Vietnam: Dejavu all over again

[SkinWalker]

I think Kurgan is just trying to say that much of the "stigma" associated with the Vietnam war that many understand was to do with the aftermath and the length of time/amount of resources invested in vain.

 

We spent billions, lost many lives, lost much equipment... and had zero success to show for it.

 

If we complete the war in Iraq with honor, maintain low loss of life with coalition forces, and minimize our lost/destroyed equipment, we can then avoid that "stigma." It may be possible to regain public, and even world support, if we finish this better than we started. That'll mean providing genuine humanitarian support (starting ASAP) and giving genuine support to the Iraqi people in their reconstruction era. Notice I said "era." Reconstruction will take years if not decades. They will need our support, as well as that of other countries, to be successful.

 

It will remain to be seen whether or not this can be done. There are a lot of complexities involved: Bagdad may not be an easy objective; Shiites in the south; Kurds in the north; oil for food; Euro -vs- Dollar; disease; public utilities; general infrastructure; war crimes tribunals; etc.

 

Most of these guys in this forum aren't as old as you and I, Griff. They may not see "stigma" from the same perspective when comparing to Vietnam. I've a feeling you're referring to public sentiment to the military mission.... there may be some similarities there, but we have to remember that there were also many attrocities commited by American forces during that war. Hopefully, the presence of media and better training will prevent that kind of thing this time around.

[Kurgan]

A "stigma" is a negative perception attached to something, it is not necessarily a morally right or informed feeling.

 

For example, former slaves might be stigmatized at various times in history, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be treated unfairly. A stigma may be attached to a certain action that is unwarranted, etc.

 

The "stigma" from Vietnam came from the fact that we lost the war (failed to accomplish our goals, lost a lot of men) and from what was done there (massacre at Mai Lai, etc).

 

If we win, even if it was the most immoral war ever, chances are public perceptions of it will be positive (as far as wars are concerned). Look at WW2... about the only people you'll find who think it was totally wrong were ones who were on the losing side, (or they're 100% pacificists).

 

Ask most people in the west if what we did was wrong, and they'll say "Sacrafices had to be made... Hitler had to be stopped" "The Holocaust justified what we did." "Dropping the A-bomb was the lesser of two evils." "We had to keep the world safe for democracy." etc. Yet many attrocities were committed by the Allies as well (bombings of dresden, tokyo, hirmoshima, nagasaki, etc).

 

Clear victory or defeat has more to do with the presence or lack of the stigma than the actual killing that went on though.

 

I'd wager that had the US won Vietnam and freed South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression, and kept the peace, the everday perception of the war in the US would be much more positive, despite the number of deaths.

 

Where the popularity of wars are concerned, the end often DOES justify the means, in popular perception (on the winning side of course).

 

That was the logic Nazi Germany used, if we win then we get away with it?

 

Ever heard the phrase "history is written by the winners"? It's true. That doesn't mean it's right, but that's how it works. We were no saints in WW2, but we won, so we're the good guys (in our own estimation). The same will apply here.

[griff38]

Originally posted by Kurgan

A "stigma" is a negative perception attached to something, it is not necessarily a morally right or informed feeling.

I agree.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

The "stigma" from Vietnam came from the fact that we lost the war (failed to accomplish our goals, lost a lot of men) and from what was done there (massacre at Mai Lai, etc).

 

I disagree. the stigma mostly ( in my opinion ) comes from the fact that the invasion of Vietnam was an ilegal interference of a civil war. We ignored our own democratic rules because we were concerened about the spread of Communism. We invaded another nation because we did not like their chosen form of goverment. A crime by US standards and most respected Democracies in the world, Then and now. The fact that we had a complete failure in Vietnam was because our goverments illegal actions were constantly challenged and restricted by our own people and laws. The president of the US at the time admitted this by refusing to serve his office anymore when it ended.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

If we win, even if it was the most immoral war ever, chances are public perceptions of it will be positive (as far as wars are concerned).

 

I agree, but

That does not make it right or fair.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

Look at WW2... about the only people you'll find who think it was totally wrong were ones who were on the losing side, (or they're 100% pacificists).

