Essay #2 1985

America cheered the war as a basketball game. Not realizing that millions died. This is perhaps the ultimate immorality. Hitler disguised as the common American, danced on the blood of misery and suffering. The vast majority 80-90 % supported the war. At Southern Illinois University, the peace movement was always very small, in the beginning, in 1965 only a handful, (about eight) demonstrated for negotiations. SIU had a population of 23,000 and the town of Carbondale of 20,000, of which few protested the war. Overall, approximately 1% of the students took a continuous interest in the antiwar movement. About 10% took part in casual peace marches at the peak of the war. And about 25% of the students were outraged at what happened at Kent State. At this time there was a deep schism in the attitudes of Americans. One daughter's father told her when she cam!. home after Kent State, upset and distraught; that the National Guard should've kill them all. But daddy, she screamed, "That could've been me."

Antiwar activity dramatically dropped once the troops started to come home and the draft was no longer a threat. During the most active time, around Kent state, up to five thousand demonstrated in the streets of Carbondale, that's still was a small percentage, about 10% of the population. I should mention that many individuals at this time did not protest, because of the perceived threats of violence, and radicalism, even though they were sympathetic cowed in the safety of privacy. They had this cautious fear that if they did protest, the government was going to come down on them and somehow their life would be detrimentally affected, a totally unfounded fear. After the draft ended, protests and support of the antiwar war movement evaporated. Most, who initially were active blended back into the safe fifties mentality, and became oblivious to the war since they were no longer threatened with being drafted. The question is that if they did, would the war have ended sooner. This question must be asked: were the demonstrations successful?

On one hand they weren't because the war lasted for such a long time when it became evident that we should have pulled out much earlier. The vast majority looked the other way as the planes and bombs went to Vietnam. Americans were good Germans, good American, obeyed their master. It was their duty. Perhaps this was a greater travesty since

Americans did not face the threat of death as in Nazi Germany. The Germans, if protested, were shot, taken to the death camps; but the most Americans faced in a peaceful demonstration was having eggs tossed at them, and possible arrest if they decided to practice civil disobedience. It's sad that so much suffering occurred during the war while the risks' of protesting was minimal; perhaps this is a crime in some ways, more heinous than Germany's.

This sounds that bitter. Perhaps.

Nevertheless, the biggest "criminals" were the Government and the Congressmen. We trusted them, thus a Betrayed Covenant, a violation of the constitution, and the principles of democracy.

"The horror." Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

The horror is that we had a failure of democracy. We think that only a dictatorship can unleash this terror, such as Germany, Japan, South and Central American dictators, and Communists countries, but this happened in a democracy, and in that sense, we are all guilty. Democracy is not failsafe. Democracy can be as immoral as a dictatorship. That's difficult to accept since we were raised that it's always the other guy, the dictators and tyrants that are the warmongers.

One problem with the war that it got out of control and no one could end it. I can understand the initial involvement, citing the history of the causes of World War n, and how it related to appeasement. We were idealistic, believed in the American dream for everybody, and I think generally had our heart in the right place. But by the end of 1965 it became obvious that something was wrong. Our leaders recognized it, but failed to act decisively and disengage. By the end 0;f1965, it was obvious to many in Congress and the government that the policy was array, but stubborn pride overruled rationality. Hubris destroys.

By the end of1965, only 6000 American soldiers have died in the war, but the attitude was that we had to see this thing through. How sad, those millions died, because we had false pride. ( Hubris Destroys). The argument: we had to protect America’s honor, save face, in the world community. In reality the rest of the free world thought and knew that we were in a quagmire. Would we have lost face in the free world if we pulled out, of course not? We would have been respected all the more. Nevertheless, our leaders wanted to get reelected, wanted to bask in the thrill of victory, not the agony of defeat. Civil servants wanted to correct their mistakes by forging ahead, to correct one mistake with more mistakes… with tragic results

In 1965, the leaders knew that the domino theory was not applicable and the motto now was; "Well we're in it now, we gotta go ahead and win." So, we take your sons and kill them, so we can save face, were the message.

