Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, burns himself to death on a Saigon street June 11, 1963 to protest alleged persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government.
The Trannies and the Jannies came together last night to ask the Santa Ana City Council to recognize a flag that represents a country that no longer exists. Westminster Councilmen Tri Ta and Truong “Tyler” Diep were there, according to an eyewitness, and former Garden Grove School Board Member Trung Nguyen showed up too, as did Garden Grove Councilwoman Dina Nguyen. I am not sure if Westminster Councilman Andy Quach was there.
And O.C. Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who did not speak up publicly when Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido shut down a controversial Viet art exhibit that offended the Trannies, also showed up – this time to promote the resolution honoring the flag of the fallen Republic of South Vietnam. I’ll give her that – she doesn’t show up when needed but she will never miss an opportunity to pander.
It turns out that Janet’s ancestors were the ones who first invited the French to Vietnam.
According to Wikipedia, it was the Nguyen dynasty that first asked the French to come to Vietnam, to help them beat the Trinh dynasty, which they did. Years later, “there were frequent uprisings against the Nguyens, with literally hundreds of such events being recorded. These acts were soon being used as excuses for France to invade Vietnam. The Nguyen Dynasty is usually blamed for failing to modernize the country in time to prevent French colonization in the late 19th century.”
Years later, disgust with French rule led to the creation of several rebel organizations, including three that were Marxist. Get this – Ho Chi Ming actually started out as the head of a broad coalition called the Viet Minh that included non-communists, and he actually worked for the U.S. during World War II, spying on the Japanese.
In 1945, the Japanese lost the War and there was a power vacuum in Vietnam. That is when Ho Chi Minh took over. A full scrum broke out, the British tried to restore order, then the French returned and tried to take control again. By 1947 the French were at war with the Viet Minh. China then began to help Ho Chi Minh, and his regime became repressive.
But the French realized that their colonial days were over – and they were the ones who started the “State of Vietnam” with a guy named Bao Dai at the helm. But the Viet Minh were strong and by 1954 the French had signed an accord with them and had left Vietnam.
In 1955 a guy named Ngo Dinh Diem took over Dai’s government, by rigging a referendum, and he changed the name of his government, which was essentially in the southern part of Vietnam, to the “Republic of Vietnam.” That is when the U.S. interfered and began to help the new Republic.
Diem took away arms from private militias and his government took many repressive actions. It was also pro-Catholic, which didn’t go over well with everyone.
in the meantime, the Soviet government began to fund and arm the Viet Minh.
“Meanwhile, in South Vietnam, although Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian regime. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem discriminated in favour of minority Roman Catholics on many issues. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community after demonstrators were killed on Vesak, Buddha’s birthday, in 1963 when they were protesting a ban on the Buddhist flag. This incident sparked mass protests calling for religious equality. The most famous case was of Venerable Thích Quảng Đức, who burned himself to death to protest. The images of this event made worldwide headlines and brought extreme embarrassment for Diem.
When Diem’s government proceeded to raid Buddhist pagodas, the U.S. backed a takeover of the government by South Vietnam generals. But the government was unstable, suffering frequent coups. By 1965, the U.S. and its allies were sending troops and bombing the north.
Yesterday, “Santa Ana’s City Council voted 7-0 to recognize the former flag of South Vietnam as an emblem of “resilience, freedom and democracy” and to encourage its display,” according to the O.C. Register.
But as you read in the abbreviated history above, there never was a real democracy in South Vietnam. There was corruption and misbehavior and prejudice. Once the U.S. invaded, many folks in the south began to ally with the north as they were insulted by the presence of foreign troops on their soil. You know the rest of the story. We never should have invaded Vietnam, period. It was not our business. How many of our soldiers died in a war that had no justification?
Shame on the Trannies and the Jannies and the Santa Ana City Council for ignoring the real historical record in their rush to pander to the same protesters who attacked the Viet FOB II exhibit. None of this has anything to do with freedom or democracy – it is all a complete sham.
No matter how many times revisionists state it to be otherwise, the intention of going to Vietnam was our “containment policy”. Saving democracy sounds enough like something out of band camp that you can march to, but it just wasnt so.