 

I disagree, Modern Germany accepts and informs anyone who will listen that they were wrong in WWII and they were the loosing side.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

Ask most people in the west if what we did was wrong, and they'll say "Sacrafices had to be made... Hitler had to be stopped" "The Holocaust justified what we did." "Dropping the A-bomb was the lesser of two evils." "We had to keep the world safe for democracy." etc. Yet many attrocities were committed by the Allies as well (bombings of dresden, tokyo, hirmoshima, nagasaki, etc).

 

I agree, WWII was not Vietnam.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

I'd wager that had the US won Vietnam and freed South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression, and kept the peace, the everday perception of the war in the US would be much more positive, despite the number of deaths.

 

Alot of ifs there, especially since Vietnam didn't ever turn out to be the evil spreader of Communism all the doomsayers said it would be.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

Where the popularity of wars are concerned, the end often DOES justify the means, in popular perception (on the winning side of course).

 

To HELL with popular opinion, what's that got to do with fairness and justice? I will quickly sacrifice any popularity I have to do the right thing.

 

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

Ever heard the phrase "history is written by the winners"? It's true. That doesn't mean it's right, but that's how it works. We were no saints in WW2, but we won, so we're the good guys (in our own estimation). The same will apply here.

 

We were the good guys in WWII not because we won, we were the good guys because we were fair and just.

To bad we can't honestly say this anymore.

[daring dueler]

this war is nothing like vietnam, first of all we arnt only fighting an iraqi war we are actually fighting for us and other peoples safety. in vietnam the govt. sent drafties to boot camp for 2 weeks, who can be made a fighting machine by then? now we have well trained, honor deserving troops. they have better weapons, skills, tactics, and are not trudging through jungles with no way of knowing if he was gonna step on a mine. now we can detect these things. and, the fact that we are already bombing statrygic (sp?) places of command, and not killing innocents(to our best ability). as for the soldier who threw grenades, he snapped, and most soldiers are better trained then to snap, you cant place it like vietnam as a acction from one soldier. in war we lose men and men get captured and its all sad and a horrible thing, and the execution of them is just one reason to show why we are there, thats against the geneva convention article 13(i think?).

we have over 3,000 of iraqi soldiers in captivity and have 69 iraqi confirmed ground war deaths. the us has lost 39 and counting, which is sadly not a horrible number. we have soldiers who have been cought, and those who are not executed are trained for the situation, evben though nothin really prepares you for that.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by griff38

I disagree, Modern Germany accepts and informs anyone who will listen that they were wrong in WWII and they were the loosing side.

 

True, the people of Germany feel very ashamed of their past and the country as a whole has lost so much self-confidence that it's stopping them from intervening in other people's affairs now (which might be why they called for a pacifist approach towards Iraq).

 

Swastikas are nazis are outlawed in Germany. While it doesn't coincide with the freedom of speech, I can understand why they chose to do so. The rest of the world must see that they're being sincere in their decision to not let anything like this repeat itself.

 

Sorry for going off topic, but I feel many non-Europeans don't know enough about them dealing with a shameful past.

[Breton]

Originally posted by griff38

We were the good guys in WWII not because we won, we were the good guys because we were fair and just.

 

Really?

 

Do you know what happened to Dresden?

[C'jais]

I don't think this war will turn out like Vietnam in the short run. People are saved, the country gets it freedom and Bush gets his reelection. Everyone satisfied.

 

But there's a lurking danger. The way the US went about justifying this war is dubious at best, and downright irresponsible at worst. The way they switched arguments but kept beating the same drum could spell disaster for future dealings between USA, the UN and the arab world. My bet, as unbased as it is, is that this war will bring more terrorism, possibly another 9/11, and destabilize the mid east area.

 

My dystopian thoughts are that with this war, USA could have layed the foundation for their own fall as a superpower.

 

It all depends on how well they can take care of the post-war situation.

 

Really?

 

By large, the US were the morally good guys in WW2. It was war, yes, but it was violence applied at the right place. You can always nitpick some specific heinous acts commited by US soldiers, but even if their motives and means were shallow, the end result was a good one.

