Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Vietnam vs. the Iraq War Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2008-11-06 1:15 PM
in reply to: #1792079

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War

pengy - Vietnam wasn't about the legitimacy of civil war. The fact of the matter is when the French relinquished control and an agreement was made to hold elections in two years time (an election Diem knew he was going to lose) the United States intervened and propped up the Diem government to stop what was considered a communist threat.

Chris, thanks for pointing out my error and making things clearer.



2008-11-06 1:17 PM
in reply to: #1792591

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2008-11-06 1:17 PM
in reply to: #1792591

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2008-11-06 1:24 PM
in reply to: #1792620

Arch-Bishop of BT
10278
50005000100100252525
Pittsburgh
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
triturn - 2008-11-06 2:11 PM
trinnas - 2008-11-06 1:04 PM
akustix - 2008-11-06 1:55 PM

Whether or not WWII was a just war is up for debate, I think... by dropping an atomic bomb, the U.S. failed to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant... which of course became much harder in both Vietnam and Iraq.  And this has led some to question the relevance of the Just War Tradition anymore... Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just War on Terrorism," while I disagree with it, is a provocative read in this vein.

 

And of couse the fire bombing of Dresden, The blitzkrieg of London and oh yea the slaughter in the polish ghettos, The wholesale slaughter of Chinese.  Will you stop the big bad USA dropped the atomic bomb on poor sleepy nagasaki and hiroshima.  I am sure both of these were chosen as military tagret not as civilian targets.  War is ugly and non combatants get killed.  If it were not for the Japanese surrender it would have required invasin of mainland Japan to end the war The casualty estimates for the US servicemen alone were something like 1,000,000 troops.  The casualty estimates for the japanese military and civilians alike were even higher.  What would you have done?

x2. the line between combatant and non was crossed long before the atomic bomb was dropped.

Absolutely... it was merely one example to put up since several times in this thread WWII has been called a just war... the Dresden example is just as good.  I did not mention the blitzkrieg since it is clear that Germany in WWII never really intended to carry out a just war.  The U.S. on the other hand subscribes to it at least in principle... how that gets carried out is up for interpretation.

 Regarding what decision I would have made... well I thank God that I was not in the position to have needed to make that decision.  Knowing what I know now however, I probably would have ordered the invasion, because the bomb affected not only non-combatants at the time, but generations of non-combatants since then with the effect of radiation related illnesses. 

so go ahead, blast away trinnas.

 



Edited by akustix 2008-11-06 1:30 PM
2008-11-06 1:43 PM
in reply to: #1792682

Extreme Veteran
500
500
On the road...somewhere
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
akustix - 2008-11-06 1:24 PM

triturn - 2008-11-06 2:11 PM
trinnas - 2008-11-06 1:04 PM
akustix - 2008-11-06 1:55 PM

Whether or not WWII was a just war is up for debate, I think... by dropping an atomic bomb, the U.S. failed to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant... which of course became much harder in both Vietnam and Iraq.  And this has led some to question the relevance of the Just War Tradition anymore... Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just War on Terrorism," while I disagree with it, is a provocative read in this vein.

 

And of couse the fire bombing of Dresden, The blitzkrieg of London and oh yea the slaughter in the polish ghettos, The wholesale slaughter of Chinese.  Will you stop the big bad USA dropped the atomic bomb on poor sleepy nagasaki and hiroshima.  I am sure both of these were chosen as military tagret not as civilian targets.  War is ugly and non combatants get killed.  If it were not for the Japanese surrender it would have required invasin of mainland Japan to end the war The casualty estimates for the US servicemen alone were something like 1,000,000 troops.  The casualty estimates for the japanese military and civilians alike were even higher.  What would you have done?

x2. the line between combatant and non was crossed long before the atomic bomb was dropped.

Absolutely... it was merely one example to put up since several times in this thread WWII has been called a just war... the Dresden example is just as good.  I did not mention the blitzkrieg since it is clear that Germany in WWII never really intended to carry out a just war.  The U.S. on the other hand subscribes to it at least in principle... how that gets carried out is up for interpretation.

