Describe a pro-Vietnam War/anti-Iraq War voter and an anti-Vietnam War/pro-Iraq War voter

[H. Ross Peron]

Assume that both positions are held simultaneously-ie that this isn't someone who initially supported the Vietnam War before turning against it and thus became more skeptical of military intervention in general or vice versa.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Isn't the first kind of like Pat Buchanan/FuzzyBear?

[Alcibiades]

Isn't the first kind of like Pat Buchanan/FuzzyBear?

Yep, Buchanan immediately popped into my mind when I read the title. The first one is essentially a paleoconservative anticommunist. The second - maybe a New Labour type?

[Battista Minola 1616]

Person #1 is, as already noted, some sort of rabidly anti-Communist paleoconservative.

Person #2 is someone who made the proper second-wave neoconservative journey (i.e. was a New Left type in the 1970's but a hawkish rightist in the 2000's) but still stands by their position on Vietnam from the time, if only because of how badly it ended.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Isn't the first kind of like Pat Buchanan/FuzzyBear?

Yep, Buchanan immediately popped into my mind when I read the title. The first one is essentially a paleoconservative anticommunist. The second - maybe a New Labour type?

I remember hearing an anecdote about someone's Marxist professor supporting the Iraq War, so--and just spitballing here--but maybe someone with a rigidly linear but left-leaning view of history?

EDIT: Kind of beat me to it.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Italian journalist Giuliano Ferrara very likely fits category #2.

The most prominent "devout atheist", Oriana Fallaci, notably didn't, as she anticipated exactly all the problems in the region that the Iraq War would have caused.

[Alcibiades]

Actually, I believe Christopher Hitchens was an example of #2.

[Chips]

Person #1 is, as already noted, some sort of rabidly anti-Communist paleoconservative.

Person #2 is someone who made the proper second-wave neoconservative journey (i.e. was a New Left type in the 1970's but a hawkish rightist in the 2000's) but still stands by their position on Vietnam from the time, if only because of how badly it ended.

[nclib]

#2 could be someone who believes that radical Islam is more harmful to human rights, than Communism is.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Person #1 is, as already noted, some sort of rabidly anti-Communist paleoconservative.

Person #2 is someone who made the proper second-wave neoconservative journey (i.e. was a New Left type in the 1970's but a hawkish rightist in the 2000's) but still stands by their position on Vietnam from the time, if only because of how badly it ended.

Basically Pat Buchanan vs Christopher Hitchens.

[H. Ross Peron]

Person #1 is, as already noted, some sort of rabidly anti-Communist paleoconservative.

Person #2 is someone who made the proper second-wave neoconservative journey (i.e. was a New Left type in the 1970's but a hawkish rightist in the 2000's) but still stands by their position on Vietnam from the time, if only because of how badly it ended.

Basically Pat Buchanan vs Christopher Hitchens.

Ironically, Joe Biden at least temporarily fell into the second category given he started his political career as an opponent of the Vietnam War but voted for the Iraq War.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Robert Byrd and John Kerry, respectively.

[Coldstream]

I actually think most Neocons would have been like this. There’s a fair few left wing hawks, they are just quieter about it.

But I also don’t find it that hard to imagine from a non-ideological perspective. Saddam had invaded two of his neighbours, attempted genocide and used chemical weapons. By comparison the North Vietnamese government had been little different to other Communists, and I’d say far less brutal than their neighbours and contemporaries China, Pathet Lao, Khmer Rouge. I can understand why someone would think Saddam needed to be stopped but not think military action in Vietnam was necessary.

Also i can imagine  a realist (in foreign policy terms) who may have felt action in Vietnam would unnecessarily provoke Russia/China and endanger the US. Whilst attacking isolated and friendless Iraq wouldn’t have the same potential negative consequences. Though they’d still probably have opposed both wars.

[nclib]

I strongly opposed both (and all) wars, but if I had to choose, I find the Iraq war less bad than the Vietnam War.