[griff38]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

Really?

 

Do you know what happened to Dresden?

 

Yes, yes i do

Thank you, you are correct. Perhaps I should of said for the most part or qualified in some way that was not so absolute.

[daring dueler]

also, to add to my priar poste, isnt iraq a smaller country with a much smaller and much more shaky army.

[Luc Solar]

Originally posted by daring dueler

we have over 3,000 of iraqi soldiers in captivity and have 69 iraqi confirmed ground war deaths.

 

I heard that there are more than 500 confirmed frags (Yes, I'm trying to win The-Most-Inappropriate-Term-Contest..sorry about that ).

 

These 500 Iraqi casualties are only the ones that were gunned down on the battlefield. No-one knows exactly how many have died in the massive bombings...but that number is surely significantly higher than 500.

 

Some say that the US does not want to give the public the picture of a huge slaughter, so they have chosen to make the war look like "no-one is getting hurt".

 

Bush asked the congress for another..what...37 billion bucks? That'll keep the war going for another few weeks. Big numbers, huh?

[Kurgan]

I disagree. the stigma mostly ( in my opinion ) comes from the fact that the invasion of Vietnam was an ilegal interference of a civil war.

 

Before Japan attacked us, we felt that Hitler's invasions in Europe were an internal European matter. Are invasions by nature illegal? If so, why did we invade Germany? Why did we allow our allies to conduct invasions? After WW2 it was generally agreed that invasions and conquests are not legally recognized (in "international law") because of all the trouble it causes, but it still happens. The US has invaded and conquered plenty of countries in the past. Not trying to go on a US bashing crusade here, but just to put it in perspective.

 

 

We ignored our own democratic rules because we were concerened about the spread of Communism. We invaded another nation because we did not like their chosen form of goverment.

 

We continued a war that the French were involved in before us. The Soviet Union also interferred in the war, by giving aide to the Communist side. Note that in Korea we fought for similar reasons and we fought under the banner of the United Nations.

 

 

A crime by US standards and most respected Democracies in the world, Then and now. The fact that we had a complete failure in Vietnam was because our goverments illegal actions were constantly challenged and restricted by our own people and laws. The president of the US at the time admitted this by refusing to serve his office anymore when it ended.

 

Nixon resigned because of Watergate, not because of Vietnam. On that, most historians can agree.

 

 

I disagree, Modern Germany accepts and informs anyone who will listen that they were wrong in WWII and they were the loosing side.

 

Perhaps, but there are people in Germany who resent the destruction rained down upon them during the war and are looking for someone to blame (Neo Nazis anyone) and in Japan there are those who still resent the US for what it did to them during the war as well.

 

 

I agree, WWII was not Vietnam.

 

My point was, WW2 is looked upon most on the winning side as being a "Good war." Yet more people died there than in Vietnam, and more attrocities were committed (even by the "good guys" who won). The Allies bombed the hell out of Dresden, Tokyo, etc and dropped the A bombs on civilians in Japan.

 

Hell, one of the Allies was the Soviet Union, and as we know, Stalin was a far worse mass murderer and brutal dictator than Hitler ever was.

 

Alot of ifs there, especially since Vietnam didn't ever turn out to be the evil spreader of Communism all the doomsayers said it would be.

 

It was the whole "domino" theory. See, some people say the US should be the world's policeman, going around interveening in every little skirmish between other countries. We can't sit idly by like we did for the first part of WW1 and 2, etc etc. while people die who need help.

 

On the other hand there's plenty of people who say, no, we should let people die, only going to war when our direct interests are threatened (which can mean a lot of things.. direct invasion, terrorism, or threatening your oil supply, etc). Then, and only then do we throw away American lives fighting somebody's war for them.

 

I don't think the thousands or millions who die in these wars are any less dead if we were fighting for the "right" reasons or not. Ideally, we'd never go to war, ever, but we do, and every war "needs" a justification (a cause.. or nobody will risk their lives for it).