 Regarding what decision I would have made... well I thank God that I was not in the position to have needed to make that decision.  Knowing what I know now however, I probably would have ordered the invasion, because the bomb affected not only non-combatants at the time, but generations of non-combatants since then with the effect of radiation related illnesses. 

so go ahead, blast away trinnas.

 



Just because there are unjust actions in a war doesn't mean the war itself is unjust. With respect to the atom bomb, the ones killed and the "generations" affected are still far lower than # of those that would have died in an invasion on both sides. It's a "what if" scenario but Okinawa and Iwo Jima made it pretty clear to the US that the Japanese were far from quitting.
Est. 1 million American casualties. Planners at the time considered that a conservative estimate.

2008-11-06 1:52 PM
in reply to: #1792420

Expert
1158
10001002525
A Husker stuck in VA
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
triturn - 2008-11-06 1:19 PM

NavyTRIChief - 2008-11-06 10:48 AM

triturn - 2008-11-06 11:41 AM

Scout7 - 2008-11-06 10:37 AM

PennState - 2008-11-06 11:27 AM

Trying to get back on topic... I believe many would agree that WWII fell into the category of defending oneself from oppression, which is why fewer people have a problem with the morality of it.

Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Spanish American War, American Indian Wars... probably don't fit that description do they?

How was the US defending itself from oppression during WWI or II?



x2. Both WWI and WWII were avoidable if the US wanted to avoid them.

My earlier point is simple about "justifiable wars." It depends on who wins.


Maybe in your dream world, but here in reality WWII would have eventually involved us as much or even more than when we did participate. Hitler would have overrun Europe, then set his sights on Russia. Meanwhile due to many governmental restrictions and other reasons (both the US and Japan to blame) the Pacific war was looming also.

Not sure if I agree that the wars were to fight oppression of the US, but definately help what were or became our allies.


Chief:
I'm not against WWI or WWII. I'm a military guy and have a degree in history and political science. More importantly, I'm a realist. I agree that the US should have gone to war (earlier than we did) in WWII. I'm glad we did.
However, it would have been possible to change policies, become isolationist and cut off any aid to either the UK or USSR and we could have avoided war with Germany for at least 20 years. IAs you know, Germany declared war as a result of the US declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese only wanted us out of their way in the Pacific so that they could continue to expand their empire and gain more natural resources. The foreign policy of the US could have changed and let them run rampant if we wanted to avoid war. It's possible that if we could have avoided war in the Pacific for at least 20-25 years.

In the end, the US did the right thing but at the time it was possible for us to turn inward and not give a crap about what happened.


Ok, sorry. Misread your OP I guess.


2008-11-06 1:58 PM
in reply to: #1791464

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2008-11-06 2:00 PM
in reply to: #1792682

Champion
18680
50005000500020001000500100252525
Lost in the Luminiferous Aether
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
akustix - 2008-11-06 2:24 PM
triturn - 2008-11-06 2:11 PM
trinnas - 2008-11-06 1:04 PM
akustix - 2008-11-06 1:55 PM

Whether or not WWII was a just war is up for debate, I think... by dropping an atomic bomb, the U.S. failed to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant... which of course became much harder in both Vietnam and Iraq.  And this has led some to question the relevance of the Just War Tradition anymore... Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just War on Terrorism," while I disagree with it, is a provocative read in this vein.

 

And of couse the fire bombing of Dresden, The blitzkrieg of London and oh yea the slaughter in the polish ghettos, The wholesale slaughter of Chinese.  Will you stop the big bad USA dropped the atomic bomb on poor sleepy nagasaki and hiroshima.  I am sure both of these were chosen as military tagret not as civilian targets.  War is ugly and non combatants get killed.  If it were not for the Japanese surrender it would have required invasin of mainland Japan to end the war The casualty estimates for the US servicemen alone were something like 1,000,000 troops.  The casualty estimates for the japanese military and civilians alike were even higher.  What would you have done?

x2. the line between combatant and non was crossed long before the atomic bomb was dropped.

Absolutely... it was merely one example to put up since several times in this thread WWII has been called a just war... the Dresden example is just as good.  I did not mention the blitzkrieg since it is clear that Germany in WWII never really intended to carry out a just war.  The U.S. on the other hand subscribes to it at least in principle... how that gets carried out is up for interpretation.

