A friend of mine and I had a debate about Vietnam and ending a war. We both agree that the US should not have interferred in and gotten involved in the first place. However, given that the US did enter the war, we debated about what to do next. I argued that the US should have left as soon as possible, accepting a mistake, and moving on. My friend argued that, given the war was underway, we should have pushed through to victory and used whatever means necessary to do so, specifically bombing the dikes and cutting off supply to North Vietnam. His reasoning is:
1) Abandoning a war makes future enemies more willing to engage in prolonged conflict and hope to wear you down. Bin-laden has cited Vietnam specifically as evidence that Al-queda can win in the long run.
2) It makes future allies less likely to trust you when you promise help to them.
3) We made a promise to aid those fighting a Communist regime and should not have broken that promise.
I made various counter arguments, but I'm curious as to other views out there.
All of those three arguments assume that the US could have won the war in the long run.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
War is murder.
I do believe that if the US put the full force of our military into Vietnam, then we would have won. My point was
A) Whether it is moral
B) Whether it would be prudent to continue the war even if we would win.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:A) Whether it is moral are you joking ?
I'm not joking. My point is: When a country engages in a war and later realizes that entering was a mistake in the first place, under what circumstances would it make sense to win anyway. The three strategic reasons my friend gave are, although I ultimately disagree with them, I think compelling.
Juan:What has that got to do with the morality of murder ?
His claim is that the action he is taking is designed to destroy the North Vietnamese communists and that the principle of double effect is in play. He would also claim that the North Vietnamese are not being murdered, they are being justly killed.
To elaborate, he maintains that those aggressing against others have forfeited their rights and thus the North Vietnamese, who were aggressors, could be justly attacked.
But the NVA didn't aggress against the US.
He claims that it doesn't matter. You can defend someone in the street who is being attacked even if you haven't been attacked.
Yes, you can. And when you compel someone by force to "defend" someone, that's wrong. Even if the person volunteered, the person is still being paid by taxes, so it's still wrong.
The soldier is being paid by taxes whether or not he is in war. So the question is not whether the situation is morally ideal, but which course of action (continuing or leaving the war) is less wrong and most prudent.
To elaborate, he maintains that those aggressing against others have forfeited their rights
Could you elaborate? What about a group of people asking for help?
is less wrong
Lesse: which is more prudent--killing people who didn't attack you or not killing people who didn't attack you?
His argument is that because
1) We promised our help to the South Vietnamese
and
2) Not winning can cause strategic problems later on by emboldening potential enemies
we should have destroyed the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Communist government.
He claims that the commuinists had no rights at all, becuase they were aggressors, and those of the worst kind.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Lesse: which is more prudent--killing people who didn't attack you or not killing people who didn't attack you?
Again, proxy defense is not immoral.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Juan:Such as ? You still need to target individual aggressors anyway, not use napalm.
Whatever method best protects the safety of my men and the goals of the mission is the real consideration here.
Additionally, no war can be effectively conducted when all civillian casualties are prohibited.
I. Ryan:Again, proxy defense is not immoral.
When has America ever engaged in proxy defense? No war is ever fought under the rationale of helping someone else. They are fought under the false premise that the nation itself is under threat, direct or indirect.
Brutus 2.0: I do believe that if the US put the full force of our military into Vietnam, then we would have won. My point was A) Whether it is moral B) Whether it would be prudent to continue the war even if we would win.
The military of the government of the United States of America could have won the its war by nuking Vietnam. Why didn't it?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Brutus 2.0:Additionally, no war can be effectively conducted when all civillian casualties are prohibited.
Well, then you should be questioning the premise of war, because the death of innocents should always, unconditionally be unacceptable. If it's unacceptable to kill people by accident, it is certainly unacceptable to kill them on purpose.
Juan: Such as ? You still need to target individual aggressors anyway, not use napalm.
Such as ? You still need to target individual aggressors anyway, not use napalm.
I agree. I merely wanted to illustrate that his argument is illusory.
liberty student: When has America ever engaged in proxy defense? No war is ever fought under the rationale of helping someone else. They are fought under the false premise that the nation itself is under threat, direct or indirect.
Daniel:The military of the government of the United States of America could have won the its war by nuking Vietnam. Why didn't it?
Actually, that is what those war mongers, Reagan and Goldwater thought was conservative and just. They were just as fanatically anti-communist as the folks today who obsess over islamo-fascism. They couldn't see the forest from the trees, or how compromised their supposed belief in natural rights had become.
These are all good points. I didn't consider raising the argument about forcing tax payers to fund the military and how you are forcing them to defend someone else. That is a good argument. I'm still not convinced about the civilian casualties, however.