Keeping communism contained, which we did a pretty good job of, was its point. And before you point out the obvious outcome, realize something.
Often times, firefighters will start a fire in front of a running blaze and by the time the fire gets there, it has lots its steam for going further. That was one of the purposes in going to Vietnam. Slowing down the Communist blaze.
People who march out and proclaim “we had no business there!” are basically throwing the tens of thousands who managed to flee ahead of the communists or the khmer rouge under the bus.
FYI-Westminster Councilman Andy Quach was there.
And in trying to conserve time, Mayor Pulido shut down public comment on the flag item, which was moved to the front of the agenda, but when the Trannies came marching in, late I might add, he allowed them to speak, despite rules that would have prohibited ordinary joes from speaking.
When the item passed 7-0, the entire council rose and gave a standing ovation.
Let’s not forget the obvious pandering of Claudia Alvarez who flew small South Vietnamese and American in front of her all night long. Has she ever flown a Mexican flag or introduced a resolution honoring the Mexican flag?
I do hope that the two groups do explain to the greater community that the Vietnamese American citizens do recognize the existence of Communist Vietnam and its flag, but it is not symbolic of the values shared among the Vietnamese Americans here in the States.
The two groups should also remind and explain to the greater community the reason why the flag of the Republic of Vietnam is displayed at each (Vietnamese) cultural event, so people do not think that the Vietnamese Americans are out of touch with reality.
Since they have assumed the leadership roles, they should do a much better job of explaining why the national anthem of the Republic of Vietnam is played. It is not to say that the Vietnamese Americans see the United States as an extension of Vietnam, rather it is to honor the lives of those who fought for democracy but could not make it here in the States.
Art,
I read and prevously commented that the vietnamese really have no one else to blame for their home country then themselves.
“Containing Communism!”
More like maintaining control for the sake of doing the same as both the South and the North contributed to…that is being a repressive government in a poor country.
I have also heard that while the cuban dictator Fidel Castro and many of the “have nots”during the Cuban revolution actually did want to maintain a diplomatic ties with US and asked to meet in NewYork after the Coup but was rebuffed and eventually created a stonger relationship with USSR.
Beseides, wasn’t it Communism that ridded the dictator from that Killing fields country.
These countrys were poor and everybody was pretty much out for their own(sort of what we have in the US today) and not thinking about society goals and it just took one commander in the army to rule the country. Of course, with many poor citizens you not going to win them over when you can’t improve their sitution so repressive inhuman actions were the game.
Both sides played this game and the revisionist who say it was all Communism are not quite accurate.
Jose,
Exactly. Both sides were bad – and the US created Ho Chi Minh when we hired him to spy on the Japanese.
Look at what we have done in Iraq. Same deal. We never learn…
Can we really say what is right or wrong in absolute terms when everyone does the same things?
What is most important is which governmental system offers the most opportunity and freedom for its citizens and the people under its command.
Shame on the SA city council for pandering to these Viet thugs and terrorists. This crowd is nothing more than a pack of fascists.
What is the city council trying to prove?
Not surprised to hear that ugly Janet was there. She always sucks up to these crazies.
Art,
You’re grasp of history is as bad as your grasp of…just about everything else.
Terry, “Containing Communism”? You really drank the Kool-Aid there.
It was never about “containing communism.” That was always just the excuse for the sheep at home.
When it served the US, we “contained communism” by actually talking with China, trading with China, making the Chinese communists bigger. So much for “containing communism”…
Oh, and in Europe, the US also “contained communism”, by actually working with the Russians, e.g., in Berlin.
Only some Americans who didn’t bother to actually learn anything outside their borders didn’t know that. And it seems such Americans still don’t know these things, or much of anything else, for that matter.
Jubal,
I readily admit I am not an expert on Vietnam, but I spent an hour reading about their history today on Wikipedia. The tale was sobering. There never was any freedom or democracy in South Vietnam. Both the North and the South were oppressive regimes. We should have stayed out of that mess!
Art – if I have a question about your heritage and your people, I will call you. How about doing the same before you post such an idiotic post?
