Is Vietnam equal to what happened in Nazi Germany? Have we owned our shame

[Robin Hood]

I don't think that America as a country has fully confronted it's criminal past in Vietnam. We killed over 3 million Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. Hitler killed 6 million jewish peoples during his war/ethnic cleansing. So what's the difference other than numbers?

Both thought that they were fighting a just cause, The jews, The commies, But both committed genocide in the process. The difference is that at least Germany has owned up to their shame, where as America never has and most likely never will.

All of the post Vietnam war movies never really examined the Vietnamese perspective, it was all about our hardships and our loss. Much like today, 9/11 is invoked with heavy hearts with phrases like "The worst day in American history" etc. But no one seems to care about all the innocence that we have killed in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, no one!! Except us here on DU. But the rest of the nation could give a flying crap.

When you look at our past/current foreign "policies". You will see that the world does not hate us because of our freedom. They hate us for being bloody mass murderers without consciousness. They fear us.

When will America own it's shame? When will we quit living in a state of denial over the genocide that we have committed?

[dudeness]

1. the vietnamese are beautiful people

and the culture wonderful..the war crimes of Kissinger should never be forgotten..

[Ein]

3. East Timor...

Kissinger will rot in hell.

[sujan]

5. what about McNamara, Johnson, Kennedy et al?

[Ein]

6. Do not forget Carter.

The buck seems to flow around. Kissinger gave the Indonesian Army the final go ahead from what I hear, but I do not deny Democratic complicity, as there is in most evils that have happened with our hand. It is also easy for me to say that, as I am not a Democrat.

[sujan]

7. I haven't

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Emillereid]

4. Not only have we not atoned in any way for our horrendous

war in Vietnam, the chemical weapons we used keep on killing, we never made any reparations and now our corporations our exploiting their workers for pennies an hour.

[Merlin]

8. History is written by the winners.

Which explains why there is no hand-wringing in the good old US of A about Vietnamese casualties in that war.

Most enlightened people, meaning most liberals, in America have an appreciation for the hell we caused. But you're right, there's never been much discussion of it.

Stone's "Platoon" was excellent in at least portraying accurately the crudeness and racist attitudes our military permits to be cultivated in its ranks toward the locals. It was true in Nam. It's true in Iraq. That to me is inexcusable. Even if the ruse that "We're there to help the people" is a fiction, still, we should treat the people with dignity and respect. Sadly, we treat them like suspected enemy.

[RichM]

9. Excellent point. You're right from start to finish. To deny committing

venal & brutal acts, to pretend that we are always noble, virtuous, & exceptional -- this is all one of the cornerstones in the edifice of US propaganda. We are all brainwashed into it, because it's omnipresent in movies, school, newspapers & TV. Most of us have long since ceased to be aware of it; it seems as much a part of life as the air we breathe.

The answer to "When will we quit living in a state of denial" -- is probably never; and CERTAINLY never unless very major changes are made. To counter the thick smokescreen of US propaganda would require making changes that go right to the heart of how our country is really governed, & expose the kind of forces that really drive military interventions.

Basically, the propaganda system has evolved to be the way it is, because it's like a "cumulative weighted average" of the kinds of cultural policies that have proved beneficial for the powerful, over the years. The ruling class has always had an interest in using the military to achieve their private goals. Therefore, it has proved wisest for them to always glorify "the troops" and all US military exploits, & to treat any criticism of the military as showing ill-breeding, disloyalty, lacking patriotism, etc. Add this up over the years and you get an insane worship of the military, & a complete inability to let mere facts intrude on this worship.

[AlienGirl]

10. A minor rant...

What happened in Vietnam was horrible and shameful and criminal, doubtless. But it was *not* genocide--it was "merely" mass murder.

By definition, the goal of genocide is the complete elimination of the victim's race or culture. The US did not have that as its goal in Vietnam. For a more appropriate example of US-driven genocide, consider the attempted genocide of the Native Americans by Euro-Americans.

Tucker (being picky about the terminology)

[dudeness]

11. not sure I can agree

pol pots decimation of the kampuchean population has been aptly described as genocide..without complete extermination.

[AlienGirl]

12. Genocide vs. mass murder

If his intent was to exterminate the people or their culture, then it was genocide.

If his intent was something else, it's mass murder.

The result--millions of people dead--is the same; the distinction lies in the motive of the perpetrator.

Tucker

[dudeness]

13. either way a lot of people die..

:) cheers

[Violet_Crumble]

14. There doesn't have to be an intent to totally exterminate a people...

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide says: 'In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.' Pol Pot's intent was to exterminate entire sections of Cambodian society, so it was genocide. Iraq's gassing of the Kurds was genocide as well even though only rural Kurds were targetted. For something to be genocide having to have both intent to exterminate an entire people and carrying out that intent, then the Holocaust would be the only time when genocide has happened in the 20th century. Unfortunately it hasn't been....

I agree with you on the intent being important. That's why Vietnam wasn't genocide, because the intent of the US was never to exterminate a people, totally or partially. And I agree that when it comes to millions of people dying, their deaths are terrible no matter what the intent was, but there's something overwhelmingly evil about an intent to exterminate people who in most cases are citizens of the country carrying it out and in deliberately trying to destroy a culture....

Violet...

[Robin Hood]

15. THis is not about Semantics

I don't consider 3 million dead to be an act of mass murder. I don't care what the intent is, The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The outcome determines the deed, and 3 million people dead is an attempt at genocide, whether intentional or not. Yeah, yeah, we had god on our side, blah, blah, blah.

I find it interesting and weird how this discussion has turned into defining our sin, minimizing our sins. This proves to me that we as a nation have not confronted our sins of Vietnam.

P.S. Those sins are still being carried out, through the poisons that we filled the place with and the land mines that children blow them selves up with almost every day/ That 3 million estimate was up to the end of the war. I wish I knew how many have died from the effects of the war since then.