running aainst the Clintons. There is a lot of innuendo about his service record and time as a POW. Stuff like frank1569 posted, even worse. There are several Counterpunch articles. Even a claim he almost destroyed the Forrestal by hot dogging with his jet. (Counterpunch is not fact checked.)

Its amazing some Swiftboat style organization hasn't started dragging him through the mud on this.

Apparently he did go a pretty good job while commanding a large shore based unit, greatly improving morale and air worthiness of the planes.

david.peace2002 July 17th, 2008 6:33 pm

You are quite correct.

Ted Rall on the other hand is laughable.

"100,000 draft-eligible males–true heroes, to a man–who went to Canada rather than kill people in a war that was plainly wrong."

About 50,000 and slightly more women than men. I can't blame the guys that left rather than serve, but hero's. Bullshit. And I don't curse lightly. They (the boys) made another take their place. Nothing heroic about that. Nothing heroic about the percentage of cowards among them. Most simply made a choice. They had to live with it.

I certainly can consider a man that spent years in a prison camp and still suffers the physical effects of it more heroic than someone like Rall that read all about it.

Its a shame to critize McCain without foundation and every charge thats been made here has turned out to be bogus. Believe what you please, it will not change the truth.

When I read people like this I always wonder what they would have done faced with these choices? How would they have held up as a POW? I always feel perhaps they should hold their tongues until they prove themselves ready to judge.

Vietnam was a mistake, something we shouldn't have done? No kidding! I'm really glad a cartoonist that was born while some were POW's and others were dying there let us know.

All of us cowards that weren't brave and heroic enough to run were certainly to stupid to know that.

And for his information and others...were there hero's in Vietnam. You bet your ass there were. I knew two of them.

I don't know why Obomber would reject Gen. Wesley Clark's statement about McCain. Why is it Democrats are forever kissing GOP arse? I never see the Rethuglicans doing the same to Demopublicans.

We have quite a choice between two warmongers. Okay, I'll vote for Obomber. I don't want McInsane in the White House.

BBR-001 said, "Its amazing some Swiftboat style organization hasn't started dragging him through the mud on this."

The answer is two-fold. On another thread yesterday it was pointed out that the media, mostly in conservative/Republican/pro military hands go easy "on their own." And secondly, the US basically utilizes war as its main PRODUCT, so the warrior cult and its real and imagined heros must be at all times protected. This is one indication of what I mean when I frequently use the euphemism, "MARS RULES."

To me the most serious problem with McCain is that having SEEN the horrors of war, he champions for MORE of same. That is like a sociopathic murderer killing and lusting for the opportunity to go at it yet again. The capacity to shut out even the slightest sense of empathy either for fellow soldiers (wounded/imprisoned/maimed) or citizens, especially the staggering numbers of innocent civilians who constitute the greater percentages of those killed, those counted as "collateral damage," is what is ostensibly CRIMINAL. Of course with Bush turning foul "fair" and fair foul, and thus far getting away with THE SUPREME CRIME which is naked war of aggression (in this case with the case FIXED ahead of time, i.e. PREMEDITATED murder on a grand scale) the way has been set for a McCain.

I really hope Divine intervention stops the US and these INHUMAN beings for the sake of other nations and our own nation's soul AND karma!

Let's just be honest...

John 'Bomb Bomb' McCain is the REAL Manchurian Candidate!

Even if McCain is a jet jockey, that does not equip him for international politics and geostrategy. YO BLAIR!

The Atta/McCain analogy fails as far as "Would anyone consider Atta a hero?"

I don't accept the official story of 9/11, but, leaving that aside, if Atta was real and not just a patsy, he would be considered a hero to many young, radical men and boys in the parts of the world that are suffering U.S. Imperialist aggression. Rall doesn't make sense there. We are talking about McCain being considered a hero or not in his home country, and then we are presented a question about Atta being considered a hero or not in the country under attack.

That is an irrational comparison.

But I agree completely with the argument that McCain is more a war criminal for dropping napalm on children than a hero.

To me, having been tortured for 5 years and kept in a cellar, etc. is so likely to have damaged the man's psyche and left him with unresolved, repressed anger that I believe that not only is it not a qualification, it is a disqualification for him to have his finger on the nuclear button

It took a lot of courage to decide to go underground rather than show up at the bus station as directed when you got your draft notice in the mail. I know. I did it in 1973 when I was in college in Kalamazoo, MI, and it forever put my life on a different path. I did not want to leave my country, so I didn't go to Canada as a couple of my cousins did. I went underground and ended up on an Indian Reservation in Montana, where "Heavyrunner" is a common surname.