Wow — one hour on Wikipedia and you’re ready to make an imperfect South Vietnamese democracy the moral equivalent of a totalitarian North Vietnamese dictatorship.
By the way, we didn’t invade Vietnam.
Jubal and Quang,
It sounds like the two of you have a problem with Wikipedia. Take it up with them.
Jubal – I realize we did not invade Vietnam, but that is how our actions were perceived by many of the people who ended up switching sides and joining with the Northern army.
It sounds like the two of you have a problem with Wikipedia. Take it up with them.
We’re not the ones sermonizing about the Republic of Vietnam based on an hour reading Wikipedia — you are. You ought to take it up with yourself.
Jubal – I realize we did not invade Vietnam…
You know we didn’t invade Vietnam, and yet you repeatedly claimed we did exactly that. Why am I not surprised?
…but that is how our actions were perceived by many of the people who ended up switching sides and joining with the Northern army.
Really? And you know that based on your hour reading Wikipedia?
Jubal,
So you are denying that the government of South Vietnam brutalized its Buddhist residents? Typical Republican, deny, deny, deny…
So you are denying that the government of South Vietnam brutalized its Buddhist residents?
Art,
Good Grief, man: use the brain God gave you, even if only to make sure it is still working.
Did I say anything about Buddhist discontent under Diem?
No,, but you’ve obviously reached the point where your intellectual quiver is empty and so you’re reverting to your straw man games.
Chalk up another one in the “Art gets smoked” column!
And what’s with the anti-Vietnamese jihad you’ve been on? Are you a…Vietnamese-hater?!?1 If someone had written what you did, but about Mexico instead of Vietnam, you’d be denouncing them as a “Mexican-hater.”
Ladies and gentleman, we give you Art Pedroza, Vietnamese Hater.
…but that is how our actions were perceived by many of the people who ended up switching sides and joining with the Northern army.
No Art. That’s the propaganda spread by North Vietnam and Moscow that apparently is still swallowed to this day.
When the French abandoned Vietnam and we tried to prop up a Democracy, close to a million Catholics from across the country moved south. This presence of a close knit minority in a sect ridden Buddhist majority created an imbalance. You also had Buddhists who refused to cooperate in a government with Catholics.
So what is a country supposed to do when members of its group are subversive. And you make victims out of them. Someone sits in an intersection and sets himself on fire and that makes everyone else wrong?
Certainly Diem did not use his leadership to make himself popular and work in the name of the people, but plenty of countries aren’t perfect.
The gist of all your argument is, WE WERE WRONG, WE DIDNT BELONG THERE, REPUBLICANS ARE BAD, blah blah blah. Why dont you get off the Of Course America is Wrong train. Its getting way too easy for you to rattle that off lately.
Terry,
But we generally ARE wrong.
Here’s a quick wikipedia part
In the South, by contrast, Catholicism was expanded under the presidency of Ngo Dinh Diem, who promoted it as an important bulwark against North Vietnam. Diem gave extra rights to the Catholic Church and preferentially promoted Catholic military officers while restricting Buddhism. In 1955 approximately 600,000 Catholics remained in the North after an estimated 650,000 had fled to the South.
Jubal,
I really don’t know Art’s ethnic background but I’ll assume you asked him.
But, considering you mentioned that Art would never be hostile to Mexico or it’s government institutions I believe he has in the past.
Mexico is corrupt and had not had the resources that the US depends on so much may have been another poor country that is overtaken by the respresentative under the collective for all guise.
Can you imagine a Hugo Chavez type government in Mexico that embraces Communism?
Will the US call the economic refugees coming from Mexico political refugees?
Will Janet and the Trannies hold out their hands out to these new Mexican refugees who challenged the government’s communist type policies. Not!
Jose,
You are correct. I have been very critical of the mess in Mexico. Things are worse today than ever – and drug lords are running entire towns.
Mexico is rich in natural resources, but there are too many monopolies and the government tends to buy bankrupt businesses. Not a good mix. Moreover, the government controls most natural resources, which is also not good.