Place yourself as a VN mother, a Cambodian mother, or father, parents and/or relatives of the G.l.s would you want your children, your loved one, to die so our government could save face?

One face saving idea floated after the war was that the death and destruction in Southeast Asia, was not intentional but only collateral damage. Only military targets were attacked. And except for the few instances of direct murder (My Lai), and torture, the military tried it's best to avoid collateral damage. Unfortunately, bombs don't discriminate between a military target and an eight-year-o1d girl. We didn't march Jews off to the gas chambers? No, nor did we have a policy of genocide, but regardless, '5-10 million people are still dead because of our arrogance. Just ~ if in 1945 we abided by the Atlantic Charter to grant sovereignty 'to all the oppressed countries, none of this suffering would have happened. If we allowed free election according to the Geneva Accords in 1954, would the mass murder in Cambodia had taken place? I don't think so. Our American boys would be alive. Millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians would be alive today.

Seven times we could have ended the war and sought peace.

1. At the end WWII, we supported the French Charter and returned Vietnam back to the France. Ho Chi Minh at the time was an ally who helped fight the Japanese believing that after the war the great democracies of the world would practice what they preached and grant Vietnam independence. Ho Chi Minh was betrayed.

2. After WWII, we supported France's colonialism with millions of dollars in aid and military equipment. France could re-co1onize Vietnam, a concept repugnant to what we believed.

3. Violation of the Geneva accords by not allowing free elections. We replaced France’s colonialism with American imperialism. Colonialism and imperialism was repugnant to America’s since of fairness, but in reality that was the case. We sought and supported Diem and his repressive programs. We controlled the strings to the puppet. When diem didn’t dance, we plotted a coup and sought him overthrow. We used American might money and influence to control the future of Vietnam. Anybody who opposed our goals, were left out of the picture, thus to survive, one kowtowed to the U.S.’s desires.

Imperialism was and is an ideological tool used by capitalism, communism and dictatorships to maintain power and influence. It's the greed for power and control that drives its goals.

4. The Kennedy and Johnson's mindless military build up directly involved us in VN when more rational minds would have recognized realities. Kennedy's and Johnson's goals were not what was right, but to play the game of international politics with the Russians, and Chinese at the expense of the Vietnamese. We were caught up in the Domino theory, and power politics, both abroad and at home. Neither wanted to be accused of backing down to global Communism, and for that, more died. Hubris again raised its ugly face.

5. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a lie to the American people. An excuse for the President to start a war, and to violate the constitution.

6. At the end of 1965 Congress and many government employees recognized the failure of the war, but continued the war. They knew that the Domino theory didn't apply, but wanted to keep face, and their jobs.

7. If we hadn't already learned by 1968, one would at least recognize that the 1968 TET offensive was the coup de grace that the war was a failure. Instead the war continued for another four years. Half of all Americans killed in Vietnam, died under Nixon's watch. Super hubris, now ruled.

At any time in this process, the war should have ended. Approximately 5-10 million died and millions could have been saved, Vietnam was this country’s second largest foreign war, a war without the formal declaration of war as mandated in the constitution.

The constitution was raped, ravaged, ripped and used wipe your butt, than flushed down the sewer. The debate is whether we need a war crimes tribunal?

Reagan said Vietnam was a noble effort. It was with regards to the American people who wanted to believe the distortion and lies from the government and also the soldiers who served; but could one call this "Noble Effort" an attempt to justify a "crime" against humanity? Hitler said the same thing. German's advancements. were a noble effort.

At the time of TET only 20,000 Americans soldiers have died, at the time of Nixon's inauguration, 29,000 have died. RMN and his government were responsible for half the total Americans killed and millions in Southeast Asia. Congress continually voted appropriations, while people died; and by the end of the war 58,000 soldiers died.

Do we need an Antiwar Memorial exposing this truth?

Vietnam was a colossal reckless failure of leadership. A Covenant Betrayed. A broken promise of a democratic government whose ideals were to govern fairly and just, but those goals were betrayed.

