Retelling An Old Lie

[Auteur]

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

South Vietnam was not a "peaceful neighbour" of the north, but an intregal part of the nation of Vietnam. It was artificially divided in order to allow the French less embarrassing exit in '54, just as Americans negoicated a less embarrassing exit in 1973. As for peaceful, I guess that is a matter of degree. The Vietnamese fought French colonialists, then Japanese invaders in 1940, then the French again after WW2, and then the Americans for another decade. They were no doubt getting a little hardened near the end of this process.

America did not intervene to support peace or freedom, but to fight communism. This was made very clear. Even today, Mr Flanders is repeating the idiotic nonsense that Vietnamese communists would be swimming ashore in California, if not stopped sooner (with a little rust on their AK-47s, no doubt). The South Vietnamese leadership was not democratic, and in fact the US has never made any bones about the fact that it would support those who supported US interests, not matter how brutal they were. I think it was FDR that issued the classic line: They may be bastards, but they are our bastards!

Korea, also, was a singular state, divided only for the purpose of disarming the Japanese still there at the end of WW2. It's true that the Soviets armed and supported their favoured man in the north, Kim il Sung, and eventually gave him the green light to invade the south. Stalin was at first apprehensive though, and wavered. But by 1950, the south was already in turmoil, as America could not accept the idea that Koreans were forming worker's collectives, and doing a pretty good job of running their own affairs. This sounded to much like "communism" to them, and so they disbanded them. To rub salt into the wounds, in some cases they re-appointed former Japanese occupyers to administrative positions, due to a lack of such personal on the ground at that time.

Would Stalin have given the go ahead if it were not already the case that some southerners had already taken up arms, and were shooting at Americans? We don't know, but we do know that once again, an astonishing lack of historical knowledge, and cultural sensitivity, and overriding self-interest, were factors in a war that might not have happened.

And yet in Both cases MILLIONS of Southern natives volunteered fought and died for their Southern Countries. Millions more in Vietnam were imprisoned after the South fell. More millions died risking life and limb to flee the supposed beneficial union between North and South.

"MILLIONS" of Vietnamese, in both the north and south, volunteered for the opposite cause. They fought on despite overwhelming odds- with nothing even approaching the air power, logistics, and heavy weapons available to the US, and its southern allies. But they endured. The south Vietnamese army, in contrast, tended to go downhill after US support was withdrawn. Clearly, some felt more strongly about their cause than others. Where they right? Not really. The point is that the US completely misunderstood and mishandled the entire episode, to the grief of many.

If you are now going to tell me that the US was in Vietnam for altruistic reasons, because here was injustice, and they were going to make it right, then please spare me the effort. Even the defense secretary at the time, George McNamara, later admitted that the US view of Indochina in the '60s, was ill informed, and the war was, in hindsight, a mistake. The US intervention was all about monolithic communism, a concept since discredited by historians and informed observers. It was foolish, it was mistaken.

If, in fact US foreign policy is all about altruism, then why Vietnam, or why Korea? There were, and there are today, areas of the world far more benighted than those particular countries, so why not put the resources were they will do the most good? You know the answer. It's not human need that is the priority, it is the perceived (rightly or wrongly) security and defense and trade requirements of the US that are front and center. If this was not the case, then Iraq and Afghanistan would not have happened, and Marines would now be in central Africa trying to stop the rape and murder there, or perhaps in Somalia, a road warrior movie brought to real life.

 

[sambino510]

That's why the best and the brightest protested, and brought things to an end sooner than if it was left to the crazies in Washington, and in the military. And good for them.

No, the best and the brightest went and did their job.

The dirtiest and laziest stayed at home, got high and whined at everything they did not like. Then shouted abuse at those who did their duty when they returned.

That is not what I think of as "best and brightest", this is:

I don't think you can classify either the military or the protesters as, necessarily, the best and brightest. Each were mixed with all, ALL sorts of people, and we should avoid making blanket statements for any particular group. The military fighting in Vietnam no doubt had both good and bad views of the war. And though there were indeed many lazy idiots who just wanted to get high and drink and loved to fight the government, there were certainly intelligent people who had well-argued reasons for protesting the war. Many veterans also came back and gave back awards and medals and such in protest, and lead various demonstration.