I don’t have a problem with the Vietnamese, but the hypocrisy is ridiculous. The South Vietnam government was not a good one. And we started Ho Chi Minh when we hired him to spy on Japan. Our meddling proved very costly.
Matt will never cop to this, but many Latino soldiers died needlessly in Vietnam. What a tragedy! We never should have been there in the first place.
As for the domino theory, which people like Matt use as cover for the Vietnam War, the irony is that now we are in debt to a commie country – China, thanks in large part to the Bush administration’s policies.
I really don’t know Art’s ethnic background but I’ll assume you asked him.
Then you must be new to OJ. Art continually refers to his ethnicity and is obsessed with race.
But, considering you mentioned that Art would never be hostile to Mexico or it’s government institutions…
Except I never said that. I was pointing out Art’s unthinking habit of screaming “Mexican-hater!” at anyone who is opposed to illegal immigration, or simply disagrees with him to any degree on the issue of immigration.
Applying Art’s smashmouth approach to his own strings of screeds against Vietnamese-Americans, Art is a “Vietnamese-hater.” It’s Art’s standard, not mine.
Jubal,
You are the last one who should be talking about hate, considering that you, your wife and your friend Jeff Flint were all paid to hate by the Prop. 8 campaign last year.
Art is right on this one. It’s another example of a war we never should have fought. I’ve read extensively about Nam since 1965, when I was 10, and supported it when I was a kid. 2 of my family members fought there, one in 2 combat tours as a Marine, the other on many recon missions with the Air Force.
But it never was our fight. And the war lasted so long it ripped America apart in the 1960s. So far we still haven’t recovered. The war gave the Left an excuse to take over the universities, which they still control. So they control the mind of America.
It’s incredibly ironic that LBJ was fighting socialism in Vietnam even as he was imposing socialism in America with his Great Society. Ho always was less a socialist than LBJ. Then Republicans, in typical elephant style, continued LBJ’s war socilism and domestic socialism under Nixon.
If the US had left in 1965, or in 1969 under Nixon, Vietnam would have gone communist, but that happened anyway. If it had gone communist sooner, then it would have gone capitalist sooner. Even after China went capitalist in 1979, Hanoi stayed communist until the early 1990s because they had to prove old Ho was right and the 2-3 million Viets who died in the war had not died in vain. But if America had left in 1965, they would not have had to prove that. They would have bone capitalist maybe in the early 1980s.
Same thing with religion. After the war was lost, the communists put priests in cages. Now, Catholic seminaries in Nam are bursting at the seams they have so many seminarians, even in Hanoi.
Nixon and Republicans were fools to continue LBJ’s “Democrat war,” to use Bob Dole’s phrase for Nam, Korea, WWI and WWII. Just as Republicans were fools to start the Iraq and Afghan wars. In none of those cases was the war declared by Congress, so all were unconstitutional.
Republicans don’t see how wars, especially long bad ones, benefit the Left by vastly increasing government’s size and powers. All those vast new government powers imposed by Nixon and Bush now are being wielded by Nam-era terrorist Bill Ayers’ buddy, Obama.
Republicans never learn and never will.
The only positive thing from the war was that we got a lot of great Vietnamese folks here in Orange County and throughout America. They especially have given us hundreds of orthodox Catholic priests.
John:
Reasonable people can disagree as to the wisdom of our intervention in Vietnam: how it was done, or whether we should have gone in at all.
That’s not my point. What Art has done in this post and his subsequent comments is assert a moral equivalence between the South Vietnamese government and the North’s communist dictatorship — and I can’t believe you would subscribe to a claim that flies in the face of reality.
“I can’t believe you would subscribe to a claim that flies in the face of reality.”
Well, what else should one expect a Catholic to say given that realities that it only appears Buddhist faced during the Diem government.
Based on this logic, I’m sure the many years that African’s were enslaved in the US is also not morally equivalent to the North communist dictatorship. Sure, despite that the US was a Democracy these times could not be all that bad.(That’s is you are not an African American)
But, how ironic that given all these demonstrations and city council declarations and protests rallies the United States is positioning it’s economic and political system of the very think Matt asserts as having a “moral” issue. That’s is Communism.