One sad aspect of the war is that today, (late seventies and early eighties) the thought was that if we let the military take over and do the job right, get the politicians of the decision making process and the U.S. soldiers fought like Rambos, we would have won. (The truth is that they did fight like Rambo, and they were heroic. Likewise, the soldiers believed in their government that betrayed them.) These were difficult time for the Vietnam Vet, criticized by their parents who fought in WWII and Korea and many Americans. The thought was that there had to be a reason for losing Vietnam; the scapegoats were the grunts, "who couldn't fight". This of course was an attempt of the government to avoid own its own responsibility and leadership. This was very cruel. Many Vietnam vets lives were destroyed by this crappy stupid attitude.

If we used the atomic bomb, bombed the dikes, the cities, invaded the sanctuaries, let the military run the show instead of the politicians, send more troops, blame antiwar movement, blame the press, blame Dr. Spock, blame the 'Love generation"; we would have won the war. More propaganda to avoid the failures of the government's policies. These answers for failure were all false. All these excuses dishonor the soldiers who died and were physically and psychologically wounded, All these excuses dishonor the grieving families and the average citizens.

We used every available means to win in VN. If we bombed the dikes, what would have happened, a bunch of people would have drowned, the Russians and Chinese would have help all the more and maybe China would've entered the war.

If we bombed the cities, again, the result is only greater death resulting in increased reaction.

If we went into the sanctuaries the VC just moved further back into Cambodia and Laos. The only solution would be to invade and occupy Cambodia and Laos? We did not have the manpower to hold Vietnam, so, extending the war into Cambodia and Laos was unrealistic. At the peak of the war we had 550,000 U.S. troops, to add more would men meant calling up the Reserves and National Guard.

If we used the atomic bomb we would fmd victory. Many American think the atomic bomb was the all-ultimate weapon. It's not; it's just a bigger bomb. Two atomic bombs wreaked havoc on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But few American realize that conventions bombs destroyed over a hundred Japanese and German cities. Over twenty Japanese cities had equivalent death rates with conventional bombs, and likewise in German cities, most notable being Dresden. We were caught up in the wisdom that the Atomic bomb would end the war like it did in Japan. Not so, the Japanese would have fought on forever, if it meant that they would lose their Emperor. Peace came when the terms for the surrender allowed for the preservation of the Emperor. When the United States recognized that this was the only stumbling block, "unconditional surrender" suddenly became "conditional" as long as the guidelines of the Potsdam Conference were adhered to. "The ultimate form of government of Japan, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, is established by the feely expressed will of the Japanese people." This statement was readily acceptable to both parties and peace ensued. Miscommunication perhaps prolonged the war.

And more, if we bombed the cities, "back to the stone age", we would have won the war. Not so, it would have only encouraged the Vietcong to fight on. If the war had not ended we would still be fighting in Vietnam.. Even if we had five million troops in SVN and held the country in enslavement, we would still be fighting a holly war, The VC would have simply reverted to sabotage, and terror attacks, like they did early on in the fight against the U.S.

Although Nixon promised South Vietnam, in 1973 after the U.S. troops returned home, that if North Vietnam attacked into South Vietnam , he would send the troops back. Nixon knew this would not happen. He knew that South Vietnam had do stand on its own two feet. That's what Vietnamization was all about. In essence, he betrayed Premier Thieu. This led to the last unfounded charges as why the war was lost.

The June 1973, Congress' passed the Case-Church amendment, and the August 1974 budget cutbacks to support South Vietnam. Ford said that these two bills ham stringed him so that he could not send US forces back into Vietnam when North Vietnam attacked in the fall of 1974. Subsequently, the lack of financial support doomed South Vietnam's defeat.

First, the Case-Church amendment was passed by a veto proof majority in both houses. Second, the amendment stated that if Ford wanted to send troops back to Vietnam, all he would have to do was to get approval from Congress. He did not seek approval since he knew that he would not get approval, nor did he or anyone else really wanted this. Everybody knew that South Vietnam had to stand on its own. South Vietnam had two million troops in uniform, two million in the reserves, all the armaments left over from the U.S. military presence, and abundance supplies, and still they could not defeat the North Vietnam Army.

