<!--quoteo(post=1590750:date=Dec 20 2006, 10:31 PM:name=Renegade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renegade @ Dec 20 2006, 10:31 PM) [snapback]1590750[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes, I know. It's ironic that a country born from revolution into a controversial form of government would turn around and suppress countries who try the same. National determination = bad! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's quite ironic, since it can be applied to both imperialistic super powers at the time.
It appears that this discussion has - broadly speaking - two major viewpoints.
One side feels very strongly about valuing personal sacrifice in warfare and takes issue with any statement that appears to demean the "blood given" so to speak. i.e. "They died for you because they did their duty as soldiers, regardless of the ultimate outcome"
The other side focuses less on personal sacrifice and more-so on the overall reasoning for said war in the first place. "They died in vain because ultimately the justification for the war was bogus to begin with".
So, where does this leave us in the discussion ?
Isn't this almost like the following:
Person X respects the Police for the job they do in general but feels that it is pointless for a certain traffic-law to be enforced as it represents no danger to anyone.
If Person X then criticizes this law in front of the policeman in the process of enforcing it, how is the policeman to feel?
i) Does he identify with his duties to such a degree that even though he is not personally responsible for draughting the law he still "owns" it in some way - has to put himself at risk to enforce it - and is thus insulted by Person X.
ii) Does he separate his actions from his job description to such a degree that he knows that he is only doing what is required of him, regardless of how anyone feels about that particular law in the first place, and is thus not insulted.
I vote option two. A policeman needs to be familiar with the laws he is enforcing. This includes not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit behind it. If that spirit is bogus, the policeman should be the first one this is readily apparent to. And while it is still his duty to enforce that law, he should not invest emotionally in it, as he has to expect that others will realise the nonsense inherent in the law and voice their displeasure.
The inevitable side-effect of this is policemen who will invest emotionally in and defend a nonsensical law. Unfortunately, this is unavoidable. This is their problem to deal with, for better or worse. It may lead to a rude awakening, but a rude awakening is better than sleeping all your life.
Cant intervene like that just because YOU dont like communism. If you justify this because of the fight against communism then the communist intervention in hungary 1956 is justifiable as well and dont come and say you were any better than them.
Depends entirely on the viewpoint though. One man's hero is another man's villian. During the cold war, asking either superpower which one was the evil one would produce entirely predictable results.
<!--quoteo(post=1591029:date=Dec 21 2006, 04:50 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 21 2006, 04:50 PM) [snapback]1591029[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Depends entirely on the viewpoint though. One man's hero is another man's villian. During the cold war, asking either superpower which one was the evil one would produce entirely predictable results. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes thats the point you cant sacrifice innocent lives to fight something that you perceive as evil.
<!--quoteo(post=1591031:date=Dec 21 2006, 04:01 PM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Dec 21 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]1591031[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes thats the point you cant sacrifice innocent lives to fight something that you perceive as evil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually you can, which is why wars occur. If no one thought something was evil, there would be no war/conflict/etc.
<!--quoteo(post=1591041:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:24 PM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 21 2006, 05:24 PM) [snapback]1591041[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually you can, which is why wars occur. If no one thought something was evil, there would be no war/conflict/etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can but you shouldnt, isnt the removal of war as a problem solver something to strive for
<!--quoteo(post=1591078:date=Dec 22 2006, 12:11 AM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Dec 22 2006, 12:11 AM) [snapback]1591078[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You can but you shouldnt, isnt the removal of war as a problem solver something to strive for <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. War is something that must be perfected as a tool against the anti-social.
Didn't you take history and moral philosophy? Violence has always solved everything.
<!--quoteo(post=1591031:date=Dec 21 2006, 05:01 PM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Dec 21 2006, 05:01 PM) [snapback]1591031[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes thats the point you cant sacrifice innocent lives to fight something that you perceive as evil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, because standing around and doing nothing while Hitler conquered country after country in the 1930s was such a brilliant idea. Maybe we should have let him have Poland as well and perhaps France after that. Wouldn't Europe have been a better place by people standing by and doing utterly nothing to curb aggressors by the exmployment of force against them. Perhaps another strongly worded letter would have convinced Hitler that aggressively expanding into other peoples countries wasn't a nice thing to do.