 

Obviously you feel the Iraqi war is wrong, and we shouldn't be in it (and neither should Britain I assume). You also felt that Vietnam was wrong, but I assume you feel that WW2 was right. I don't see a lot of moral differences.. they were all bloody and murderous, and perhaps other alternatives existed at a certain point, we just didn't take them or didn't see them in time. Or we could have conducted ourselves differently.

 

Many scholars say that the heavy bombings in WW2 didn't really accomplish a whole lot until the very end of the war anyway.

 

In the end, its very hard to make a case for a Just War, period, since War is inherently unjust.

 

 

 

 

To HELL with popular opinion, what's that got to do with fairness and justice? I will quickly sacrifice any popularity I have to do the right thing.

 

-WW2 was a popular war, and we won, so its still popular.

 

-Vientnam was an unpopular war, because we were losing, and its still unpopular because we lost.

 

Thus, if we win the Iraqi war, chances are it will be thought of positively. If we lose or withdraw without accomplishing our goals, it'll be more likely to be unpopular.

 

The morality of it has nothing to do with it. If we lose, its seen as the soldiers we sent died for nothing, and that doesn't sit well with people. If we win, it looks like they died, but they were sacraficed for a greater good, so it can be forgiven in time.

 

You seem to have confused the "stigma" (which is a matter of public opinion, not a true objective judgement of moral acceptability) with rightness or wrongness.

 

You seem to be saying if a war is "unpopular" then it must be immoral. And conversly you're assuming a popular war must have been right. Surely looking at WW2 will disprove this notion?

 

 

 

We were the good guys in WWII not because we won, we were the good guys because we were fair and just.

 

Is fighting side by side with a mass murderer (Stalin) fair and just? Is bombing civilians on purpose fair and just? How about rounding up people into prison camps because of their ethnic background alone?

 

Doesn't sound very fair and just to me.

 

 

To bad we can't honestly say this anymore.

 

Humbug. In ever war we've ever fought in, we've done some pretty horrible things. Sometimes we've done better than our enemies, other times we've been the same or worse. Sometimes we did stuff that was good, but bad stuff always happens. That's why I think its pretty hard to say a war was ever good. It might be good compared to other wars, but the nature of war itself makes it bad.

 

War tends to bring out the worst in people.

[XERXES]

this is not vietnam, only the hippies (i use this looseley) ok fine ill say alti-war protestors just wont let go of the past (nam) either that or they are jumping on a bandwagon...or doing it for fun.

 

 

to all the anti-war people: The war has begun YOUVE LOST YOUR PROTEST so either stfu or find something else to talk about.

[griff38]

Well now I am totally confused, I have no idea of what point you are trying to make Kurgan.

 

I started this thread to express my sadness over the untallied misery this uneeded war will bring for decades, you disagreed with me and now you finish by saying war bring out the worst in us and we have always done terrible things in war.

 

Are you just arguing for fun?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by XERXES

to all the anti-war people: The war has begun YOUVE LOST YOUR PROTEST so either stfu or find something else to talk about.

 

In a way, I agree: protesting will not prevent the war or stop it... it's already underway. However, protests must still continue in order to voice disagreement with why the war is being fought.

 

It is not about Saddam's brutality. It is not about the "War on Terror." It is not about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

It is about securing the economic stability of one of the largest oil fields in the world. It is about maintaining the Dollar as the currency of choice for OPEC in the oil market, rather than the Euro.

 

Removing a brutal, terrible, tyrranical dictator is but a bonus. The United States Government has never intervened in the affairs of other countries unless there is a direct, economic advantage. Or unless directly attacked.

 

There was no danger of the latter.

 

But ther war is underway. Godspeed to our soldiers and airmen (and yes, the Marines, too, Jack ). Damn Bush for putting their lives at risk so the rich can get richer.

[daring dueler]

at the time i posted the 69 deaths it wasnt for sure how many of the 500 were kjilled on msnbc so i said 69 confirmed.

[XERXES]

yeah that was a little harsh what i said, but sometimes you gotta be harsh to get your point across. My entire history class is liberal, anti-war and im not.

 

As for now i call every American to stop protesting and support Bush in his actions to he doesnt have to worry about his own people AND the war.