Moreover, the argument that funding was decreased was also a bogus argument. This funding was only a decreased from one billion dollars to 700 million. In addition, this was in August 1974, just eight months before the end of the war. The &mall decreased funding would not have helped. By the time the benefits of the funding would have reached Vietnam, the war was almost over. ,

Germany does not wonder why they lost the war. They teach their children the truth, that Germany committed a grave crime. Japan on the other hand evades the issue. I remember reading an article about a Japanese who asked the German how they handle the delicate situation with the war and he was shocked that the German told him that they layout the truth the way it was. That's admirable for Germany. The Japanese skirts the issues citing that the U.S. forced the issue by restraining trade and they had no choice but to go to war What they don't recognize that at this the 'U.S. blocked trade because the Japanese were chopping off heads in the "Rape of Nan king." We should follow the example of the Germans, not the Japanese. The world would be a better place.

Unfortunately we have not learned. In Central America, Nicaragua, E1 Salvador we did learn not to use American troops for the dirty work. We use the poor peasants. This is a higher immorality, not to sacrifice your own sons for a dirty little war. In addition, our actions in the Middle East are not proud. We talked of democracy, yet overthrew democracies in Iran and Iraq, just because we didn't think they had the right to control their own oil reserves. When they insisted to control their oil, we made them into communists, thus justifying their overthrow.

Ironically, Eisenhower had warned us of the military industrial complex. We still had not listened. During Vietnam 50% of the every tax dollar was spent on military related programs. Three cents went for education. In the 80's military spending continued at an accelerated rate with spending on worthless weapon systems and an antiballistic missile shield. America, is continually attacked by the military industrial complex, a cancer within, parasitized by pentagonism, plunging this country into greater debt, which will be paid back by our children.

Grades ... Who's to blame.

LBJ gets a "D-". Not an F only because he did consciously vacillated about he right thing to do with the war; and his resignation and initiation of peace talks when he finally recognized that disengagement was a necessity.

Congress, "D-" . They continually voted for appropriations. Although they claimed that LBJ and RMN deceived them, they should have known better. Even the peace members of Congress, supported the appropriations, fearing that the president might jeopardize some large grant to their state Johnson used this technique quite effectively to keep Congress in line. They wanted to be lied to, they accepted the lies because of Holy Grail of politics, and they wanted to get reelected.

RMN, "F-". He crime, he violated the constitution, by invading Cambodia and Laos, and the massive bombings in light of overwhelming evidence that bombings were a failure, The Christmas bombings in 1972 was the apex of .depravity. He was responsible for half of the Americans killed and perhaps at least six million Asians deaths. I find it had to believe that the Khmer Rouge would have come to power and murder its population had it not been for the B-52 bombings and the invasion Cambodian. Pol Pot, who was educated in France, had no real animosity towards the West up until this time. But something happened; did a loved one get killed? What was the trigger for him to ravage and destroy anything remotely resembling Western influence? This needs to be studies, to find out why?

Ford, "F". He condoned the war crimes of Nixon and gave him a pardon. It’s like pardoning Eichman, or Hitler, not quite… don’t get excited, the preceding is an hyperbole. Nevertheless, the country needs to address this issue, so that we can learn and not repeat this blunder. W should have held Nixon accountable.

Judicial System. Surprisingly I think the strongest part of our government is not democracy, but the Bill of Rights and respect for the Bill of Rights. The Judicial System gets a "B". Time and time again, they reacted against the unjust and unconstitutional laws passed by a democracy. They stood firm in light of the pressure. True, a few judges like Judge Julius Hoffman were aberrant, but overall. We should all be proud of the judges, the lawyers who protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority. They in fact preserved and saved this country and its ideals. Maybe they should get an" A". What do you think? I wouldn't quibble with an" A".