Suppose that a people who subscribe to privately provided defense by a company are attacked by another group. This group mixes in with a population which has not advocated violence against the aggrieved party, but are not willing to cooperate in bringing the attackers to justice. How is justice done? Sometimes you can't tell a soldier from a non-soldier until it is too late.
Brutus 2.0: His argument is that because 1) We promised our help to the South Vietnamese
"We" did not promise to help out; instead, officials of the government of the United States did. The government of the United States of America is an illegitimate institution.
and 2) Not winning can cause strategic problems later on by emboldening potential enemies we should have destroyed the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Communist government. He claims that the commuinists had no rights at all, because they were aggressors, and those of the worst kind.
He claims that the commuinists had no rights at all, because they were aggressors, and those of the worst kind.
Yes, the women and children in the jungle were the aggressors, that is why they were napalmed. **rollseyes**
Brutus 2.0:I'm still not convinced about the civilian casualties, however.
Because there has never been a war on your soil, and you have never had to hold your dead child in your arms.
liberty student: Brutus 2.0:I'm still not convinced about the civilian casualties, however. Because there has never been a war on your soil, and you have never had to hold your dead child in your arms.
Although your argument may in fact be correct, your reason I'm citing is not a good one to support it. That is an emotional argument that says "Its wrong because if you felt it you wouldn't like it."
Brutus 2.0: These are all good points. I didn't consider raising the argument about forcing tax payers to fund the military and how you are forcing them to defend someone else. That is a good argument. I'm still not convinced about the civilian casualties, however. Suppose that a people who subscribe to privately provided defense by a company are attacked by another group. This group mixes in with a population which has not advocated violence against the aggrieved party, but are not willing to cooperate in bringing the attackers to justice. How is justice done? Sometimes you can't tell a soldier from a non-soldier until it is too late.
Furthermore, why was their a draft? How is it moral to force someone else to defend the rights of others? The rights of thousands of Americans were violated when the government of the United States forces them to go murder people in Vietnam; or else they would have been thrown in jail, like Mohammed Ali.
liberty student:Actually, that is what those war mongers, Reagan and Goldwater thought was conservative and just.
Would you happen to have a source to back up this claim? I know that Goldwater was quite militant, and Reagan didn't mind using military force, but I have a hard time believing they advocated the utilization of nuclear armaments in the Vietnam War.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Daniel: Furthermore, why was their a draft? How is it moral to force someone else to defend the rights of others? The rights of thousands of Americans were violated when the government of the United States forces them to go murder people in Vietnam; or else they would have been thrown in jail, like Mohammed Ali.
That is a good point, again one I forgot to bring up for some reason. But what if we assume a volunteer army? I guess the taxpayer issue still comes up at that point.
laminustacitus:Would you happen to have a source to back up this claim? I know that Goldwater was quite militant, and Reagan didn't mind using military force, but I have a hard time believing they advocated the utilization of nuclear armaments in the Vietnam War.
Goldwater was has been quoted as saying America should "lob a nuclear bomb into the men's room at the Kremlin" and Reagan advocated reducing Vietnam to a parking lot by bombing.
Did they specifically endorse using a nuke on Vietnam? Not that I have read. Did their policies and ideas amount to less? No. Goldwater was beaten by Johnson because he was painted as a crazed war monger who would bring nuclear war, and he did little to diminish that image. They were both militant war mongers who endorsed the neo-con policy of forward interventionism decades before George Bush Jr.
Johnson was actually the war mongerer.
Brutus 2.0:Johnson was actually the war mongerer.
Almost every American President has been a war monger. The American state is the largest and most aggressive military in the world and has been since WWII. Where the US doesn't exercise military force, it commits economic blackmail with the IMF.
Brutus 2.0: Daniel: Furthermore, why was their a draft? How is it moral to force someone else to defend the rights of others? The rights of thousands of Americans were violated when the government of the United States forces them to go murder people in Vietnam; or else they would have been thrown in jail, like Mohammed Ali. That is a good point, again one I forgot to bring up for some reason. But what if we assume a volunteer army? I guess the taxpayer issue still comes up at that point.
liberty student: Did they specifically endorse using a nuke on Vietnam? Not that I have read. Did their policies and ideas amount to less? No. Goldwater was beaten by Johnson because he was painted as a crazed war monger who would bring nuclear war, and he did little to diminish that image. They were both militant war mongers who endorsed the neo-con policy of forward interventionism decades before George Bush Jr.
And yet, several of his campaign ads from 64 imply he opposed the war. I suspect 'nuking Vietnam', as some believe Goldwater meant, was his wish to see the conflict finished quickly and leave. (Which doesnt make it any more moral)