On the other hand, I understand what your argument is for and I agree with the general idea that Vietnam was a waste of time, effort and human lives. I view this not because I think Vietnam was 'pointless', given the time and political climate it was a 'justified' war as Depot and Rob I feel have argued, but rather because the American military strategy was ultimately pyrrhic. It didn't take something called 'reality' into account.
For example, the incompetent inisistence of American airpower doctrine on the use of missiles that may or may not strike their target and no basic air to air cannons. This meant that once migs got into close combat range of American fighter aircraft, the American pilots had almost no recourse and were the equivalent of a duckshoot. This wasn't an issue with technology, it wasn't an issue of how much GDP was spent - it was complete and utter military incompetence.
There are many more examples of where American strategy was either completely inadequate for the situation or just plain stupid, but the short of it all was the US military took the wrong strategy in Vietnam. They may have inflicted a gross number of casualties on their enemies but they also couldn't affort the losses they threw away themselves. In addition, they lost the war anyway due to the length of time they were there and the fact despite overwhelming dominance in military might it was used ineffectively, allowing the communists to eventually grind the allied forces down through weight of numbers.
<!--quoteo(post=1591093:date=Dec 22 2006, 01:44 AM:name=Aegeri)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aegeri @ Dec 22 2006, 01:44 AM) [snapback]1591093[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yeah, because standing around and doing nothing while Hitler conquered country after country in the 1930s was such a brilliant idea. Maybe we should have let him have Poland as well and perhaps France after that. Wouldn't Europe have been a better place by people standing by and doing utterly nothing to curb aggressors by the exmployment of force against them. Perhaps another strongly worded letter would have convinced Hitler that aggressively expanding into other peoples countries wasn't a nice thing to do.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with that approach is that it's a far too sudden change. Completely laying down your weapons from one day to another doesn't work. It's like getting into a fistfight and then trying to stop it in an instant by simply not fighting. That'll only get you a boot in the stomach and a fist in the face. Rather, you stop throwing punches, you go into a defensive stance and you shout at your opponent to stop. But you don't just let your guard down until you're convinced you've both stopped fighting. The second world war didn't come like a bolt from the blue. In fact, it had been brewing for two decades, ever since the harsh treatment Germany received at the end of the great war. One could argue that it never really ended, there was merely a very long ceasefire. When the war finally came, nobody was truly surprised. And when it finally came, all the mistakes had already been made long ago. When you're that far down the road to war, peace through diplomatic means is simply not an option anymore. Not fighting a war in that situation doesn't work. That's why we need to avoid getting into that situation.
We wont' ever avoid getting into that situation though. People cant ever agree on anything completely and that is what causes conflict, whether it be who assassinated who (for the start of WWI,) to "Lets expand our empire for ever (Japan)"
Until you remove human opinion you can't stop wars.
While I can certainly share your lack of enthusiasm, I don't think it's a good approach. If we accept war as an inevitability, it becomes one. Even if futile, a world without war will always be a noble goal to strive for. We may never fully get there, but every small step in that direction is a victory for the human race.
And after all, growing up is a strange and difficult process. As a child I could never have imagined the insights I would gain, how completely intelligible concepts would start making sense. As a race, we are still growing up. To claim that future generations can impossibly achieve what we lack the maturity to do is unfair to them. We must give our children the chance to learn from our mistakes, just like we learned from the mistakes of our parents and grandparents, just like our grandchildren will learn from the mistakes our children will make. A world entirely without war may be impossible to achieve, but I believe we can get close. And we must never stop trying.
But is it our <b>only</b> goal? No. There are certain things that are not worth giving up to acheive a world without war. Like freedom.
I'm all for striving for a world without war, but everything comes at a cost, and I want to make sure the cost is something I'm willing to pay before I sign on to something. So go ahead and work towards a world with no war, but choose your methods carefully. Don't choose a method which says "the last person to agree to disarm gets to conquer everybody else". Obviously thats an extreme example, but you see where I'm going?
<!--quoteo(post=1591328:date=Dec 22 2006, 08:15 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 22 2006, 08:15 PM) [snapback]1591328[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Is a world without war a noble goal? Sure.