Our country's creation of an elite, "volunteer" fighting force under the control of the president and it's need to worship anyone in uniform, past or present, is truly terrifying.

To Thomas ( maybe this time we'll get it right )More : "were there hero's in Vietnam". I'll concede the point to you that there were heroes ( at least you and your two friends ) in Vietnam but the cowards(your word)and the heroes lost .

There are cowards and heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan but they are losing.

There may be heroes and cowards in Iran but they will lose.

Even when a hero repeats the same mistake and expects a different outcome that behaviour would aptly be described as delusional.

Let's put it real down-to-earth terms : Some dog-trainers train a puppy by confining it in a very,very small kennel. If after several attempts at continence the puppy has not learned to "hold it" and not crap in his living space , usually the trainer surmises that no further training will bring the desired results and puppy is put down .

I hope you can see the parallel between dead , incontinent puppies that would or could not learn and dead or losing heroes that would or could not learn

In the words of John F. Kennedy: "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same prestige that the warrior enjoys today"

The men who went to Canada could guess at the cost of their action. Many of them could not come home to their parents' funerals, 40 years later. Their courage was the courage of their convictions versus a stupid farmer-shooting war.

Many of the men who went to Vietnam could also guess at the cost of their action. The grunts knew they were cannon fodder. Some enlisted purely to serve their country. That was courageous. Many were drafted or coerced by the draft. That was more drifting along in life than courageous.

McCain got a champagne brigade job, no VC at night on the deck of a carrier. I don't know if McCain knew when he signed up that he wouldn't be immune from enemy fire. Bushie knew! Bushie was training on an obsolete jet designed solely for Armageddon fighting.

McCain got in his jet every day, which shows some courage in the face of his squadron mates disappearing and not returning. The courage is not in the parachute ride down after your jet has been hit, nor is courage about sitting in a cage. Courage is in the volunteering in the first place, and for a pilot, getting up every day.

I'm not chintzy about handing out recognitions of courage. However, I hand it out also to the men who thought about the consequences of going to Canada and did it anyways. McCain is home. They're not.

Pat Tillman was a hero, look where it got him, all respects. It is a good question, however. Because when I follow the chain of thought on this.. Well you are a hero if your intentions are good. Then, isnt the road to Hell said to be paved with good intentions? These heroes have been blindsided by their political ignorance. Clever politicians have seen this handicap and exploited it. Of course, once a person is aware that the war they are engaging in is immoral - then certainly the heroic thing is to resist - as the Winter Soldiers have done.

Anyone who fought in the Vietnam War and hasn't come to the understanding that it was a mistake to be there, and contrary to basic principles of justice. Anyone who says that they were a hero in Vietnam is missing the boat. There may have been heroic acts, but carrying out criminal acts of war and being captured doesn't make you a hero.

Many people who support the Iraq war also believe the Vietnam war was justified. Why is that?

I think the point about Atta was what would have happened to him had he been found by the local population as compared to what actually did happen to McCain. Perhaps a poor choice for comparison, especially if you take the analogy farther than it can or needs to go.

You guys reminded me of something. I haven't been up to Nova Scotia to visit my cousin in years. He was raised Quaker and could have "gone CO". Never undestood that.

I think both of them are puppets controlled by the media etc. and no change who ever gets in.

Remember the USA was attacked on 911 and LOST the war. LOST a war and it only took a few billions bucks worth of stone and metal to fall over and the country rallied behind another controlled leader.

McKane is considered a war hero cuz Americans are desperate to have one.

But I agree completely with the argument that McCain is more a war criminal for dropping napalm on children than a hero.

If we don't stop using information thats wrong just because it fits what someone likes to believe, is it any wonder people tend to discount valid points when we talk about them?

McCains flight group never carried Napalm. They never flew close gground support missions. The only time Napalm was carried. Carrier records are quite clear on this.

"To me the most serious problem with McCain is that having SEEN the horrors of war, he champions for MORE of same. That is like a sociopathic murderer killing and lusting for the opportunity to go at it yet again."

Now this is a great point.

Ronald White July 18th, 2008 12:00 am

Lets clear this up right away. I wasn't anywhere close to a hero. I spent my tours scared (pick a word) like most of us did. The two guys I spoke of clearly were. I've not seen anyone that had that much raw courage before or sense. We weren't involved in the action, we were on the next ridge and I didn't know them.

There were a few hero's in Vietnam and there were a few cowards too, but mostly we were your next door neighbor or you.