Overall, though, neither group should be disparaged by the other. It was not right to spit on the soldiers returning home, and it is not right to make unfair judgments about the protesters. If they wanted to protest or go to jail instead of going to war, I feel that is their business so long as they do not disparage or insult other viewpoints.

 

[sambino510]

The Military-Industrial Complex REQUIRES the US to have enemies, so that War Profiteers can continue to make obscene profits.

To numan: Try to get the full picture after you listen to what Ike said:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY]Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube[/ame]​

Democrats are doing exactly what Ike warned about —— endangering our liberties. To liberals, the military/industrial complex should serve the UN not the US.

Better you should worry about how far the education/media/entertainment complex has come since Ike left office.

Barack Taqiyya is the poster boy for the education/media/entertainment complex. He is the first child of the parasite class to make it all the way to the White House. Whatever you think about the military/industrial complex the people in the defense industries protect this country; whereas, Barack Taqiyya and the parasites in the education/media/entertainment complex are determined to tear the country down. If they can’t do it militarily, they will do economically. Allow me to elaborate a bit on #51 permalink.

Remember when Barack Taqiyya said this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng&feature=player_embedded]Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube[/ame]​

The crap he spouted in the video is directly connected to the education/media/entertainment complex’s ideology. His words are extremely important because he clearly showed a parasite’s thought process. What he said was an attempt to justify Socialists/Communists absorbing a nation’s wealth then taking credit for creating it. Saul Alinsky taught American Communists to go further. They took credit for the original Bill of Rights while they were doing their best to eliminate individual liberties. Note that Barack Taqiyya calls the Rights in the Bill of Rights “Negative Rights.”

Incidentally, in the video Barack Taqiyya said there are a lot hard working people. That is true, but none of them go into government. He deliberately refers to private sector workers and lazy government bums as one entity. He does the same thing with the shrinking private sector middle class and the ever-expanding government middle class. The media in the education/media/entertainment complex lets him get away with it. Were he to separate them in his rhetoric the public might start asking the right questions.

Lazy bums and parasites go into government.

Nobody can say bums in bloated bureaucracies work at all. If that’s not enough proof for you compare the length of time it took to complete public projects from start to finish during the Great Depression to the length of time it takes today’s parasite bums do anything. Private sector Americans worked on public projects in the 1930s then left when the project was finished —— usually in two or three years. Today’s parasites give themselves lifetime tenure simply by making a public project last for decades. If those filthy bums had to build Boulder Dam, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or a major tunnel, it would take them at least fifty years.

I don’t know to relate building something in a public project to the millions of parasite waiting for a seat at the public trough under the Affordable Care Act. I do know this. Parasites will not improve patient care in America. Patients will suffer because lazy bums will be lazy bums no matter the job.

The military industry complex isn't democratic or republican, it is not red or blue, it is not liberal or conservative. It has plagued our government and our minds for decades now, and I think few can think of a way to eradicate it, or dare to try. To claim that the complex is the product of liberals is completely ludicrous. Practically all politicians currently support it.

As for the parasites you mention, I would once again avoid blanket statements. I assume you are referring to people that get financial aid, food stamps, and things of that nature, due to their low-income families or living situations. However, some of these people truly have disadvantages and various personal problems, and need the help to get themselves on their feet. There are, surely, people who take advantage of the system, exaggerating their racial lineage or taking two servings at soup kitchens. But, by and large, these are the exceptions to the norm. I'm not saying the system isn't broken, because it very well could be, but that is the fault of the overly idealist politicians who created it, not the people who use it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

South Vietnam was not a "peaceful neighbour" of the north, but an intregal part of the nation of Vietnam. It was artificially divided in order to allow the French less embarrassing exit in '54, just as Americans negoicated a less embarrassing exit in 1973. As for peaceful, I guess that is a matter of degree. The Vietnamese fought French colonialists, then Japanese invaders in 1940, then the French again after WW2, and then the Americans for another decade. They were no doubt getting a little hardened near the end of this process.

