Is Ron Paul Right On Vietnam?

[Bryan]

This was written by Alex Wallenwein who is a member here.

====

During his presidential debate performances and in subsequent TV interviews, Ron Paul has repeatedly used the unpopular Vietnam war as an example of how much better it is to disengage militarily with other countries and to trade with them, rather than intervene in their internal affairs with military force.

In doing so, he has created the impression that all the bad things of the Vietnam-era only happened while US troops were over there, and that after the withdrawal everything was just fine and dandy.


That, combined with the notoriously short memory of Americans, can lead to a perception that is (a) entirely unfounded, that (b) unnecessarily alienates the considerable Vietnamese refugee population in the United States, and that (c) may end up stifling his - so far meteoric - rise in public recognition during the very early stages of his campaign.

His mistake is, however, not one of endorsing a wrong policy (i.e., non-interventionism), but rather one of failing to point out how horrible the unintended consequences of misguided interventionism really are.

Continued:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alex_wal_070528_is_ron_paul_right_on.htm

Digg:
http://digg.com/politics/Is_Ron_Paul_right_on_Vietnam

 

[lucky]

Yes

This was written by Alex Wallenwein who is a member here.

====

During his presidential debate performances and in subsequent TV interviews, Ron Paul has repeatedly used the unpopular Vietnam war as an example of how much better it is to disengage militarily with other countries and to trade with them, rather than intervene in their internal affairs with military force.

In doing so, he has created the impression that all the bad things of the Vietnam-era only happened while US troops were over there, and that after the withdrawal everything was just fine and dandy.


That, combined with the notoriously short memory of Americans, can lead to a perception that is (a) entirely unfounded, that (b) unnecessarily alienates the considerable Vietnamese refugee population in the United States, and that (c) may end up stifling his - so far meteoric - rise in public recognition during the very early stages of his campaign.

His mistake is, however, not one of endorsing a wrong policy (i.e., non-interventionism), but rather one of failing to point out how horrible the unintended consequences of misguided interventionism really are.

Continued:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alex_wal_070528_is_ron_paul_right_on.htm

Digg:
http://digg.com/politics/Is_Ron_Paul_right_on_Vietnam

It is not a mistake at all in failing to point it out. In debates there is a finite time that can said anything and then they are cut off. If he has as much time as needed then he could explain with a lot more clarity.

Even in articles he is limited and how long his answers can be. Articles submitted by reporters have to be a certain length. This means that long answers get condensed so to speak.

If you see in the NH interview he had a hard time on a couple of responses from the audience because he had to explain the underlying causes of what they were asking. At first it appeared he was getting off track. This can be confusing to many that watch or read as we are all conditioned for sound bites. I have even seen him joke a couple of times that it would take more than a sound bite.

It is gonna be tough for him as what he is saying is so different than what anyone else is saying that it takes longer to explain.

 

[MusoSpuso]

Exactly--Ron is a thinker. He thinks and he considers. The American people simply are not used to being enganged intelligently and as equals. I love this about Ron but I have to admit, it probably holds him back a "little" bit (not too much I hope) from appealing to some demographics--MTV kids, FOX watching hawks etc.

It is not a mistake at all in failing to point it out. In debates there is a finite time that can said anything and then they are cut off. If he has as much time as needed then he could explain with a lot more clarity.

Even in articles he is limited and how long his answers can be. Articles submitted by reporters have to be a certain length. This means that long answers get condensed so to speak.

If you see in the NH interview he had a hard time on a couple of responses from the audience because he had to explain the underlying causes of what they were asking. At first it appeared he was getting off track. This can be confusing to many that watch or read as we are all conditioned for sound bites. I have even seen him joke a couple of times that it would take more than a sound bite.

It is gonna be tough for him as what he is saying is so different than what anyone else is saying that it takes longer to explain.

 

[Bob Cochran]

One has to be careful when pointing out the futility of an armed conflict, no matter how true it might be, because there will be those who then accuse you of being unpatriotric and of saying the troops died in vain.