But is it our <b>only</b> goal? No. There are certain things that are not worth giving up to acheive a world without war. Like freedom.
I'm all for striving for a world without war, but everything comes at a cost, and I want to make sure the cost is something I'm willing to pay before I sign on to something. So go ahead and work towards a world with no war, but choose your methods carefully. Don't choose a method which says "the last person to agree to disarm gets to conquer everybody else". Obviously thats an extreme example, but you see where I'm going? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see where you're going. Since I already touched on this subject, I hope you'll forgive me if I'll just quote myself:
<!--quoteo(post=1591111:date=Dec 22 2006, 02:39 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 22 2006, 02:39 AM) [snapback]1591111[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Completely laying down your weapons from one day to another doesn't work. It's like getting into a fistfight and then trying to stop it in an instant by simply not fighting. That'll only get you a boot in the stomach and a fist in the face. Rather, you stop throwing punches, you go into a defensive stance and you shout at your opponent to stop. But you don't just let your guard down until you're convinced you've both stopped fighting.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1591328:date=Dec 22 2006, 02:15 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 22 2006, 02:15 PM) [snapback]1591328[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Is a world without war a noble goal? Sure.
But is it our <b>only</b> goal? No. There are certain things that are not worth giving up to acheive a world without war. Like freedom.
I'm all for striving for a world without war, but everything comes at a cost, and I want to make sure the cost is something I'm willing to pay before I sign on to something. So go ahead and work towards a world with no war, but choose your methods carefully. Don't choose a method which says "the last person to agree to disarm gets to conquer everybody else". Obviously thats an extreme example, but you see where I'm going? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well put Cxwf, and I agree. Freedom is the very reason imho that the U.S. waged the war against North Vietnam - protection of our own freedom by attempting to stop the advance of Communism.
<!--quoteo(post=1591341:date=Dec 22 2006, 02:54 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 02:54 PM) [snapback]1591341[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well put Cxwf, and I agree. Freedom is the very reason imho that the U.S. waged the war against North Vietnam - protection of our own freedom by attempting to stop the advance of Communism. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How would they ever be a threat to you freedom? youre more of a threat to others freedom than they ever will be
<!--quoteo(post=1591397:date=Dec 22 2006, 05:43 PM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Dec 22 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]1591397[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How would they ever be a threat to you freedom? youre more of a threat to others freedom than they ever will be <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The spread of Communism was a threat to our freedom, and North Vietnam was attempting to do just that.
<!--quoteo(post=1591399:date=Dec 22 2006, 05:51 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 05:51 PM) [snapback]1591399[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The spread of Communism was a threat to our freedom, and North Vietnam was attempting to do just that.
Did that answer your question? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1591402:date=Dec 22 2006, 05:56 PM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Dec 22 2006, 05:56 PM) [snapback]1591402[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Soviet Union, an example of a communist state, diminished such liberties as the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
<!--quoteo(post=1591412:date=Dec 22 2006, 06:14 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]1591412[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The Soviet Union, an example of a communist state, diminished such liberties as the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes they claimed to be communists but the fact is that it was just another fascist dictatorship, communism doesnt mean the removal of freedom of speech and it wasnt communism who took it away it was their fascism. There has been fascistic regimes that were pro capitalism too but this doesnt mean every capitalist country is fascist. Besides how does this threaten YOUR freedom, doesnt it threaten their freedom?.
<!--quoteo(post=1591414:date=Dec 22 2006, 06:28 PM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Dec 22 2006, 06:28 PM) [snapback]1591414[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes they claimed to be communists but the fact is that it was just another fascist dictatorship, communism doesnt mean the removal of freedom of speech and it wasnt communism who took it away it was their fascism. There has been fascistic regimes that were pro capitalism too but this doesnt mean every capitalist country is fascist. Besides how does this threaten YOUR freedom, doesnt it threaten their freedom?. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can call them fascists and I'll calling them communists, so let's agree to disagree.
The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it.
<!--quoteo(post=1591416:date=Dec 22 2006, 06:37 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 06:37 PM) [snapback]1591416[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You can call them fascists and I'll calling them communists, so let's agree to disagree.