Americans. Get a "C". This is a tough one. Although few Americans participated in the peace movement, they relied and trusted their leaders. They believed in them, supported them in that they felt that they always knew more about the situation than the public. So, how can one blame them for supporting the War? They were just gullible, believing the lies and distortions. I supported the war. I believed also. I was gullible. I thought the Gulf of Tonkin response was gung ho, and right on. But by April of 1965, my attitude began to change. I went on my rust demonstration, which had the goal of encouraging a negotiated settlement. I reluctantly and slowly progressed to believing in a complete pullout. I cannot explain how or why I felt this way. I think the reason was primarily a gut reaction. What about WWII? I think that I would have been willing to fight in WWII. Korea, probably yes. Can't tell you why, but its just a gut feeling. Something just seemed amiss in Vietnam. Something was just wrong.

In general, the American people also, respected the right to protest the war. And that's the strength of this country, respect for the Bill of Rights. Russia had a Bill of Rights, so did many dictatorships, but they didn't respect them, it was just a peace of paper. So, in this context, the Americans should get a "B", or a "B-".

On a rational level, one can argue with equal veracity and support. I remember receiving a copy of the White Paper, read it and felt that the 'justification was apparent... but I read others and slowly, my thoughts changed. Ultimately, we often make gut decisions, and than rely on rationality to justify that- decision. It is an enigma. William Sargent's classic book, "Battle for the Mind" perhaps best explains the process of thought conversion. .

Recent neurophysiology supports this concept that Lockeian and Decarteian logic is always preceded by an emotional gut thought.

Nevertheless, Americans still just get a "C", maybe even a "D". The information was available to make the needed decisions, but they didn't want to look for it, but than, this information was difficult to find. Also, the sad part was that Americans didn't relate to the Asian suffering, an innate racist attitude. Their lives didn't count as much as the Americans, so it's all right. Can one honestly say that a mother in Vietnam doesn't love her child

any more than we do? Sadly, most Americans cheered when students were killed at Kent State. "They shudda killed' em all" was the attitude of many. Kent State illustrated the irrevocable schism that polarized the nation.

We all must share some guilt and responsibility, we live in a democracy, we should have booted out the cowards in the Congress and the President. We had a responsibility in a democracy to be informed, but we were not. We will have to live with it, but the hope is that we will learn, than perhaps the war was not all in vain.

Labor get a "D +" maybe a "C". Overall, labor supported the war, it meant good business, and workers were making a lot of overtime. Times were good. Jobs plentiful; hence, they commanded better salaries. Life was good. But as the war progressed, labor leaders did begin to speak out. And some recognized the inherent evil. Nevertheless many of the rank and file were pitchmen for the Agnew hyperbolic attacks on the antiwar movement, accelerating the polarization.

Military gets a C, mainly because they followed orders. As far as the grunts and enlisted men were concerned and even the low ranking non- career officer, they did what they were told and were loyal Americans. Most of the soldiers were teenagers, too young to have formed their own opinions, still mimicking those of their parents; hence, like their parents were caught up in the hubris of the times. A few soldiers in the field committed barbarous acts. In fact General Westmoreland had to issue an edict not to cut off fingers or ears as war trophies. This edict was difficult to enforce at the local level. However, these acts were often in response to barbarous act done on many American soldiers by the Viet Congo Many soldiers; however, served with a great humility. They helped witb orphans, helped the medics treat villagers and exhibited genuine care and compassion for the Vietnamese people.

But the top brass -gets an F, or D- they manipulated the war to Congress, the President and the Civil Service. The Joint Chiefs continually argued for an increased war. But on the other hand, they were soldiers told to do a job, and they wanted to troops to have the best support. So, part of this mentality was to protect their troops in harms way. So, perhaps they still get a C. But some decided to conduct the war on their own and the Joint Chiefs plotted with Congress to dump McNamara. They distorted information they gave to the government. And these individuals get an "F", only because in a democracy, government runs the military, not the other way around. Their job is to obey orders, not to seek influence and power. Sadly, many of the higher ups, did just that.