Of course we lost in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese weren't as committed as the North. It was a civil war we should have stayed out of. Of course we will lose in Iraq, we shouldn't be there. Afganistan, I'm not sure...its different than Iraq and we won't win, but perhaps the Afgans will.

The point I keep trying to get across is that people keep confusing the Marines, soldiers, airman and sailors with the civilian leadership that is responsible for committing them. Your training puppies analogy would be most appropriate for Johnson and Bush, but not for those serving. And would certainly apply to Congress. Are we close or am I not getting across?

If you are saying that anyone that joins the military or serves is stupid we will never agree. It has many purposes. If you believe we don't need a military you are living in a different world.

"That was more drifting along in life than courageous."

What an asinine statement.

The real point of the Vietnam war is that a lot of the revisionist history by the stay at home anti war types won't fly. Next, this rationalization that they or people not even born then have the ability or the right to judge or approve or disapprove the actions of the men who served there, or to quote falsehoods to bolster their viewpoints is Bullshit. Pure Bullshit.

Those like Mr. White that express an opinion or discuss war and soldiers rationally I welcome reading what they think or if they think I'm full of it, finding out if they are right (not to suggest anyone needs my permission), heav y runner July 17th, 2008 11:48 pm, I'll listen to respectfully as he was there, faced these things, made a different decision than most of us, but I never heard a Marine call men like him cowards, they paid and continue to pay a heavy price. There were times when all of us wished we'd ridden the bus with him.

I don't mean to be rude to anyone and I certainly don't want to hold myself out as a "final word", but I simply won't allow things I know to be untrue go unchallanged. Its important to be truthful about these things and Rall had serious mistakes in his article.

His comparison to those young men that served there to Nazi's is beneasth contempt, as is he. His type is well known to men.

Pax

RE the above---There are always brave and amazing human actions within a war, within an obscenely wrong one too like Nam was. I just think it is LESS brave to agree to go and harm other people for reasons that don't bear the light of day or 5 minutes' real thought---that it is more brave to say No and be called a coward (etc.) because your humanity belongs to the planet, not to a flag. If you are brave while protecting yourself and others from the wrath of people you have invaded, that's self-defense, not heroism. This is a good article jogging the conscientious memory, for lack of which Americans are letting the country, bequeathed to them in courage and sacrifice, go to hell. Sooner or later the "special status" of the U.S. and Israel is going to collapse under its worse than useless weight. And then literally "the world will turn." Jeeziz, look at it---McCain thinks "the wrong people" won the Vietnam War and Obama thinks that a photo-op visit to Iraq is going to make his judgments (already confused and unsound) better...and media prostitutes are cheering on our "choice." Fuck these dead-ends---I'm voting for Nader even if it does bring on McCain, because that putz who never stops wearing the military's young people on his sleeve will bring the American Empire round to world reality just as well, except that, sorry to say, it will be through more needless bloodshed. You cannot possibly change things by voting for a liar or a clown---Don't settle for the fake choice being wagged in your face 24/7, that doesn't make it true!

McCain wasn't a good pilot. He lost five jets. McCain did't "fight" in Vietnam. He flew over it, got shot down, and lived in a prison. Those who fought on the ground, the Marines, Army infantry grunts, are the ones who fought in Viewnam. McCain's experience, although, traumatic to him and honorable to the military, don't qualify him for anything.

Jack37 July 18th, 2008 11:07 am

While I daisagree with some of your points I wholeheartedly agree with thisc statement...
"jogging the conscientious memory, for lack of which Americans are letting the country, bequeathed to them in courage and sacrifice, go to hell."

lwhunt330 July 18th, 2008 11:08 am

I'd like to strongly agree with you.

I'd like to say that serving no matter where qualifies no one for the office of President of the United States or any other office.

The only thing it should do is make sure if those that have the power commit our troops anywhere know what they are sending them into. And thats only if they served in combat.

Thomas More believes that McCain is supposed to be heroic because he was a POW while ignoring the reason why McCain ended up in a POW camp and that was because he had completed a bombing run over a power plant in Hanoi. As another commenter correctly noted, the Vietnamese peasants who were threatening to beat him would have certainly been justified in killing him since that was what McCain had intended to do to them. If Thomas More wants to know what true heroism is, he should then rent or buy the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, which told the story of the GI rebellion and those service members who had the courage to say NO to that illegal and unjust conflict in Vietnam. Many went to jail for their beliefs. Those people are the true heroes of this country while John McCain is not fit to shine their shoes and stand in their shadows of these brave individuals who dared to challenge the authority of the military and the government. Their heroism is the kind that McCain can only dream of possessing.