 

 

 

Also if you dont support the war...and you didnt wana go to war..what would you have done in his shoes?

[Kurgan]

No griff, I thought you were trying to make some grandious statement about how Vietnam was a "bad war" and the Iraqi war would be as well, without really thinking about WHY that would be true (or even what constituted a "bad" war).

 

Nevermind, if we're just getting confused.. we're not really arguing anymore. ; )

 

No hard feelings...

[XERXES]

the reason i believe this is not going to "be vietnam all over again" is because...the vietnam war was HEAVILY supported before it started and during the begening however, the media...news...it was the first time Americans got to see war first hand through video on TV and they hated it, THEN the protests started...

[daring dueler]

xerxes, i agree with you totally, i fell the same way. i am for war , and i get , well,kinda violent at those who dont support the troops or pres. Bush.And while many of my friends are for the war, i find myself arguing with those who arnt .

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by XERXES

My entire history class is liberal, anti-war and im not.

 

Well... History is a liberal art

 

More seriously, being liberal isn't necessarily bad. Most of the progress our country has enjoyed has come from liberal adminstrations. Ideas such as the FDA, Social Security, Medicaid, and many, many others. Liberal, quite simply, means that one is willing to change with the times. Conservative, on the other hand, means that one prefers the status quo.

 

Originally posted by XERXES

As for now i call every American to stop protesting and support Bush in his actions so he doesnt have to worry about his own people AND the war.

 

Bush should be protested against. The war deserves protest. But the troops certainly need to be supported. They have honor, loyalty and duty to their country. They are doing their duty and doing it well. There are tough times ahead of them in Bagdad and I actually think at this point there need to be MORE troops on the ground or it will be bad for all sides in the conflict.

 

Originally posted by XERXES

Also if you dont support the war...and you didnt wana go to war..what would you have done in his shoes?

 

It wasn't about not wanting to go. It's about being able. I'm retired from the Army. I was there in the first Gulf War and proud to have served my country. If permitted, I'd do so again.

 

What I would have done in Bush's shoes? I'd have used the world support that our country had immediately following 9/11 and finished the Afganistan issue. I would have then turned to terrorism in places such as Indonesia, the Philipines, and Columbia, each places where Al Quida has members. The world would have been behind this.

 

If Saddam was really to be an issue, I think I would have issued a warning that if one more coalition plane is attacked while enforcing the No-Fly Zone, retaliation will occur on Command, Control, and Communications. Then I would have launched an attack similar to the one that opened the current war. That way, very little colateral damage would be done, Saddam would be more likely to have been hit, there would have been a valid reason in the world's eyes (the same world that would be happy that we rid many countries of terrorists), and less expense to the world economy.

 

But that's what I would have done. That's not necessarily the correct action. Just my preference.

[daring dueler]

i dont see why this war should be protested against. i support bush, and i am open to reasons, but i dont agree with them. and as for finishing aphganastan we have made new advances in that war, this had to be done, how can you deny all the evidence?

[TheHobGoblin]

Ugh I gotta tell Bill O'reily about this site.

My class got a more liberals then republicans. I support the war. I thank our soilder who defend us out of their own free will. My best friend, thank god, is a republican. He is quite good at debates but I'm the best. Debates are my favorite. The protesters are now just being stupid and foolish. They're creating havoc, chaos, and traffic (plenty) instead of being sensible. Uhh aren't these people against war and viloence? Looks like they go against what they believe quicker then Homer Simpson.

[daring dueler]

lol, homer

well i too am republican, and i also like to dabate.

and protestors, well sadly they too have the rite to it,lol, but to say they dont even support the troops and consider them war criminals thats just wrong, they shall be shot!, well not shot but still k'mon people you dont like the war? fine , but you not supporting the troops really has n effect on their moral!

[griff38]

I started this thread 03-23-2003 .

 

Anybody ready to agree yet?

 

 

 

 

IT'S VIETNAM ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Homuncul]

It amazes me how the accents on what's republican and what's liberal has changed. Liberal in US now means to be communistic I think. Well, I guess Bush's elections finally showed that U.S. doesn't want to step that road.

 

That's all I have for now