America did not intervene to support peace or freedom, but to fight communism. This was made very clear. Even today, Mr Flanders is repeating the idiotic nonsense that Vietnamese communists would be swimming ashore in California, if not stopped sooner (with a little rust on their AK-47s, no doubt). The South Vietnamese leadership was not democratic, and in fact the US has never made any bones about the fact that it would support those who supported US interests, not matter how brutal they were. I think it was FDR that issued the classic line: They may be bastards, but they are our bastards!

Korea, also, was a singular state, divided only for the purpose of disarming the Japanese still there at the end of WW2. It's true that the Soviets armed and supported their favoured man in the north, Kim il Sung, and eventually gave him the green light to invade the south. Stalin was at first apprehensive though, and wavered. But by 1950, the south was already in turmoil, as America could not accept the idea that Koreans were forming worker's collectives, and doing a pretty good job of running their own affairs. This sounded to much like "communism" to them, and so they disbanded them. To rub salt into the wounds, in some cases they re-appointed former Japanese occupyers to administrative positions, due to a lack of such personal on the ground at that time.

Would Stalin have given the go ahead if it were not already the case that some southerners had already taken up arms, and were shooting at Americans? We don't know, but we do know that once again, an astonishing lack of historical knowledge, and cultural sensitivity, and overriding self-interest, were factors in a war that might not have happened.

And yet in Both cases MILLIONS of Southern natives volunteered fought and died for their Southern Countries. Millions more in Vietnam were imprisoned after the South fell. More millions died risking life and limb to flee the supposed beneficial union between North and South.

"MILLIONS" of Vietnamese, in both the north and south, volunteered for the opposite cause. They fought on despite overwhelming odds- with nothing even approaching the air power, logistics, and heavy weapons available to the US, and its southern allies. But they endured. The south Vietnamese army, in contrast, tended to go downhill after US support was withdrawn. Clearly, some felt more strongly about their cause than others. Where they right? Not really. The point is that the US completely misunderstood and mishandled the entire episode, to the grief of many.

.

"MILLIONS" of Vietnamese, in both the north and south, volunteered for the opposite cause. They fought on despite overwhelming odds- with nothing even approaching the air power, logistics, and heavy weapons available to the US, and its southern allies. But they endured.

And that is-once again-untrue. North Vietnam received as much or more support from both Red China and the Soviet Union and continued to do so after the US Congress cut supplies to RSVN. In '72 at An Loc NVA tank crews were found chained in their vehicles so they would "fight on" in spite of overwhelming odds in their favor. Can't say the NVA didn't motivate their troops.

 

[9thIDdoc]

[

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians. This was why there were so many problems with draftees at the time. Kids were being told all manner of nonsense about communists landing on the beaches of California, of the peasant society of Vietnam seizing one Asian country after another, for some pathological need to make them all communists, and other such geographically and historically challenged drivel. It is not surprising that those that had some understanding of the world tended to resist this venture. It is also not surprising that a lot of protest happened on university campuses, places that tend to attract those who want to learn something about the world, generally speaking. Those that follow orders without question, and are willing to use lethal force without examining and understanding all the issues at hand are not, IMO, the best and the brightest.

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians.

Killing the enemy during time of war as directed by the political and military authorities is in fact the job. Questioning legal orders is ethically dubious and may constitute treason.

 

[sambino510]

[

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians. This was why there were so many problems with draftees at the time. Kids were being told all manner of nonsense about communists landing on the beaches of California, of the peasant society of Vietnam seizing one Asian country after another, for some pathological need to make them all communists, and other such geographically and historically challenged drivel. It is not surprising that those that had some understanding of the world tended to resist this venture. It is also not surprising that a lot of protest happened on university campuses, places that tend to attract those who want to learn something about the world, generally speaking. Those that follow orders without question, and are willing to use lethal force without examining and understanding all the issues at hand are not, IMO, the best and the brightest.

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians.

Killing the enemy during time of war as directed by the political and military authorities is in fact the job. Questioning legal orders is ethically dubious and may constitute treason.