While Obama is no dictator there should be little argument that it was because of the Wall Street(The haves) and the Unemployed(The Have nots)that was created by an administration that was too focused on the Laizze faire that we face something very similar to what Marx called Communism.
Besides, while I’m sure Matt would agree that our government avoids the implications of socialism when assistant to it’s citizens is limited but how surprised he would be that at the same time these anti-communist protester rally their cause they collecting government handouts(welfare) that unarguably socialism.
Shouldn’t they be demanding ending restrictive government benefits(welfare) that limit an individual potential and burdens individual achevement. All I’m saying is… be a little consistent.
@25 Jubal:
As Jude Wanniski pointed out in “The Way the World Works,” the Diem regime was destroyed when the Kennedy regime forced Diem to raise taxes, which alienated the peasants — who hated the taxes — into the arms of the V.C. (Ironically, the Kennedy regime at the same time was pushing tax cuts for the U.S.) The Kennedy regime then approved the coup that led to Diem’s assassination. Diem also was showing some signs of independence.
After Diem, all the S. Viet leaders were U.S. puppets doomed to failure. Even 550,000 U.S. troops couldn’t save them.
Of course, back then living in S. Vietnam was much preferable to living in N. Vietnam.
But the recently released LBJ tapes showed he thought America couldn’t win the war — yet he kept it going anyway. McNamara also didn’t believe the war could be won. Nor, later, did Kissinger. These men all were war criminals for pursuing an unwinnable war that killed 58,000 U.S. troops and 2-3 million Viets. If they didn’t think it could be won, they should have stopped it, or resigned.
I’m not saying that the S. Viet regime was “equivalent” to the N. Viet regime, but that, after Diem, the S. Viet regime was a doomed U.S. puppet. The U.S. also forced Saigon to follow other policies, such as population control, that alienated the locals.
It wasn’t E. vs. W. Germany or S. vs. N. Korea or Hong Kong and Taiwan vs. the PRC, because the Saigon regime never stood up on its own even semi-independent from the U.S.
And isn’t it terrible that, 45 years after LBJ’s contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident (all lies), by which Congress give him unconstitutional authority for escalation, we are tearing one another apart over this war. LBJ is smiling in Hell.
The boat people and other Viet’s who came to the USA after 1975 have a better idea,……. no a greater knowledge of the facts than arm chair quarterbacks reading internet crap.
The city addressed the needs of a group of citizens who lived it, or whose parents lived it.
All this crap about which president or political party did what, to who, and why, IS nothing but highbrow bs. Real people lived the experience … it wasn’t a TV show or a video game.
So cut these people some slack about their banner/flag and their history.
“arm chair quarterbacks reading internet crap.”
Get that! Unless we have been directly impacted by anything, we need not comment on it.
I’m sure Cook hasn’t commented on the impact Iraqi’s or the Afgans must feel because he does not “live it” or has parents who “have “lived it”
Moreover, is there even any question of speculation when one(ART) cites a credible source (Wikipedia).
Quang is like the inconsistent die-hards who protests against communism however are comfortable enough to not turn down a government handout, while demanding freedom and democracy in Vietnam at the same time they censor someone’s freedom of expression here. Again, where is the consistency?
http://www.vietnampix.com/fire1.htm
Here’s another pic.
As a revolutionary socialist I oppose both the Vietnamese Americans who love the capitalist Republic of Vietnam and the pseudo-communists who support the state-capitalist; ”Socialist” Republic of Vietnam. As a revolutionary my choice for flags and symbols would be like the ones the stalinists choose, since we share our believes in a socialist world. Unfortunate the stalinists have the wrong methods, methods that led straight back to capitalism.
The Communist Party of Vietnam is not a workers party. Many workers have little love for the propaganda of the communist party. Understandable since the party elite are flirting with the new capitalist class in Vietnam. What the Vietnamese need is not capitalist democracy, but a socialist democracy. A workers council based democracy under a genuine workers party.
Vern, we have to stop advertising in the Netherlands.