Business, gets a "D", they were too busy making money to questions morality. Business was one of the last groups to oppose the war. Finally they too like most Americans faced the reality that the war was stagnant, something was rotten. Towards the end of .the war approximately 70% of Americans opposed the war, and the remaining 30% hardcore defended the war no matter what. And today, this hardcore still defends their position. Incidentally, this same percentage supported Nixon, come hell or high water; they never wavered in their unbridled support. How can people be so insensitive and intolerant and obstinate? It seems that with the knowledge we have today, it's difficult to defend our actions in Vietnam... as well as Nixon's, regardless of the reasons.

Academia, get a "B-", maybe a "C." Academia, like most Americans trusted their government. Ordinarily, they should get a lower grade, perhaps a "D" because they should have known better. But on the other hand, many did actively protest the war and supported the students who did also. They upheld the rights to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble, that's admiral able.

Some Universities were more active than other and deserve a better grade. These include Berkeley and San Francisco State, University of Michigan, Columbia, University of Chicago. And many Black colleges. Many of these places had violent confrontations often resulting in building takeovers and the results of police action polarized the situation even more. To its credit, the University of Chicago had the best approach, in handling of one building. The administration just let the protestors sit and wait and in time the takeover ended without violence and increased polarization.

In some ways, this respect for the right to protests did eventually bring the war to an end. There was a coming together and acceptance of ideas. If there were not this respect, the country would have degenerated into civil war. It's this ability for the country to bend, and adapt to change, although slowly, is one of the great attributes of the respect for the Bill of Rights. A country must bend and adapt to survive.

Police. Gets a "C+", Overall the police showed tremendous restraints as compared to how the police reacted in other countries, especially the dictatorships, and tyrant countries. The police respected the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the police also represented the racist nature of the country. With regards to whites, very few were killed and injured in protests; the exceptions are the four at Kent State and one in Berkeley, perhaps one in Chicago. The police maintained integrity except in a few instance, such as Chicago, Kent state, and People's Park. Overall, the police maintained order, and respect for Americans to exercise their rights. However, for Black it was a different story. Repeatedly, police over reacted in the big city riots, student's protest, and the murderous assaults on the Black Panthers, which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. With regard to the big city riots, its many snipers hampered the police and this instigated retaliation. Many peaceful Black student protests sometimes resulted in overzealous police reaction leading to senseless killings, such as Orangeburg, SC. and several other Black colleges.

The press gets a "D", only because they should have done a better job. It wasn't until after TET that the press began to question the war, Watergate was the highpoint of investigating reporting, not the war. Why did they concentrate on a third rate burglary when the real "crime" was the war. They used Watergate, and so did Congress, and the public to get at Nixon indirectly for his conduct of the War. The press should have attacked the war with the veracity they pursued Watergate. The press is blamed for the loss of the war, and they now bask in the glory that they were the leaders in challenging the country's myopic vision of the war. Not so. The press lagged behind the popular opinion. Stanley Karnow observed this in his book. I reviewed the news magazines from 1959 to 1975 and Came to the Same conclusion. Others, also, have written books to substantiate this. The press was the voice of the Government, and special interests, not the people.

The church get a "D", they should have led the moral leadership. Ordinarily, they should get an "F - ", except for the few brave souls who did fight and oppose the war, The Barrigan brothers, and many local pastors who faced a hostile congregation, vowed to push moral leadership. So, these guys get an" A";-but they were few; overall, the vast majority of the church had its head in the sand and that's why they get the "D" The church failed its moral dictates, advocating total unquestionable support for the war. Billy Graham prayed with Johnson and Nixon to win the war. The church, the prince of peace, sold out to murder and destruction. One Person of the Church, a person who should have received the Nobel Peace Prize instead of Henry Kissenger was David Dellinger. He was the old man of the peace movement. A rock of integrity. His ideals will live for eons, a true man of peace. David had been arrested so many times for peace activities that he lost count, probably over 400 times by one estimate. David was defiant fr°\1l birth, defiant though life and until his recent death in 2004. He was a monument to altruism, an advocate for the down trodden, always uncompromising, never compromising, an agitator of complacency, a Quaker, a man for all history, a poor man by choice, never a rich man, but he had a wealth of kindness and humanity... Who was David Dellinger, ... an uber mensch. His grade, its obvious, A+++++. That's what I call a five star A.