Just because our government tells us some group is the enemy doesn't mean we have to agree with them. What did the average Viet Cong or NVA ever do to me personally? Did they ever attack the shores of America? Harm my family? Threaten me? I see no reason why I should follow orders to kill other human beings if I don't agree with it. If the draft was re-instated today, I'd go to jail before I went off to fight a war I didn't believe in. I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

Think about African Americans for example. Muhammad Ali's reason for avoiding the draft was partially due to his religious background, but also because he didn't think he should be fighting for the white men in government when they were calling him a ****** and all sorts of other things. He could relate more to the Vietnamese than he could to our government. People had all sorts of reasons for not wanting to fight. That doesn't make them traitors, it's a personal choice.

 

[Auteur]

And that is-once again-untrue. North Vietnam received as much or more support from both Red China and the Soviet Union and continued to do so after the US Congress cut supplies to RSVN. In '72 at An Loc NVA tank crews were found chained in their vehicles so they would "fight on" in spite of overwhelming odds in their favor. Can't say the NVA didn't motivate their troops.

North Vietnam received arms from the Soviet Union and China, but the imbalance in the conflict was still massive. There were no communist bombers flying continuous missions into South Vietnam, no aircraft carriers off the coast. North Vietnam received a higher volume of bombs than anything seen since WW2, against which the arms it received offered only modest defense. For the VC in the south, it was even more imbalanced. Kids with AK-47s against air strikes, artillery strikes, napalm, and essentially all the military power the US could muster at the time, short of nuclear weapons. Rightly or wrongly, there were many who clearly believed in what they were doing.

Motivation was also in short supply in the US. Many avoided the draft, or later deserted. There were cases of draftees attempting to kill their officers. If your tank story is true (which is dubious) it says only that some on that side also attempted to avoid the madness of war. It doesn't say anything about their political belief.

 

[Auteur]

[

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians. This was why there were so many problems with draftees at the time. Kids were being told all manner of nonsense about communists landing on the beaches of California, of the peasant society of Vietnam seizing one Asian country after another, for some pathological need to make them all communists, and other such geographically and historically challenged drivel. It is not surprising that those that had some understanding of the world tended to resist this venture. It is also not surprising that a lot of protest happened on university campuses, places that tend to attract those who want to learn something about the world, generally speaking. Those that follow orders without question, and are willing to use lethal force without examining and understanding all the issues at hand are not, IMO, the best and the brightest.

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians.

Killing the enemy during time of war as directed by the political and military authorities is in fact the job. Questioning legal orders is ethically dubious and may constitute treason.

I see. So you are saying your not going to question orders that come from above. Ethics, morality, rationality- all these things don't matter, or if they do, they need to be subordinated to military and nationalistic fervor, yes?

This is what has been refered to as being a "Good German". After WW2, many Germans offered the questionable defense for their horrific acts that they were just following orders, which were legal and came from higher authority.

We come to a very sad state of affairs when people don't think about what they are doing, but just blindly follow orders.

 

[numan]

"MILLIONS" of Vietnamese, in both the north and south, volunteered for the opposite cause.

Sorry, Auteur, that is bullshit.

The number of people on both sides who "volunteered" was vanishingly small.

They were bludgeoned with brainwashing and dragooned to fight by their totalitarian governments -- just like the cannon-fodder draftees on the American side, who were brainwashed and dragooned by the totalitarian government here in the USA.

As usual, the only people who knew what they were doing were the War Profiteers.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

[

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians. This was why there were so many problems with draftees at the time. Kids were being told all manner of nonsense about communists landing on the beaches of California, of the peasant society of Vietnam seizing one Asian country after another, for some pathological need to make them all communists, and other such geographically and historically challenged drivel. It is not surprising that those that had some understanding of the world tended to resist this venture. It is also not surprising that a lot of protest happened on university campuses, places that tend to attract those who want to learn something about the world, generally speaking. Those that follow orders without question, and are willing to use lethal force without examining and understanding all the issues at hand are not, IMO, the best and the brightest.

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians.