A hero is someone who intentionally puts her/himself in harm's way, often sacrificing health or life, to save another's life. Firefighters are one obvious example of true heroes.

How is someone who goes to war with the intention of killing other people, most of them civilians (as has been the case since 1939), a hero? And if he/she is fighting in an illegal, unnecessry, unjustified war of empire, how does that make her/him a hero?

I was in the first Draft Lottery in 1969-1970 and already knew then that I could not be a part of a killing machine (a.k.a. an army). I applied for, documented my beliefs as, argued before my draft board for, and was granted a Conscientious Objector classification. I was only following the dictates of my conscience, guided by the Golden Rule. I was certainly not being courageous, much less a "hero."

All soldiers, whether drafted or not, are victims of the insidious, truly evil state machinery which must continue to lie to them and manipulate them to glorify warfighting as "patriotic" behavior. If young people, especially males, whose brains and, consequently, moral judgement (we now know) are not even fully developed and mature until they are 25 years old (which is why they are so easily indoctrinated into militaridsm), could really learn from history and obey the laws about their legal and moral responsibilities to refuse to participate in illegal wars, there would be mass mutinies in every army on earth and an eventual end to wars, especially wars of aggression such as Viet Nam and Iraq. But that is a fantasy vision.

War serves only the interests of war profiteers, which always include the political leaders who are so avidly pro-war, especially when they have no children being sacrificed to it, the corporations which profit from it, and the corporate or state media which promotes it, often by deliberately not showing its true barbarity. The rest of us are the victims, psychological, physical, emotional, and economic, of one the worst crimes, along with genocide, that can be committed against our fellow humans.

Erroll July 18th, 2008 2:17 pm
Thomas More believes that McCain is supposed to be heroic because he was a POW

Darn, I missed where I said that.
"spent years in a prison camp and still suffers the physical effects of it more heroic than someone like Rall that read all about it."

Not quite the same as calling McCain a hero at least to me. My main point has been that only the guys that were there with McCain can say for sure and they all speak for him. I don't know what he is, but I do know that anyone that judges him on baseless charges needs to find a mirror.

Sir, no sir is not exactly a new movie folks. Some of it is true, some is pure propaganda. It supports a certain viewpoint and nothing wrong with that, but please don't start annointing any of these folks with "true heroism" And I wouldn't spit on Jane Fonda so if you invoke her name for honesty, forget it. You all seem to make the same mistake. If people don't agree with you they are wrong. I can't tell you how many degrees of right and wrong there are in combat. I especially loved the part about it was mostly blacks fighting the war. Horseshit. I can tell you thats a crock. Better yet get some old TV footage and count faces. Hard to fight a war with less than 10% of your population. There were of course proportunately more blacks serving than 10% because its harder for poor guys to duck out. But if someone tries to tell you it was mostly blacks, they are a liar and a base one at that.

eciaccio July 18th, 2008 3:37 pm
"A hero is someone who intentionally puts her/himself in harm's way, often sacrificing health or life, to save another's life. Firefighters are one obvious example of true heroes."

How is someone who goes to war with the intention of killing other people, most of them civilians (as has been the case since 1939), a hero? And if he/she is fighting in an illegal, unnecessry, unjustified war of empire, how does that make her/him a hero?

Your first paragraph was absolutely correct. But it works the same way in Combat when an "individual intentionally puts her/himself in harm's way, often sacrificing health or life, to save another's life."

I saw two hero's, I know there were many others.

Now, your second paragraph....War of Empire? What a crock, if we had wanted an Empire, we would now be ruling Vietnam and most of the rest of the world. There was no one to stop us. Thats just radical rhetoric. As is "war of agression". Both are false.

Using the phrase "killing civilians" shows you know little about war, thats all.

If you were a CO, I can only say how glad I am you didn't have to go, that you are still here. Many of my friends are not. Perhaps you won't understand that, but there wasn't a one answer fits all back then. Nor is what you say particularly true in my opinion.

If you don't understand that war is sometimes needed, can't be helped, nothing I can say will make any difference.

I would tell you we had a Quaker in our company, he could have chosen CO, he didn't. Do you think that makes him less than you are? I doubt it.

Darn, I get long winded sometimes. Sorry.

It is difficult to know where to begin in order to dispel the lies handed out by Thomas More at 2:17 pm but nevertheless I shall attempt to point his transgressions. First is his statement where he says that "only the guys that were with McCain can say for sure and they all speak for him." I suggest that Mr. More may want to retract his bogus statement since, as this link proves, not all Vietnam veterans [such as myself] support McCain.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

Baseless charges? You may wish to use that mirror yourself.