As an ex Army guy, I will say that no soldier dies in vain, because (s)he is doing what (s)he is sworn to do, which is to follow all lawful orders even if it leads to h(er/is) demise. The oath military people take is sacred and no one dies in vain in the process of honoring it. I was prepared to do that, but was never actually called upon to do it. I knew full well that I might be told to do things that were conceived of by corrupt politicians that had started an ill-fated, immoral conflict, but it wasn't for me as a soldier to make that determination, just to execute my sworn duty ("ours is not to question why, ours is just to do or die").

I think Ron Paul will be able to make it clear he thinks we should honor the loyalty of our military people by not directing them to do things that are poorly motivated. They WILL do what they are told to do, we all know that. They take their oaths very seriously, and political leaders need to consider when/where/why we would put them in harm's way just as seriously. I believe that in some cases, abusing the power to direct our military forces should be considered treason. I have a personal theory that certain political leaders are being personally enriched by the Iraq war. I can't prove it, but if it could be proved -- and it probably could be quite easily, maybe even WILL be proved -- I think they should be tried for treason.

Our involvement in Viet Nam was an example of bad foreign policy and is no reflection on the military people who did their best to execute the orders they were given. Those who died did so doing what their country asked of them, faithfully giving all they could until they had no more to give. That's the distinction that needs to be made.

 

[lucky]

One has to be careful when pointing out the futility of an armed conflict, no matter how true it might be, because there will be those who then accuse you of being unpatriotric and of saying the troops died in vain.

As an ex Army guy, I will say that no soldier dies in vain, because (s)he is doing what (s)he is sworn to do, which is to follow all lawful orders even if it leads to h(er/is) demise. The oath military people take is sacred and no one dies in vain in the process of honoring it. I was prepared to do that, but was never actually called upon to do it. I knew full well that I might be told to do things that were conceived of by corrupt politicians that had started an ill-fated, immoral conflict, but it wasn't for me as a soldier to make that determination, just to execute my sworn duty ("ours is not to question why, ours is just to do or die").

I think Ron Paul will be able to make it clear he thinks we should honor the loyalty of our military people by not directing them to do things that are poorly motivated. They WILL do what they are told to do, we all know that. They take their oaths very seriously, and political leaders need to consider when/where/why we would put them in harm's way just as seriously. I believe that in some cases, abusing the power to direct our military forces should be considered treason. I have a personal theory that certain political leaders are being personally enriched by the Iraq war. I can't prove it, but if it could be proved -- and it probably could be quite easily, maybe even WILL be proved -- I think they should be tried for treason.

Our involvement in Viet Nam was an example of bad foreign policy and is no reflection on the military people who did their best to execute the orders they were given. Those who died did so doing what their country asked of them, faithfully giving all they could until they had no more to give. That's the distinction that needs to be made.

Ex Army here myself back in Reagans time. It is very dangerous to hear anyone died in vain. We were so conditioned back then in the fight for Communism to belive we were fighting because a evil empire wanted to consume the world with the USA as the final goal. This will be hard to change but can be done so.

I love how you said and I remeber now that no SOLDIER died in vain. We do and did as we were told and did it well. All troops are heroes.

I have been concentrating on a couple segments to get people to come to Ron Paul (local and truckers), I will start to go and revisit the military websites and check them out. We need them a lot and they can help sway any election.

It will also help if some new vids can be added to youtube toward this end. I have seen most of them and there were a few in each that showed his views on the military and veterans that were very appealing. These need to be consolidated and then I and other veterans can go to the military sites and place the links.

 

[Kuldebar]

Well, I'm former Army and USAF myself, while I was enlisted I believed I was serving my country. But, I was also much younger then and I had never tried to scratch beneath the surface of my ideals concerning my country.

I won't argue semantics, but there are better ways to phrase things in order to communicate a concept. I do know it's not profitable to tell anyone that their loved one died in vain; I think that conclusion should be left to the those left behind.

All too often, Americans allow the sacrifice of blood and treasure to cloak their political leaders in an aura of unquestionable authority. I know that this is wrong.

 

[Bradley in DC]

This was written by Alex Wallenwein who is a member here.

His mistake is, however, not one of endorsing a wrong policy (i.e., non-interventionism), but rather one of failing to point out how horrible the unintended consequences of misguided interventionism really are.

He gets just about everything wrong. When Dr. Paul was explaining "blowback," he was in fact "[pointing] out how horrible the unintended consequences of misguided interventionism really are." Where exactly does he think Dr. Paul failed?!