The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No i dont want to agree to disagree <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> i want you to realise that communism doesnt have to be fascism even if thats what it seems to mutate to most off the time.
Edit: Oh great, I knew I took too long with this post. It was made in reply to vms' post of "No" an hour ago. Original post starts after this paragraph.
To elaborate on Depot's post: The two opposing sides in the cold war had more or less agreed that they were irreconcilable. The prevailing point of view was "us or them." It wasn't just about disagreeing with the other guy's point of view, both sides thought that they were defending the freedom of the world, that mankind's future and freedom from tyranny depended on the outcome.
Today our picture of events is more nuanced, but we look back with the wisdom of hindsight. Everything always seems a lot more obvious in hindsight, but back then, they did not have that advantage. They had to deal with the situation there and then just like we have to deal with the problems of our time here and now.
The cold war ended a decade and a half ago. To a man, that's a long time. To history, it is not. It will take time before we can sort through the flotsam of that time and fully understand what the conflict was about. It was about many things. About fundamental shifts in culture and our understanding of ourselves. About coming to terms with our newly acquired ability to exterminate ourselves at the press of a button. It was a tough time, and it's almost a wonder we made it through alive, with so many itchy trigger fingers. But we did, and it is all too conceivable that the bloodshed could have been far greater. Luckily, the two superpowers' bloodlust was not as great as the fear they had of each other and of the consequences of a direct confrontantion between each other. In the end, I guess that's a show of maturity.
But I digress. This thread is about Vietnam. In short, back then all sides believed that they held the future of mankind in their hands, and they acted accordingly. When the stakes are high, you have to play decisively.
<!--quoteo(post=1591416:date=Dec 22 2006, 07:37 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 07:37 PM) [snapback]1591416[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You can call them fascists and I'll calling them communists, so let's agree to disagree.
The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you suggesting it would have spread to the U.S. via a military invasion of some kind or are you saying the idea of communism would have spread amongst the U.S. populace by observing the outside world somehow ?
If the majority of the U.S. populace prefers communism in the future, and these ideas are put to a vote; you would respect the wishes of the majority right ?... or would democracy suddenly hold no interest for you at that point?
<!--quoteo(post=1591416:date=Dec 22 2006, 04:37 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 04:37 PM) [snapback]1591416[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because, God knows, self determination = bad.
<!--quoteo(post=1591475:date=Dec 22 2006, 11:30 PM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FilthyLarry @ Dec 22 2006, 11:30 PM) [snapback]1591475[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Are you suggesting it would have spread to the U.S. via a military invasion of some kind or are you saying the idea of communism would have spread amongst the U.S. populace by observing the outside world somehow ?
If the majority of the U.S. populace prefers communism in the future, and these ideas are put to a vote; you would respect the wishes of the majority right ?... or would democracy suddenly hold no interest for you at that point? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It could have spread to the U.S. (or any one of our allies) via military invasion. The idea of communism spreading worldwide was part of the cold war, and we all know that's over.
Your second question is a hypothetical situation that I don't feel the need to answer.
First, simply by calling themselves Communist, North Vietnam gave Russia another ally. Not only militarily, but politically. Strategy has to include thinking about how everyone else will perceive an event as well as what that event actually means. Here we have a French army asking for our help to fight communism. We're currently engaged in an Idealogical shadow war with communism itself. To not help would be to appear weak, and as lolfighter has pointed out, in a game with so high of stakes, one wrong move means your enemy may lob a few warheads your way. This was the primary threat to our freedom North Vietnam posed. Sort of like when your girlfriend is being hit on by some dude. You gotta go and tell him to lay off or else eat a knuckle sandwich.
Secondly, are we forgetting about the wanted freedom of South Vietnam? Sure there were some revolutionists. But there were also those fighting for freedom from the North. Was their cause pointless? If you say yes, then every major power shift in history was also pointless.
It may not have gone our way, but that doesn't make it pointless. As I said before, progress is made through failure. Success signals the end of progress, as the goal is reached.
Actually, what I meant about the high stakes was that both sides thought that if the other side (i.e. the bad guys) would win, mankind would have been doomed. And they made their decisions within that frame of mind. There was, of course, the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation, but second to that was the doom of mankind if the bad guys would win.