Students generally gets a "D" The perception today is that the students led the antiwar movement. True, some did, but they represented one percent of the total student population during the early years of protests. And even towards the end of the war, never more than 10% at the peak of protest dating from Tet to Kent State. At the time of Kent State sympathy support approached 25% among students. Nevertheless, committed student protest was never above 10 percent. At Southern Illinois University, the largest demonstrations were about 2-5 thousand (only seven to seventeen %), peaking during Kent State,

Students like Americans, and labor and business did not relate the death and violence in Vietnam on a moral level. They believed the government and had the attitude that the government should march ahead, save face, regardless of the cost. When things went badly in Vietnam, they wrapped themselves in the flag and accused those who protested as traitors who were hurting the morale of the soldiers. They just didn't get it. The peace movement wanted the soldiers to return home, alive, not in a box. We heard stories that the. peace movement spat on the returning soldiers... All I can say is that the people I knew in the peace movement would never do this. And I never heard of anyone doing this. But it has taken on an urban legend drat this did happen. If it did, it was wrong. Dead wrong. But it makes good copy. All the peace marches emphasized bringing home the troops, alive, not dead in a box.

Post Vietnam leaders.

Carter gets a "B". He believed in peace, controlled the military, didn't get involved in Central America, and gave back Panama, one of the highpoints in American history. Few countries do so on a peaceful basis.

Reagan. "F”, Nixon reincarnated. Under Reagan the country began to rewrite the history of our involvement in Vietnam. They belittled the peace movement as just a bunch of Spock reared spoiled hippies, more interested in drugs and sex than anything else. They blamed the press for the loss of the war. They justified invading Grenada and Panama, in order to redeem themselves for Vietnam. They increased military spending on foolish projects.

Bush I, a war hero... and a consensus tactician. A "B" on the Gulf War. He had the sense not to invade Iraq.

Bush II, "F" Failed incompetent leadership. Another essay. Overall, Vietnam was a failure in morality systems, something no American can be proud of. .

Did we learn? Not really. In the 80's Reagan's support of puppets governments in Central America resulted in the death of over 200,000 poor peasants who just wanted a fair shake, a better living for their children. Were they a threat? These poor people who lived on dirt floors in shacks felt the blunt of force of the powerful United States. This was

Reagan's redemption for the failure of Vietnam; He attacked Granada, a small island with the might of the U.S. military. Attacked Panama with the pretense of capturing its leader.

But in reality forced Panama to sign a new treaty with the U.S. giving the U.S. rights to intercede whenever it felt necessary, thus effectively canceling Panama's independence. Reagan, supported the puppet dictators of Central America who decimated the poor and the oppressed claiming they were Communists bent of taking over Central America subsequently the U.S. if they were not stopped in Central America.

But, there were no Russians in Central America. Father Miguel D' Esoto called Reagan, "The butcher of my people."

Likewise, Reagan Supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq and supplied him with arms and precursor chemicals and culture media for the productions of poison gas and biological weapons. He supported Muslim radicals in Afghanistan; he gave them hundreds of shoulder-armed missiles, which we cart no longer account for.

Today Reagan is a cult figure, credited with ending the cold war, saving the economy with his tax cut, cutting spending; all these are monumental myths. It as ridiculous-as saying Nixon gets the trophy and credit for landing a man on the moon. And now many want to put this man's face on the ten-dollar bill. What for, I ask, to remind us, of the horrors he wrought

of the world?

Why can't the United States ever get it right? Why can't the United States promote the ideals of true democracy, not pseudo democracies that were masked as democracies?

Today, we have Iraq; I hope we get it right this time. I hope we let the Iraqi people develop their own vision of democracy. Let's pray for this. The problems are that President Bush has so mangled his leadership that the situation today appears to be heading to disaster and civil war... . And we are less safe today from Islamic racist terrorist.