Probably his biggest falsehoods are the ones regarding the documentary Sir! No Sir! [not, as he writes, Sir, no sir]. First, he claims that "Sir, no sir [sic] is not exactly a new movie folks." As far as I can determine, this is the only film that has chronicled the GI movement that took place at or near military bases both at home and abroad during the Vietnam War. Just about every film that has been made in Hollywood has glorified war and the American soldier, especially from the mid 1930s on, as documented in The Hollywood War Machine-U.S. Militarism And Popular Culture by Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard.

Thomas More writes that "And I wouldn't spit on Jane Fonda so if you invoke her name for honesty, forget it." If he is trying to smear Ms. Fonda by that mangled sentence, he ended up failing miserably. Jane Fonda, as Sir! No Sir! points out, took part in the FTA tours, which were in direct contrast to the propaganda handed out by Bob Hope's USO tours. One would think by Thomas More's inference that Jane Fonda was hated and reviled by those who were in the military. That lie should have been effectively put to rest when, to the amazement and dismay of the military, 60,000 soldiers went to see the FTA tours at places like Japan, Okinawa and the Philippines and cheer Jane Fonda and her colleagues on in the early 1970s, which supported the claim that most of the the rank and file in the military at that time were against the war. FTA technically stood for Free Theater Associates but the entertainers named it after the Army recruiting slogan during that time, Fun, Travel and Adventure. But among the soldiers it was more popularly known as Fuck the Army.

Thomas More goes on to state, somewhat incoherently but also incorrectly, that "I especially loved the part about it was mostly blacks fighting the war." Perhaps Mr. More saw this particular scene in the film Sir, no sir but it certainly was not in the film Sir! No Sir!. In the latter film,
Black soldiers noted, quite correctly, that their fight was not against the Vietnamese people, who never threatened them or any of their brothers in the United States. The film has Terry Whitmore, a Black U.S. Marine, saying how he thought about what he did in Vietnam and the people that he killed there. The film talked about how the military wanted him and others in the military to return to Memphis, Tn., along with tanks and dogs, in order to suppress Black people. The film has a Black soldier describing how the military beat him and others because they refused to deploy to Chicago in 1968 against the demonstrators at the Democratic convention. But Sir! No Sir! never claimed, as Thomas More falsely does, that there "were mostly blacks fighting against the war." His claim especially makes no sense since the film is based in part on David Cortright's classic work "Soldiers In Revolt: GI Resistance During The Vietnam War" and the book states [on p. 203] that "black servicemen in 1971 represented 16.3 per cent of those in combat specialties and 19.6 per cent of those in service and supply positions." Nowhere in Cortright's book nor in the film is it stated that there were "mostly blacks fighting the war." If anyone says that then, to quote Thomas More, they "are a liar and a base one like that". As he said, someone "needs to find a mirror" to discover who is being less than truthful.

The irony is that he defames Sir! No Sir! for being, at least in some places, propaganda but which parts he is unwilling or unable to say. It certainly was not propaganda when Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke [who wrote "The Spitting Image"] stated that there is no documented proof that Vietnam veterans were spat upon when they returned from Vietnam, especially since many of those veterans joined the antiwar movement when they returned to this country.

It certainly was not propaganda when male nurse Randy Rowland recounted how the paralyzed veterans from Vietnam, whom he took care of at Fort Lewis, Wa., stated without exception they did not think that what they went through was worth it. It was not a lie when Navy nurse Susan Schnall was court martialed because she wore her naval uniform at an antiwar rally. She thought [logically, I believe], that if General Westmoreland could wear his uniform to promote war, she could then wear hers to promote peace. It was not propaganda to hear a solder who had returned from Vietnam state to other soldiers who were going to leave to go to Vietnam how American soldiers would go on ambushes and kill 50 people, the majority of whom were women and children. It was not propaganda to see soldiers [about 800 of them] take part in Dewey Canyon III, where soldiers threw their medals at the Capitol steps in protest of what they went through unjustifiably in Vietnam.

In short, Thomas More's allegations are just that, allegations, without any basis in fact. 503,926 military personnel deserted during the Vietnam War because they, unlike John McCain, had the moral courage and wisdom to recognize that they did not wish to participate in the slaughter and genocide of the Vietnamese people. As David Cline noted in the film, "Your silence means that you're part of keeping that lie going." And former Master Sergeant Green Beret Donald Duncan, who observed that "I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right". "What's the pride in saying you're a veteran" if you are doing something wrong, he said.