Killing the enemy during time of war as directed by the political and military authorities is in fact the job. Questioning legal orders is ethically dubious and may constitute treason.

Just because our government tells us some group is the enemy doesn't mean we have to agree with them. What did the average Viet Cong or NVA ever do to me personally? Did they ever attack the shores of America? Harm my family? Threaten me? I see no reason why I should follow orders to kill other human beings if I don't agree with it. If the draft was re-instated today, I'd go to jail before I went off to fight a war I didn't believe in. I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

Think about African Americans for example. Muhammad Ali's reason for avoiding the draft was partially due to his religious background, but also because he didn't think he should be fighting for the white men in government when they were calling him a ****** and all sorts of other things. He could relate more to the Vietnamese than he could to our government. People had all sorts of reasons for not wanting to fight. That doesn't make them traitors, it's a personal choice.

I see. So it's OK to expect all the rights, benefits, and privileges of being a citizen without accepting any of the responsibilities. I suppose you also expect to be allowed to abide by your moral code instead of any of the other laws of the land. So maybe somebody else dies doing your duty. Your alleged moral code is OK with that?
Somebody paid a high price to gain and maintain the rights you obviously do not deserve.


I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

And I would have no problem seeing you shot for making that personal choice. Nobody can make someone kill. Many people have served honorably in conscientious objector status. Medics may be in the thick of things and are not required to carry or use a weapon.

Muhammad Ali deserved to spend much more time in prison than he did.

 

[sambino510]

As for doing one's job, it is more than ethicially dubious to go the the extreme measures of killing people, unless one is absolutely sure of why this is necessary. This applies to the military as much as civilians.

Killing the enemy during time of war as directed by the political and military authorities is in fact the job. Questioning legal orders is ethically dubious and may constitute treason.

Just because our government tells us some group is the enemy doesn't mean we have to agree with them. What did the average Viet Cong or NVA ever do to me personally? Did they ever attack the shores of America? Harm my family? Threaten me? I see no reason why I should follow orders to kill other human beings if I don't agree with it. If the draft was re-instated today, I'd go to jail before I went off to fight a war I didn't believe in. I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

Think about African Americans for example. Muhammad Ali's reason for avoiding the draft was partially due to his religious background, but also because he didn't think he should be fighting for the white men in government when they were calling him a ****** and all sorts of other things. He could relate more to the Vietnamese than he could to our government. People had all sorts of reasons for not wanting to fight. That doesn't make them traitors, it's a personal choice.

I see. So it's OK to expect all the rights, benefits, and privileges of being a citizen without accepting any of the responsibilities. I suppose you also expect to be allowed to abide by your moral code instead of any of the other laws of the land. So maybe somebody else dies doing your duty. Your alleged moral code is OK with that?
Somebody paid a high price to gain and maintain the rights you obviously do not deserve.


I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

And I would have no problem seeing you shot for making that personal choice. Nobody can make someone kill. Many people have served honorably in conscientious objector status. Medics may be in the thick of things and are not required to carry or use a weapon.

Muhammad Ali deserved to spend much more time in prison than he did.

I absolutely knew you'd bring up other laws as a response to my position, so I'll say this. I think it's hard to even compare, say, parking in a red zone, with deciding whether or not I should kill a man just because my government tells me to. Those simply aren't on the same plane of morality.

No, my moral code is not okay with any human being killed by another human. Simple as that. However, I don't think it is my duty to be handed a rifle and told to go fight someone else's battle. My duty that I have chosen for myself is one of diplomacy, to prevent these ridiculous wars from happening whenever possible. It's a bit hard to be a diplomat with a gun on your hip.

I would have no problem handing you the gun and having you shoot me yourself. I will have my brains paint a wall before I would go halfway across the world and start shooting other human beings just because it's my "obligation as a citizen". As to your point about conscientious objectors who still serve, good for them. Their service is valuable and honorable. However, even if a medic or someone of that nature is not required to carry a weapon, they're still a member of, and representative of, a military that (I believe) did not belong and had no right to be in that country. Not to mention the fact that they're being put in harms way against their will (for those who did not volunteer). That's simply my opinion, as your opinion is yours.