 Regarding what decision I would have made... well I thank God that I was not in the position to have needed to make that decision.  Knowing what I know now however, I probably would have ordered the invasion, because the bomb affected not only non-combatants at the time, but generations of non-combatants since then with the effect of radiation related illnesses. 

so go ahead, blast away trinnas.

 

No one has a crystal ball, given the information at the time, the powers that be did the best they could.  What do you think would have happened to future generations had millions of japanese been killed.  Would that out come have been better than the current outcome there is no way for you to know.

2008-11-06 5:51 PM
in reply to: #1792843

Arch-Bishop of BT
10278
50005000100100252525
Pittsburgh
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
trinnas - 2008-11-06 3:00 PM

No one has a crystal ball, given the information at the time, the powers that be did the best they could. What do you think would have happened to future generations had millions of japanese been killed. Would that out come have been better than the current outcome there is no way for you to know.

I don't doubt that at all...  

2008-11-06 8:13 PM
in reply to: #1792620

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
triturn - 2008-11-06 1:11 PM

trinnas - 2008-11-06 1:04 PM

akustix - 2008-11-06 1:55 PM

Whether or not WWII was a just war is up for debate, I think... by dropping an atomic bomb, the U.S. failed to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant... which of course became much harder in both Vietnam and Iraq.  And this has led some to question the relevance of the Just War Tradition anymore... Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just War on Terrorism," while I disagree with it, is a provocative read in this vein.

 

And of couse the fire bombing of Dresden, The blitzkrieg of London and oh yea the slaughter in the polish ghettos, The wholesale slaughter of Chinese.  Will you stop the big bad USA dropped the atomic bomb on poor sleepy nagasaki and hiroshima.  I am sure both of these were chosen as military tagret not as civilian targets.  War is ugly and non combatants get killed.  If it were not for the Japanese surrender it would have required invasin of mainland Japan to end the war The casualty estimates for the US servicemen alone were something like 1,000,000 troops.  The casualty estimates for the japanese military and civilians alike were even higher.  What would you have done?



x2. the line between combatant and non was crossed long before the atomic bomb was dropped.



In the US, I would say that happened during the Civil War with Sherman and Grant's "total war" on the South. So now was the Civil War unjust? Under that line of thinking, could any war ever be considered "just"? There are ALWAYS consequences to civilians.



2008-11-06 11:43 PM
in reply to: #1793954

Arch-Bishop of BT
10278
50005000100100252525
Pittsburgh
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
scoobysdad - 2008-11-06 9:13 PM
triturn - 2008-11-06 1:11 PM
trinnas - 2008-11-06 1:04 PM
akustix - 2008-11-06 1:55 PM

Whether or not WWII was a just war is up for debate, I think... by dropping an atomic bomb, the U.S. failed to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant... which of course became much harder in both Vietnam and Iraq. And this has led some to question the relevance of the Just War Tradition anymore... Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just War on Terrorism," while I disagree with it, is a provocative read in this vein.

 

And of couse the fire bombing of Dresden, The blitzkrieg of London and oh yea the slaughter in the polish ghettos, The wholesale slaughter of Chinese. Will you stop the big bad USA dropped the atomic bomb on poor sleepy nagasaki and hiroshima. I am sure both of these were chosen as military tagret not as civilian targets. War is ugly and non combatants get killed. If it were not for the Japanese surrender it would have required invasin of mainland Japan to end the war The casualty estimates for the US servicemen alone were something like 1,000,000 troops. The casualty estimates for the japanese military and civilians alike were even higher. What would you have done?

x2. the line between combatant and non was crossed long before the atomic bomb was dropped.
In the US, I would say that happened during the Civil War with Sherman and Grant's "total war" on the South. So now was the Civil War unjust? Under that line of thinking, could any war ever be considered "just"? There are ALWAYS consequences to civilians.

While civilian casualties will always be part of war, there are steps to take that seek to discriminate combatants from non-combatants... What is unjust is blatant disregard for civilians... which makes nuclear weapons immediately unjust.  Or the fire bombings of Dresden. 

A harder example... what to do about a bridge that the enemy military uses to move supplies back and forth, but a large number of civilians need to get to the market or else they starve... do you destroy the bridge or not? 