One of the best and moving parts of the film was at the end when Rita Martinson of the FTA tour sang to the soldiers in the audience the song "Soldiers, We Love You" because she realized and understood that there were those in the military who were not going to allow themselves to be used by the military authorities and that the ones who should be greatly respected and admired were those who had the courage to say NO to the illegal and immoral orders that they were given. It was also quite telling to hear Jane Fonda comment how "the hawks loved to revise the history of Vietnam." This statement can now include people like Thomas More, who wishes to indulge in fantasies in order to make his less than truthful points.

Thomas More:

I bet you did see a few genuine heroes who saved lives, just as there were Viet Cong and North Vietnamese and ARVN heroes who saved lives (and Nazi and Japanese, etc.) But that doesn't make every soldier in every war a hero, nor does it justify war.

You saw combat, but may need to read up on modern war. Every war since 1939 has seen a huge and increasing majority of civilian casualties over military casualties due to the power of modern weaponry and the intentional targeting of civilians. That is why war is terrorism. No one needs to experience war to know that.

If your understanding of Empire is limited to 19th century ideas of it, read Chalmers Johnson's Blowback trilogy, Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow, and William Blum's Killing Hope. Also see A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

You can deny our war on the people of Vietnam was a war of aggression all you want and call it a "crock," but you'd still be wrong. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq was ever a threat to the U.S. Eisenhower's refusal to allow the elections promised in the treaty settling the French-Indochina war was the start of our aggression against Vietnam; our supporting a puppet government in South Vietnam, and JFK & RFK's condoning of the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem in Nov. 1963 show how the U.S treated Vietnam as a colony to be manipulated.

To better understand how Empire operates in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, read Confessions of An Economic Hitman by John Perkins and The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Three of my friends served in the Vietnam War. Only two came back alive.

Eciaccio

Intelligently and articulately well stated.

Noam Chomsky's thesis is that by 1970 the U.S. had achieved most of its objectives in Vietnam by simply destroying the country. The rest was just public relations to put the best face on what looked like abject defeat. We all remember those helicopters leaving Saigon with American personnel. What is Vietnam today? Why, its a capitalist trading partner of the U.S. with an ostensibly Communist government. Kind of like China. Think those 58,000 American deaths and the millions of Vietnamese killed was a noble cause now?

Erroll July 18th, 2008 10:00 pm

Sir, I'm not a liar, never have been, never will be. So be careful which the personal insults.

Please read things correctly. I said the men that were with John McCain, not Vietnam veterans. Also this isn't a new movie, it was made years ago.

The claim was made in their promo of the film and has been stated since on CD, especially when the film came out that blacks served disproportionately in combat. Not true.

If you think it takes moral courage to desert I feel for you.

Let me clear something up for you, I personally witnessed two separate spitting episodes in California, so let me tell you the guy you quoted is wrong. One was one of my men and it was a great example of military discipline.

As to Jane Fonda, I don't know how the guys on Guam or elsewhere thought of her, but if she had wandered up to the Que Son Mountains when she was in Hanoi supporting the guys killing us her welcome wouldn't have been anywhere as warm. I would' spit on her and waste my spit...is that concise enough for you?

The fantasy is that you believe this is a historical film that gives you a picture of the time and events. Its not. It supports a point of view and as I said there is nothing wrong with that. But thats all it is, Some truth and some propaganda. I could make the same movie with different people from a different point of view and be just as truthful.

Rather than go on and on, I'm just trying to suggest that you are looking at a narrow view of the war and some of the people that were there, For every one of those "heroes" of yours there were 5 serving that felt the same way. Just consider a longer wider look.

eciaccio July 19th, 2008 12:20 am

You have some good points. And some are absolutely correct. The real problem here is that I become somehow cast as defending the Vietnam war. I don't and didn't.

What I won't stand for is people calling it genocide and murder. They lost over a million soldiers that were shooting at us. Try and figure out how many total were shooting at us if they lost that many.

Next is the claim we killed a million plus civilians, Bullshit doubled. The NVA and Charles killed far more than we ever did and they killed on purpose most of the time.

Tactics change, war doesn't. The ability and equipment may be enhanced, but the fear is the same, the loss is the same. I have more that enough friends left in the Corp that served both places to assure you war hasn't changed.

"But that doesn't make every soldier in every war a hero, nor does it justify war."

I fail to see how you ever got this from what I said. There are few hero's in a war. And of course there is justification for war. Do you believe we should have let the Japanese come here and rule us, because war "is never justified"? See what I mean? I know you didn't mean to say anything that stupid. I know what you mean, not what you said.