Comments
Yes, I know. It's ironic that a country born from revolution into a controversial form of government would turn around and suppress countries who try the same. National determination = bad!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's quite ironic, since it can be applied to both imperialistic super powers at the time.
One side feels very strongly about valuing personal sacrifice in warfare and takes issue with any statement that appears to demean the "blood given" so to speak. i.e. "They died for you because they did their duty as soldiers, regardless of the ultimate outcome"
The other side focuses less on personal sacrifice and more-so on the overall reasoning for said war in the first place. "They died in vain because ultimately the justification for the war was bogus to begin with".
So, where does this leave us in the discussion ?
Isn't this almost like the following:
Person X respects the Police for the job they do in general but feels that it is pointless for a certain traffic-law to be enforced as it represents no danger to anyone.
If Person X then criticizes this law in front of the policeman in the process of enforcing it, how is the policeman to feel?
i) Does he identify with his duties to such a degree that even though he is not personally responsible for draughting the law he still "owns" it in some way - has to put himself at risk to enforce it - and is thus insulted by Person X.
ii) Does he separate his actions from his job description to such a degree that he knows that he is only doing what is required of him, regardless of how anyone feels about that particular law in the first place, and is thus not insulted.
The inevitable side-effect of this is policemen who will invest emotionally in and defend a nonsensical law. Unfortunately, this is unavoidable. This is their problem to deal with, for better or worse. It may lead to a rude awakening, but a rude awakening is better than sleeping all your life.
If you justify this because of the fight against communism then the communist intervention in hungary 1956 is justifiable as well and dont come and say you were any better than them.
Depends entirely on the viewpoint though. One man's hero is another man's villian. During the cold war, asking either superpower which one was the evil one would produce entirely predictable results.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes thats the point you cant sacrifice innocent lives to fight something that you perceive as evil.
Yes thats the point you cant sacrifice innocent lives to fight something that you perceive as evil.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you can, which is why wars occur. If no one thought something was evil, there would be no war/conflict/etc.
Actually you can, which is why wars occur. If no one thought something was evil, there would be no war/conflict/etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can but you shouldnt, isnt the removal of war as a problem solver something to strive for
You can but you shouldnt, isnt the removal of war as a problem solver something to strive for
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. War is something that must be perfected as a tool against the anti-social.
Didn't you take history and moral philosophy? Violence has always solved everything.
Yes thats the point you cant sacrifice innocent lives to fight something that you perceive as evil.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, because standing around and doing nothing while Hitler conquered country after country in the 1930s was such a brilliant idea. Maybe we should have let him have Poland as well and perhaps France after that. Wouldn't Europe have been a better place by people standing by and doing utterly nothing to curb aggressors by the exmployment of force against them. Perhaps another strongly worded letter would have convinced Hitler that aggressively expanding into other peoples countries wasn't a nice thing to do.
On the other hand, I understand what your argument is for and I agree with the general idea that Vietnam was a waste of time, effort and human lives. I view this not because I think Vietnam was 'pointless', given the time and political climate it was a 'justified' war as Depot and Rob I feel have argued, but rather because the American military strategy was ultimately pyrrhic. It didn't take something called 'reality' into account.
For example, the incompetent inisistence of American airpower doctrine on the use of missiles that may or may not strike their target and no basic air to air cannons. This meant that once migs got into close combat range of American fighter aircraft, the American pilots had almost no recourse and were the equivalent of a duckshoot. This wasn't an issue with technology, it wasn't an issue of how much GDP was spent - it was complete and utter military incompetence.
There are many more examples of where American strategy was either completely inadequate for the situation or just plain stupid, but the short of it all was the US military took the wrong strategy in Vietnam. They may have inflicted a gross number of casualties on their enemies but they also couldn't affort the losses they threw away themselves. In addition, they lost the war anyway due to the length of time they were there and the fact despite overwhelming dominance in military might it was used ineffectively, allowing the communists to eventually grind the allied forces down through weight of numbers.