I'm not wrong, and you're not wrong. It's just two different viewpoints. But if you want to kill me over it, or think I ought to be killed, be my guest. I'm ready to die for a cause, just not fight for one.

 

[Auteur]

I see. So it's OK to expect all the rights, benefits, and privileges of being a citizen without accepting any of the responsibilities. I suppose you also expect to be allowed to abide by your moral code instead of any of the other laws of the land. So maybe somebody else dies doing your duty. Your alleged moral code is OK with that?
Somebody paid a high price to gain and maintain the rights you obviously do not deserve.

A false argument. Americans "freedoms" were not threatened in any way during the Vietnam conflict. Indeed, their security would have been enhanced if those at the top had taken a more pragamatic and informed view of the situation, rather than sending in the troops.

In some cases, there is no choice, such as in WW2, and (sadly) many have had to step up to the plate, and good for them. In Vietnam, there was a choice, and the problem was, the population at large knew it. That's why there was a near revolution to end the senseless war.

I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

And I would have no problem seeing you shot for making that personal choice. Nobody can make someone kill. Many people have served honorably in conscientious objector status. Medics may be in the thick of things and are not required to carry or use a weapon.

Muhammad Ali deserved to spend much more time in prison than he did.

Listen to yourself. You are going to defend "freedom", and you are going to shoot people who make a free choice. Do you really know where you stand?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Listen to yourself. You are going to defend "freedom", and you are going to shoot people who make a free choice. Do you really know where you stand?

Child abuse and mass murder may also be free choices.
I know exactly where I stand. And I am tired of the lame-ass excuses being used to justify an unwillingness to serve our country instead of the other way round.

 

[numan]

I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

And I would have no problem seeing you shot for making that personal choice. Nobody can make someone kill. Many people have served honorably in conscientious objector status. Medics may be in the thick of things and are not required to carry or use a weapon.

I would never have been willing to be a conscientious objector in the Vietnam War. That would have been conceding that a government of Nazoid militarists and War Profiteers was legitimate or worthy of respect.

Total rejection of the authority of such an evil government is the only moral position which I think is acceptable.

If even the shadow of a War Profiteer falls on one, it makes one unclean.

.

 

[Auteur]

Listen to yourself. You are going to defend "freedom", and you are going to shoot people who make a free choice. Do you really know where you stand?

Child abuse and mass murder may also be free choices.
I know exactly where I stand. And I am tired of the lame-ass excuses being used to justify an unwillingness to serve our country instead of the other way round.

1) Those who have done some critical thinking, and have decided that a military action is unwarranted and unethical, and so resist becoming a part of it, are clearly not in the same category as murderers and child abusers. Let's get real here. If we were to follow your logic, it would have been open season on more than half the American population during the latter stages of the Vietnam War- the portion who opposed the war.

2) What sort of rights and freedoms are you defending when the only point you seem to be able to make here is that if someone in a uniform tells you to shoot someone, you'll do it, the rational behind it is either remote from your grasp, or unimportant. That's the society of Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, not that of Thomas Jefferson.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I have no problem committing "treason" if it goes against my moral code to kill people of another country.

And I would have no problem seeing you shot for making that personal choice. Nobody can make someone kill. Many people have served honorably in conscientious objector status. Medics may be in the thick of things and are not required to carry or use a weapon.

I would never have been willing to be a conscientious objector in the Vietnam War. That would have been conceding that a government of Nazoid militarists and War Profiteers was legitimate or worthy of respect.

Total rejection of the authority of such an evil government is the only moral position which I think is acceptable.

If even the shadow of a War Profiteer falls on one, it makes one unclean.

.

I hope you don't think that position is itself legitimate or worthy of respect. Just another lame-ass excuse used to protect your own ass at the expense of others. How convenient it just happens to allow you to demand the benefits-but none of the responsibilities - of being a citizen. Like our society didn't have enough leeches already.

 

[numan]

'

The real leeches are the war-profiteering militarists.

Are you one?

.

