History

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

Natalie — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:34:26 GMT

Why is everyone forgetting the Soviet involvement in Vietnam? Soviets trained Vietnamese, sent supplies and weapons and even their own military personnel to assist Vietnamese (maybe not on the same scale as US, but still significant). So, it was essentially an internal struggle with parties backed by the two superpowers which turned it into another arena for the not so cold Cold War. If it wasn't for ideological difference, it might have gone unnoticed and the Vietnamese could have a chance to sort it out between themselves.

Now, was it moral to help the South Vietnamese in light of mass murder that happened once the Communists took control of the country? Only if it was done by by privately funded volunteers (think about some Brits fighting with Greeks against the Turks even when Turkey was still an ally of the Empire). Stealing from people to fund the war that doesn't even affect them, drafting people against their will and committing various atrocities to the people you supposedly want to save - i.e. fighting evil with more evil - is definitely not moral.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:30:35 GMT

Brutus 2.0:

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.

And in a guerilla war, Al-queda can probably win in the long run. Winning in Afghanistan (assuming that it is possible) will not win the war against Al-queda: it will win a prolonged battle that is part of that war. Winning in Afghanistan, in the fashion that the United States sees victory, is also very questionable. I think there is a lack of understanding of Afghan history.

2) It makes future allies less likely to trust you when you promise help to them.

In the case of the Iraq War, the most valuable US allies have already left (apart from the UK, which will leave). The rest, I'm sure, are just waiting for the word.

3) We made a promise to aid those fighting a Communist regime and should not have broken that promise.

The problem is that a large portion of South Vietnamese sympathisized with the Communists, because the totalitarian government backed by the U.S. in the south was even worse.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

Zavoi — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:04:40 GMT

Brutus 2.0:
1) We promised our help to the South Vietnamese

Who promised what to whom? The American taxpayers and draftees never promised anyone anything. And in any case, if someone promises to murder innocent civilians, they are morally obligated to break, not fulfill, that promise.

Brutus 2.0:
2) Not winning can cause strategic problems later on by emboldening potential enemies

To what end is this strategizing directed? If the goal is to protect freedom, security, and prosperity, then certainly there are better methods than murdering innocent civilians. More likely, however, it is simply one criminal gang trying to subjugate others.

Brutus 2.0:
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.

First of all, there are at-large criminals everywhere, but it is never suggested that we should indiscriminately kill everyone in a certain area just because we know that there are some criminals among them. (Anyone who wanted to do this would rightly be regarded as a sociopath.) That's why we have detectives: to find and target individual criminals.

To some extent, those who actively hide and shelter criminals are not entirely blameless, but no one is guilty of a crime simply for being a criminal's neighbor. So when you ask, "How is justice done?", what about justice for the innocent bystanders? Surely they have a better claim on their lives than someone who wants to get revenge on their neighbors?

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

sicsempertyrannis — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:11:09 GMT

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)

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:32:17 GMT

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.

Volunteering to napalm innocent women and children isn't moral either. Taxpayer money, for the most part, is stolen money. There are people who do voluntarily give money to government, but most people do not.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

liberty student — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:29:25 GMT

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.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

Brutus 2.0 — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:26:31 GMT

Johnson was actually the war mongerer.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

liberty student — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:24:24 GMT

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.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

Brutus 2.0 — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:13:05 GMT

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.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

laminustacitus — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:11:14 GMT

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.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:10:17 GMT

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.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

Brutus 2.0 — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:09:37 GMT

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."

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

liberty student — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:06:50 GMT

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.

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

Juan — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:06:13 GMT

Whatever method best protects the safety of my men and the goals of the mission is the real consideration here.

huh ? 'your' men ?

Re: Vietnam and When to Leave a War

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:05:36 GMT

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.

Yes, the women and children in the jungle were the aggressors, that is why they were napalmed. **rollseyes**