Yeah, because standing around and doing nothing while Hitler conquered country after country in the 1930s was such a brilliant idea. Maybe we should have let him have Poland as well and perhaps France after that. Wouldn't Europe have been a better place by people standing by and doing utterly nothing to curb aggressors by the exmployment of force against them. Perhaps another strongly worded letter would have convinced Hitler that aggressively expanding into other peoples countries wasn't a nice thing to do.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with that approach is that it's a far too sudden change. Completely laying down your weapons from one day to another doesn't work.
It's like getting into a fistfight and then trying to stop it in an instant by simply not fighting. That'll only get you a boot in the stomach and a fist in the face. Rather, you stop throwing punches, you go into a defensive stance and you shout at your opponent to stop. But you don't just let your guard down until you're convinced you've both stopped fighting.
The second world war didn't come like a bolt from the blue. In fact, it had been brewing for two decades, ever since the harsh treatment Germany received at the end of the great war. One could argue that it never really ended, there was merely a very long ceasefire. When the war finally came, nobody was truly surprised. And when it finally came, all the mistakes had already been made long ago. When you're that far down the road to war, peace through diplomatic means is simply not an option anymore. Not fighting a war in that situation doesn't work. That's why we need to avoid getting into that situation.
Until you remove human opinion you can't stop wars.
And after all, growing up is a strange and difficult process. As a child I could never have imagined the insights I would gain, how completely intelligible concepts would start making sense.
As a race, we are still growing up. To claim that future generations can impossibly achieve what we lack the maturity to do is unfair to them. We must give our children the chance to learn from our mistakes, just like we learned from the mistakes of our parents and grandparents, just like our grandchildren will learn from the mistakes our children will make. A world entirely without war may be impossible to achieve, but I believe we can get close. And we must never stop trying.
But is it our <b>only</b> goal? No. There are certain things that are not worth giving up to acheive a world without war. Like freedom.
I'm all for striving for a world without war, but everything comes at a cost, and I want to make sure the cost is something I'm willing to pay before I sign on to something. So go ahead and work towards a world with no war, but choose your methods carefully. Don't choose a method which says "the last person to agree to disarm gets to conquer everybody else". Obviously thats an extreme example, but you see where I'm going?
Is a world without war a noble goal? Sure.
But is it our <b>only</b> goal? No. There are certain things that are not worth giving up to acheive a world without war. Like freedom.
I'm all for striving for a world without war, but everything comes at a cost, and I want to make sure the cost is something I'm willing to pay before I sign on to something. So go ahead and work towards a world with no war, but choose your methods carefully. Don't choose a method which says "the last person to agree to disarm gets to conquer everybody else". Obviously thats an extreme example, but you see where I'm going?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see where you're going. Since I already touched on this subject, I hope you'll forgive me if I'll just quote myself:
<!--quoteo(post=1591111:date=Dec 22 2006, 02:39 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 22 2006, 02:39 AM) [snapback]1591111[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
[...]Completely laying down your weapons from one day to another doesn't work.
It's like getting into a fistfight and then trying to stop it in an instant by simply not fighting. That'll only get you a boot in the stomach and a fist in the face. Rather, you stop throwing punches, you go into a defensive stance and you shout at your opponent to stop. But you don't just let your guard down until you're convinced you've both stopped fighting.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is a world without war a noble goal? Sure.
But is it our <b>only</b> goal? No. There are certain things that are not worth giving up to acheive a world without war. Like freedom.
I'm all for striving for a world without war, but everything comes at a cost, and I want to make sure the cost is something I'm willing to pay before I sign on to something. So go ahead and work towards a world with no war, but choose your methods carefully. Don't choose a method which says "the last person to agree to disarm gets to conquer everybody else". Obviously thats an extreme example, but you see where I'm going?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well put Cxwf, and I agree. Freedom is the very reason imho that the U.S. waged the war against North Vietnam - protection of our own freedom by attempting to stop the advance of Communism.
Well put Cxwf, and I agree. Freedom is the very reason imho that the U.S. waged the war against North Vietnam - protection of our own freedom by attempting to stop the advance of Communism.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How would they ever be a threat to you freedom? youre more of a threat to others freedom than they ever will be
How would they ever be a threat to you freedom? youre more of a threat to others freedom than they ever will be
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The spread of Communism was a threat to our freedom, and North Vietnam was attempting to do just that.