 



2008-11-07 5:06 AM
in reply to: #1791464

Extreme Veteran
310
100100100
Colorado Springs
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War

The POTUS acted based on intelligence that we, the majority of the Unites States population, are not privy to.  There are several doctrines that outline what we, as a nation, believe is important.  One of those doctrines is "The National Security Strategy."  I will not try and explain all the details about the NSS, because I am not qualified to do so.  However, I am qualified to tell people that the "intentions" are just. 

Here are a few things you can find in the NSS doctrine.  Feel free to look up the document to learn more about what the US believes it's role in the world is.

 Copied from NSS

  1. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity
  2. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends
  3. Work with Others to Defuse Regional Conflicts
  4. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
  5. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade
  6. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy
  7. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power
  8. Transform America’s National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the 21st Century
  9. Engage the Opportunities and Confront the Challenges of Globalization

 

2008-11-07 7:31 AM
in reply to: #1794555

Expert
1158
10001002525
A Husker stuck in VA
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
AF_SGT - 2008-11-07 6:06 AM

The POTUS acted based on intelligence that we, the majority of the Unites States population, are not privy to.  There are several doctrines that outline what we, as a nation, believe is important.  One of those doctrines is "The National Security Strategy."  I will not try and explain all the details about the NSS, because I am not qualified to do so.  However, I am qualified to tell people that the "intentions" are just. 

Here are a few things you can find in the NSS doctrine.  Feel free to look up the document to learn more about what the US believes it's role in the world is.

 Copied from NSS

  1. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity
  2. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends
  3. Work with Others to Defuse Regional Conflicts
  4. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
  5. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade
  6. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy
  7. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power
  8. Transform America’s National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the 21st Century
  9. Engage the Opportunities and Confront the Challenges of Globalization

 




SGT, I like you already.



"A harder example... what to do about a bridge that the enemy military uses to move supplies back and forth, but a large number of civilians need to get to the market or else they starve... do you destroy the bridge or not? " YES!!
2008-11-07 8:53 AM
in reply to: #1791464

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2008-11-07 10:10 AM
in reply to: #1791464

Expert
1158
10001002525
A Husker stuck in VA
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
That is because to the average person you hear commenting about it, this is the first war directly affecting them. Most of the Vietnem vet's are not being too out spoken. It is the person that grew up during Vietnem that now has a child in Iraq or Afghanistan or the guy whose buddy that is there, or the person that is seeing this as the first war for them personally. It is the current event. It is what is effecting us now, therefore, it receives the most groans and complaints.
During eachwar/conflict the same complaints were heard. Maybe not aas vocal due to the media and internet access, but I am willing to be was the same.
2008-11-07 11:45 AM
in reply to: #1795110

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.


2008-11-07 11:58 AM
in reply to: #1794433

Champion
18680
50005000500020001000500100252525
Lost in the Luminiferous Aether
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
akustix - 2008-11-07 12:43 AM
scoobysdad - 2008-11-06 9:13 PM
triturn - 2008-11-06 1:11 PM
trinnas - 2008-11-06 1:04 PM
akustix - 2008-11-06 1:55 PM

Whether or not WWII was a just war is up for debate, I think... by dropping an atomic bomb, the U.S. failed to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant... which of course became much harder in both Vietnam and Iraq. And this has led some to question the relevance of the Just War Tradition anymore... Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just War on Terrorism," while I disagree with it, is a provocative read in this vein.

 

And of couse the fire bombing of Dresden, The blitzkrieg of London and oh yea the slaughter in the polish ghettos, The wholesale slaughter of Chinese. Will you stop the big bad USA dropped the atomic bomb on poor sleepy nagasaki and hiroshima. I am sure both of these were chosen as military tagret not as civilian targets. War is ugly and non combatants get killed. If it were not for the Japanese surrender it would have required invasin of mainland Japan to end the war The casualty estimates for the US servicemen alone were something like 1,000,000 troops. The casualty estimates for the japanese military and civilians alike were even higher. What would you have done?

x2. the line between combatant and non was crossed long before the atomic bomb was dropped.
In the US, I would say that happened during the Civil War with Sherman and Grant's "total war" on the South. So now was the Civil War unjust? Under that line of thinking, could any war ever be considered "just"? There are ALWAYS consequences to civilians.