 

[Mushroom]

2) What sort of rights and freedoms are you defending when the only point you seem to be able to make here is that if someone in a uniform tells you to shoot someone, you'll do it, the rational behind it is either remote from your grasp, or unimportant. That's the society of Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, not that of Thomas Jefferson.

How about the freaking right to be free and live as they are in the nation of South Vietnam, without another nation invading them and demanding they do what they want to do, instead of living in their own nation in peace?

Excuse me, rant coming on here. Please forgive the foulness I am about to utter.

I wonder what in the fucking hell gives people the fucking right to sit on their god-damned high-horse, and act in this manner? "What sort of rights", "what are you defending", that is all so much bullshit. It is pure unadulterated bullshit, and I am sure that those who utter it know it, but they are so fucking trapped in their little worlds that they really do not give a fuck about anybody but themselves.

Look, you hate the US, fine. You hate any nation that is not Socialist or Communist, fine. But how dare anybody try to act all pompous and indignant and "assholier then thou" when whining "Oh, we had no right to get involved in Vietnam".

Bullshit. The moment South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam, we were obligated by treaty to get involved, Period. If they really gave a fuck about their own soldiers, they would have stayed on their side of the border, hmmm?

And the same goes in Kuwait, Lebanon, and a great many conflicts from 10,000 BCE until today. It always amazes me how people can honestly try and blame the US for things like Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Hiroshima, and not see at all that in none of those situations did the US start the conflict, it was either attacked, or a nation we are allied with and have a treaty with was attacked.

So if this is honestly your belief, and that the US should not get involved in the affairs of anybody else, then don't even think of asking the military or FEMA or anybody else for help next time you get a hurricane or tornado or earthquake. And don't even think of calling the police if you are attacked or robbed or burglarized. Because it is not their problem, you are entirely on your own.

Now excuse me as I go and become violently ill, because of those who have such little concern for others that they would behave in this manner. Now I understand why things like Darfur and Cambodia and former Yugoslavia happen. It is because of these kinds of individuals who pat themselves on the back saying "it is not my concern", while ignoring slaughters.

*rant off*

 

[numan]

So if this is honestly your belief, and that the US should not get involved in the affairs of anybody else....

The reason why the USA should be as little as possible involved with other people's affairs is that most Americans are too stupid, brainwashed, uneducated, morally corrupt and unsophisticated and uncultured to be able to do anything intelligent and decent in the world.
They can't even get their act together in their own country, and they still dare to throw their weight around elsewhere in the world!! Such hubris!!
Such arrogance will end badly for the USA!! Such encouragement of Nazoid war-profiteer militarists lead to the USA being controlled by the most evil elements in its society.

Now excuse me as I go and become violently ill....

Anyone who abets militarism should be violently ill, when they consider that they support and encourage such satanic evil.

Now I understand why things like Darfur and Cambodia and former Yugoslavia happen.

If you understand, you do a very good job of hiding your understanding!!

I am not going to let you get away with the dirty, stinking lie that the USA was a force for good in Cambodia!!

Cambodia was a peaceful kingdom until the US carpet-bombed the country and destroyed its social fabric.

Pol Pot may have been the proximate cause for one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, but the filthy, blood-stained claw of USA militarism was the efficient cause that set the whole ball rolling!!

.

 

[sambino510]

2) What sort of rights and freedoms are you defending when the only point you seem to be able to make here is that if someone in a uniform tells you to shoot someone, you'll do it, the rational behind it is either remote from your grasp, or unimportant. That's the society of Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, not that of Thomas Jefferson.

How about the freaking right to be free and live as they are in the nation of South Vietnam, without another nation invading them and demanding they do what they want to do, instead of living in their own nation in peace?

Excuse me, rant coming on here. Please forgive the foulness I am about to utter.

I wonder what in the fucking hell gives people the fucking right to sit on their god-damned high-horse, and act in this manner? "What sort of rights", "what are you defending", that is all so much bullshit. It is pure unadulterated bullshit, and I am sure that those who utter it know it, but they are so fucking trapped in their little worlds that they really do not give a fuck about anybody but themselves.

Look, you hate the US, fine. You hate any nation that is not Socialist or Communist, fine. But how dare anybody try to act all pompous and indignant and "assholier then thou" when whining "Oh, we had no right to get involved in Vietnam".

