I completely agree.Vietman was not genocide (a word too much used and abused, I think). It was a defensive war (the Americans didn' t invade the enemy land, what a political and military idiocy, like to play soccer only in his own half of the champ hoping to win) against the North Vietnamese which tried to invade the south.
Here is the definition of genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
While there are many examples that come to mind when speaking about genocide (Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.), Vietnam is certainly not one. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard somebody making such an absurd correlation.
In respect to the Iraq comments, Henrik very conveniently fails to mention that this regime was responsible for the slaughtering of thousands of Kurds and Shiites, for torturing and raping its own citizens, for invading neighboring countries and starting a war that claimed about a million lives, for financing terrorism, for deceiving the world community for over a decade while leaving its population to suffer the consequences, for using oil money to live ostentatiously and for buying support in the world, etc.
No matter how one may feel about the conflict last year, one thing is certain, the world is better off without such a regime.
Cheers,
Christian