Did that answer your question?
The spread of Communism was a threat to our freedom, and North Vietnam was attempting to do just that.
Did that answer your question?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
No <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Soviet Union, an example of a communist state, diminished such liberties as the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
The Soviet Union, an example of a communist state, diminished such liberties as the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they claimed to be communists but the fact is that it was just another fascist dictatorship, communism doesnt mean the removal of freedom of speech and it wasnt communism who took it away it was their fascism.
There has been fascistic regimes that were pro capitalism too but this doesnt mean every capitalist country is fascist.
Besides how does this threaten YOUR freedom, doesnt it threaten their freedom?.
Yes they claimed to be communists but the fact is that it was just another fascist dictatorship, communism doesnt mean the removal of freedom of speech and it wasnt communism who took it away it was their fascism.
There has been fascistic regimes that were pro capitalism too but this doesnt mean every capitalist country is fascist.
Besides how does this threaten YOUR freedom, doesnt it threaten their freedom?.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can call them fascists and I'll calling them communists, so let's agree to disagree.
The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it.
You can call them fascists and I'll calling them communists, so let's agree to disagree.
The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No i dont want to agree to disagree <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> i want you to realise that communism doesnt have to be fascism even if thats what it seems to mutate to most off the time.
To elaborate on Depot's post: The two opposing sides in the cold war had more or less agreed that they were irreconcilable. The prevailing point of view was "us or them." It wasn't just about disagreeing with the other guy's point of view, both sides thought that they were defending the freedom of the world, that mankind's future and freedom from tyranny depended on the outcome.
Today our picture of events is more nuanced, but we look back with the wisdom of hindsight. Everything always seems a lot more obvious in hindsight, but back then, they did not have that advantage. They had to deal with the situation there and then just like we have to deal with the problems of our time here and now.
The cold war ended a decade and a half ago. To a man, that's a long time. To history, it is not. It will take time before we can sort through the flotsam of that time and fully understand what the conflict was about. It was about many things. About fundamental shifts in culture and our understanding of ourselves. About coming to terms with our newly acquired ability to exterminate ourselves at the press of a button. It was a tough time, and it's almost a wonder we made it through alive, with so many itchy trigger fingers. But we did, and it is all too conceivable that the bloodshed could have been far greater. Luckily, the two superpowers' bloodlust was not as great as the fear they had of each other and of the consequences of a direct confrontantion between each other. In the end, I guess that's a show of maturity.
But I digress. This thread is about Vietnam. In short, back then all sides believed that they held the future of mankind in their hands, and they acted accordingly. When the stakes are high, you have to play decisively.
You can call them fascists and I'll calling them communists, so let's agree to disagree.
The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you suggesting it would have spread to the U.S. via a military invasion of some kind or are you saying the idea of communism would have spread amongst the U.S. populace by observing the outside world somehow ?
If the majority of the U.S. populace prefers communism in the future, and these ideas are put to a vote; you would respect the wishes of the majority right ?... or would democracy suddenly hold no interest for you at that point?
The spread of communism throughout the world could have spread to the U.S., of course, and it more than likely would have had we let it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because, God knows, self determination = bad.
Are you suggesting it would have spread to the U.S. via a military invasion of some kind or are you saying the idea of communism would have spread amongst the U.S. populace by observing the outside world somehow ?
If the majority of the U.S. populace prefers communism in the future, and these ideas are put to a vote; you would respect the wishes of the majority right ?... or would democracy suddenly hold no interest for you at that point?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It could have spread to the U.S. (or any one of our allies) via military invasion. The idea of communism spreading worldwide was part of the cold war, and we all know that's over.
Your second question is a hypothetical situation that I don't feel the need to answer.
Secondly, are we forgetting about the wanted freedom of South Vietnam? Sure there were some revolutionists. But there were also those fighting for freedom from the North. Was their cause pointless? If you say yes, then every major power shift in history was also pointless.
It may not have gone our way, but that doesn't make it pointless. As I said before, progress is made through failure. Success signals the end of progress, as the goal is reached.
There was, of course, the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation, but second to that was the doom of mankind if the bad guys would win.