Bullshit. The moment South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam, we were obligated by treaty to get involved, Period. If they really gave a fuck about their own soldiers, they would have stayed on their side of the border, hmmm?

And the same goes in Kuwait, Lebanon, and a great many conflicts from 10,000 BCE until today. It always amazes me how people can honestly try and blame the US for things like Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Hiroshima, and not see at all that in none of those situations did the US start the conflict, it was either attacked, or a nation we are allied with and have a treaty with was attacked.

So if this is honestly your belief, and that the US should not get involved in the affairs of anybody else, then don't even think of asking the military or FEMA or anybody else for help next time you get a hurricane or tornado or earthquake. And don't even think of calling the police if you are attacked or robbed or burglarized. Because it is not their problem, you are entirely on your own.

Now excuse me as I go and become violently ill, because of those who have such little concern for others that they would behave in this manner. Now I understand why things like Darfur and Cambodia and former Yugoslavia happen. It is because of these kinds of individuals who pat themselves on the back saying "it is not my concern", while ignoring slaughters.

*rant off*

I would have to say I am likely part of the crowd you are ranting against, and that's fine. You are obviously very passionate about this subject and I admire that. However, I think it's important to understand that there are different ways of viewing a particular conflict, whatever it is. Obviously, you would hope people try to stick to the facts, and I think a lot of people here, including the particular person you're ranting against, do. We are all simply different people, some of us believing wars are the way to solve a problem, and some of us not.

U.S. intervention in world conflicts is a tricky thing, and perhaps one of the concepts I struggle most with in my world view. More often than not, I seem to lean towards isolationism, or at least restraint from getting involved militarily, and I'll give you my reasons.

First off, indeed I do not see violence as a permanent solution to conflict, whether it's civil war or ethnic cleansing or otherwise. War, to me, is a band-aid, meant to stop the bleeding and maybe eventually heal the wound but not really fix why you got hurt in the first place.

Second, the people you rant against are not the only ones who are going to view U.S. involvement in these conflicts as controversial. Meaning, people all over the world, people who have actual stake in these regions, from the Middle East to Asia to Eastern Europe, will no doubt take offense to our presence in their homeland. This will inevitably lead to further conflict, and continue this vicious cycle of action and reaction. Only through non-violent action, whatever this action may be, can we make long-lasting progress.

Third, I think rarely do we really have a full grasp on the cultural and ethnic situations on the ground in these regions. I have debated you before about the knowledge of the average grunt in the military, regarding religion and culture and whatnot, and was pleased to know that there are training exercises that inform soldiers about the region's culture. However, I think we still have a hard time when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the actual people of a country. The South Vietnamese villagers, for instance, by and large, had no more love for the U.S. military than they did for the Viet Cong or NVA. It seemed they simply wanted to be left alone to tend to their rice fields.

Overall, I certainly acknowledge that there are conflicts that have occured in this world that were both horrible and deserved intervention, whether such intervention came or didn't come. That being said, I think America often sees things as too black and white, and doesn't quite understand the full repercussions of doing things like, say, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and how that effects the geopolitics of a region for years to come. I would never try to defend the horrible dictators that commit these genocides and crimes against humanity, but we should show some restraint when dealing with these deeply rooted ethnic conflicts, and only become involved when it is absolutely necessary.

I am sure I have managed to sound a bit inhumane in my comments, so I'll end with saying this. I personally believe that America has a role to play in this world, and an important one at that. Indeed, I believe it is a bit arrogant of us to think that A. our way of life is the best and most righteous way of life and B. we have an obligation to impose this on other countries. That being said, we can advocate for and accomplish real change in this world without committing violent acts of our own.

As for the conflicts themselves, we must let these people sort their problems out for themselves. They will fight, they will die, they will fail, they will succeed, and one day they will have a better country. This is true for Syria, this is true for Egypt, and this is true for any country right now that is struggling to find itself. America is not necessarily needed, and I think it is wrong for us to claim that our presence is an absolute necessity for a region to succeed.