While civilian casualties will always be part of war, there are steps to take that seek to discriminate combatants from non-combatants... What is unjust is blatant disregard for civilians... which makes nuclear weapons immediately unjust.  Or the fire bombings of Dresden. 

A harder example... what to do about a bridge that the enemy military uses to move supplies back and forth, but a large number of civilians need to get to the market or else they starve... do you destroy the bridge or not? 

 

Hiroshima and Nagisaki were both military targets.  They were two of Japans largest shipyards building Navel warships.  Unlike to todays military WWII had no smart bombs, bombs were big and dumb.  In terms of an airraid the more damage you can do with the least amount of planes in harms way is best, civilian casualties could not be prevented.  You cannot apply the standards of today on a military action on a world that didn't have GPS or laser guided capabiliies. 

2008-11-07 4:23 PM
in reply to: #1795110

Houston
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War
NavyTRIChief - 2008-11-07 10:10 AM

That is because to the average person you hear commenting about it, this is the first war directly affecting them. Most of the Vietnem vet's are not being too out spoken. It is the person that grew up during Vietnem that now has a child in Iraq or Afghanistan or the guy whose buddy that is there, or the person that is seeing this as the first war for them personally. It is the current event. It is what is effecting us now, therefore, it receives the most groans and complaints.
During eachwar/conflict the same complaints were heard. Maybe not aas vocal due to the media and internet access, but I am willing to be was the same.


I think what you said is really insightful. The majority of us haven't been effected by any other war so we have no real reference point.

I do think though there is a lot of international and domestic concern over the Bush Doctrine and whether that legacy will live on. That is the only thing that seems strikingly different from other major conflicts.
2008-11-07 8:11 PM
in reply to: #1791464

Carrollton, TX
Subject: RE: Vietnam vs. the Iraq War

Why this war has been so unpopular has a lot to do with access to information.  Do you think people could watch 10 different stations during the Vietnam era, all hearing the same thing?   To answer the OP, Vietnam was a much worse war, because while we were helping an ally, we really had no reason to get involved, much like the current and ongoing conflict with Israel.  We could have simply given them as much firepower as they needed to let them fight their own battle, but again, their lack of sufficient military prowess probably wouldn't have allowed for them to win.

 A lot of the ill sentiment is spread by the MSM about Bush and what his legacy will be, but this is all opinion which a lot of times is stated as fact.  Bush himself is a little out of touch with how ingrained the internet and access to information has become... and how much influence hearing the same BS over and over and over whether it is true or not, has an effect on the minds of Generation X and Y.  Hence his "The Google" snip, and in interviews he has stated he doesn't really worry about what the media thinks.   This is both a good thing and bad thing IMO.  Would you rather have a president who is informed of public sentiments all the time, and allow that to affect his judgement, however slight that might be?  Or would you rather he be in-the-dark and simply make judgements based on his advisors and his own educated decision-making processes?  IMO I don't think you can have both, because it's like in Back to the Future, once somebody has heard something, no matter how small it is, it can and probably will change the future.

I think this "Information Age" so to speak is leading the country down a sort of different path.  While we were once a right leaning country since inception, it appears that now we are leaned towards the left (albeit it could be temporary).  I cannot, nor can anybody else, speak to where this left leaning society will take us.  My worst fear would be that no war will be worth fighting for.  An isolationist approach at the wrong time, and for too long, could have serious consequences, as many know.  Whether or not that approach would work in this day and age is a neverending debate.  Did it work when we were avoiding involvement with WWII?  That is also subject to a neverending debate.

As much as the Iraq War is unfavored, nobody knows what our future would be if we hadn't gone.  I see Bush as a scapegoat... He came in, and did the dirty work.  Now it's time for cleanup.  He did what had to be done, in my opinion.  Who in their right mind thinks he would have gone if he cared what the MSM thought?  Who in their right mind thinks he made unpopular decisions just to see his ratings tank?

Now, how the actual war was conducted, and the gross underestimations of the task are a totally different story. But to quote, "Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions. "

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Vietnam vs. the Iraq War Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3