As an aside I did see an NVA regular that I would have written up for the Congressional

"That is why war is terrorism. No one needs to experience war to know that."

Personally, I don't feel thats true. I don't think you can come close to knowing what terroism is till you experience combat or something like it. Thats why I think you'll find that most combat veterans would rather shoot themselves rather than send our young men and women off needlessly, do anything we can think of rather than go to war.

America has no Empire of any kind except perhaps an economic one. Empires don't withdraw their forces as we did in the Philippines by request of the country its in if we are an empire. Thats simply Marxist rhetoric thats been around for many years. Using it discredits valid points.

The reading you suggested simply supports the point of view you take. Some true, some not. Just as my opinions are just that, opinions unless I was there and personally saw something or experienced it.

"Three of my friends served in the Vietnam War. Only two came back alive."

God bless the two, they rest in good company, the best mostly. And bless the lucky one, I wish him the very best.

Eric Barth July 19th, 2008 11:17 am

Personally I'm not a fan of Chomsky, but I'm not a Marxist or socialist radical. Just a run of the mill liberal.

Vietnam wasn't destroyed of course, Chomsky's given to hyperbole.

"Think those 58,000 American deaths and the millions of Vietnamese killed was a noble cause now?"

Noble cause? How in the hell do people transpose a refusal to stand for disparagement of the guys that served or to allow lies about the war to stand unchallenged into, I think it was a noble cause.I believe we should invade twice on Sundays.

Lets be clear and I'll shut up. Vietnam was a huge mistake, a terrible cost top all involved and if I could change history, would never have happened.

The real difference in Vietnam is that we were invited to Vietnam and we darn sure weren't to Iraq.
We shouldn't have been in one and we shouldn't be in the other.

Draft dodgers are just that, they don't want to serve so they duck out. No veteran I know ever blamed them. Wished we'd done it sometimes.

Deserters are cowards and if you consider them hero's....your problem not mine. My morals are higher than that.

Let me qualify that by...the guys that ducked for Canada before leaving the US are excluded as are the percentage of broken guys.

Pax

As an aside I did see an NVA regular that I would have written up for the Congressional

My apologies I didn't finish this and you made an important point about it.

As an aside I did see an NVA regular that I would have written up for the Congressional of honor. We ambushed his patrol, one of his guys was hit in the middle of the clearing, two others killed, the rest made it to cover. Then this little guy runs like hell out of cover, throwing down his weapon, going for his wounded buddy. We werec still firing, but we all pulled off jhim because he threw down his weapon and we knew where he was going. There was no way he could have known we'd pull off him and give him a pass on his pick up. No way. It is still one of the three bravest things I saw in that hole. Any one of us would havbe bought that guy a beer. If I could meet him today, I'd be honored. That was a hero in my books.

Any shred of credibility that Thomas More may have laid claim to has been ripped apart by his latest bit of nonsense at 07-19 at 12:57 pm. He first puts, for some odd reason, great emphasis upon the fact that Sir! No Sir! is not a new movie. The movie first came out in 2005 and was released to wider distribution in 2006. I am utterly baffled as to what possible relevance it is when Sir! No Sir! was first released to the general public. What should be relevant and important, as I mentioned in my comments at 07-18 at 10:00 pm, is that Sir! No Sir! is the only documentary to have chronicled the GI movement that took place during the Vietnam conflict, which very few Americans today are even aware of. This bit of factual information seems to be apparently lost upon Thomas More, who inexplicably claims to be a liberal.

But those pesky things called facts do not seem to deter Thomas More. He tries to discredit Sir! No Sir! by continuing to insist that Black soldiers in Vietnam did not serve disproportionately in combat. This is quite different from his original statement where he said at 07-18 at 2:17 pm that "it was mostly blacks fighting the war." That bizarre statement is just as inaccurate as his current claim. To again quote David Cortright from Soldiers in Revolt "Although constituting 12.1 per cent of all enlisted people, black servicemen in 1971 represented 16.3 per cent of those in combat specialties..." Cortright obtained these figures from an investigative hearing that was held by the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971 as well as from the Department of Defense's own four volume Report of the Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice issued in November of 1972. Cortright goes on to add that "Within frontline combat units, black participation is even higher. Many infantry units in Vietnam were more than twenty per cent black, with paratroop units in some cases approaching 50 per cent". Cortright points out that "By contrast, blacks held only 4.9 per cent of jobs in the electronics -equipment field."

Thomas More also tries to disparage Jerry Lembcke, by claiming that Vietnam veterans were spat upon. As Lembcke [a Vietnam veteran himself] explained in the film, he had gone back through many of the major newspapers in the late 1960s and early 1970s and found absolutely no documentation to validate the claim that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon when they returned to this country. As Lembce himself said in the film, he is not saying unequivocally that this did not happen. He is simply asking the question: where is the proof that this was supposed to have occurred? As he tried to point out, apparently to no avail, as time passes by so do memories and those memories may become distorted as to what actually happened. As Lembcke also noted, one would have thought that these veterans who were allegedly spat upon would have had great loathing for the antiwar movement whereas the opposite was true as many returning Vietnam veterans [probably to the chagrin of Mr. More] joined ranks with the antiwar movement to speak out in protest against the government that had lied to them.

He then attempts [unsuccessfully] to smear Jane Fonda, by saying [somewhat incoherently] "I don't know how the guys on Guam or elsewhere thought of her", despite the fact that I had specifically mentioned that she appeared with the FTA at Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines. He claims ignorance of what [not how] they thought of her even though I had again mentioned at 07-18 at 10:00 pm that those soldiers cheered quite vociferously for her and her colleagues because they realized that Ms. Fonda and the other entertainers had great sympathy for the unjustifiable plight and horror that those soldiers were going through in Vietnam as well as the unnecessary suffering that the Vietnamese people had been through at the hands of American bombs and bullets. My point, which Thomas More again tries to ignore, is that the image that so many Americans have is that Jane Fonda was hated and reviled by almost every American soldier during that time period but as the success and popularity of the FTA tours clearly demonstrated, that, like Thomas More's statements, is a completely falsehood.

Finally, he claims that Sir! No Sir! is somehow not a "historical film" and that parts of the documentary are "propaganda." I laid out my arguments here and at my comments at 07-18 at 10:00 pm while he presents no evidence [because he cannot] that Sir! No Sir! was somehow "propaganda." 500,000 soldiers deserted from tat illegal war some thirty five to forty years ago. That is not propaganda; on the contrary, that is a fact. As Jane Fonda correctly observed, "the hawks loved to revise the history of Vietnam." With people like Thomas More, the last thing that they will tolerate is for soldiers to dare to question authority, especially regarding an illegal war, despite the fact that the UCMJ [sections 809, 891, 891] tells them that they have not only a right but a duty and an obligation NOT to obey unlawful orders. Thankfully, those in Sir! No Sir! and the rest of those courageous military personnel in the GI movement, had the bravery and wisdom to do just that.

Correction to the penultimate sentence regarding the comments written at 2:39 pm at 07-19. It should read "... despite the fact that the UCMJ [sections 809, 891, 892] tells them that they have not only a right but a duty and an obligation NOT to obey unlawful orders.

McCain had his chance to be a hero when he and Colin Powell were the only two people on the planet who could have put the brakes on the Bush administration while still garnering support from the American people. We all know now that they both failed with flying colors. Not only did they fail, but they went on to enable this administration to get to the point of where we are today. Yes, he had his chance to become a true statesman and a hero and he came up a zero. (No Rhyme Intended). Kerry was considered a hero until the right wing taught us that he was actually a coward. So was Max Cleland until the right showed us that he was really on a beer run when he lost three of his limbs in Vietnam. Congressman John Murtha the 37 year Marine was called a coward on the House floor by a Republican legislator. But if you question McCain's military service you must be an America hater. The old right wing double standard.

Erroll July 19th, 2008 2:39 pm

If yopu missed the paert where I said I personally witnessed two episodes of spitting on our Marines and insist on your juvanile insistence on your book/movie knowlede, I have nothing more to say.

You will believe what you prefer to believe. Have a good life.

Great article, Ted. The Pentagon Papers said the 'domino theory' was not true. They also said that we must prevent the election reunifying North and South (as we had promised) because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh would easily win 80% of the vote.

If the North had attacked the Maddox, it would have been justifiable because the Maddox was overseeing raids on the North.

In the movie Fog Of War, McNamara agrees with the figure of 3.2 million Vietnamese killed. He was very big on numbers. too.

Colin Powell helped coverup the My Lai massacre. Some US soldiers said killings like that were not rare.

Clark was responding to Bob Schieffer who had just said that Obama lacked experience because he had not ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. Clark replied, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Sounds right to me.

Some Vietnamese history from The Pentagon Papers:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent11.htm

"President Eisenhower is widely quoted to the effect that in 1954 as many as 80% of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, as the popular hero of their liberation, in an election against Bao Dai."