Draft in the 21st Century

[janklow]

The war in Vietnam was not necessary either way, why sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Americans to protect an ally all the way in Asia?

i'm not talking about the necessity, i'm responding to the "the Viet Cong did nothing to America except support communism" statement. one can state accurately that they were fighting an ally of the US.

Why not let another Asian country fight for the Viet Cong??

huh?

...and yes the war in Vietnam was the height of extreme evil because of it not only being completely unnecessary, but the tons of children who were burned alive over an economic idea. The war in Vietnam was evil and wrong.

fine, let me be blunt: this is an absolutely idiotic position.

World War II was not "necessary." tons of children - more than in Vietnam - were killed as a result, and often over ideas far more reprehensible than economics. there's absolutely NO need to claim this "height of extreme evil" nonsense about the Vietnam War unless your goal is to undermine your claim.

 

[kingblaze84]

i'm not talking about the necessity, i'm responding to the "the Viet Cong did nothing to America except support communism" statement. one can state accurately that they were fighting an ally of the US.

huh?

fine, let me be blunt: this is an absolutely idiotic position.

World War II was not "necessary." tons of children - more than in Vietnam - were killed as a result, and often over ideas far more reprehensible than economics. there's absolutely NO need to claim this "height of extreme evil" nonsense about the Vietnam War unless your goal is to undermine your claim.

Ok my post went over your head, what I meant is that America had no business fighting the Viet Cong, even if they were fighting an ally of the US. Why? Because an Asian ally could have easily fought to protect our "ally" fighting the Viet Cong. Why butt in another nation's business if it doesn't directly affect us? Vietnam was and is hundreds of miles away from America, there was no urgent need for that war.....as far as WW2, it was a necessary war because Japan started the war with America after Pearl Harbor. It was a war of self defense, therefore making it necessary to teach Japan and Germany a lesson. As far as Vietnam, the Viet Cong posed no direct threat to us, and yet we still bombed the nation using white phosphorus that killed, burned, and maimed thousands upon thousands of children, men, and women. It was a war fought over economics, this was proven many years ago after American politicians went on the record to say the war was fought to prevent the spread of communism. It was an evil war and very unnecessary. There was a reason so many Americans were fired up about it.

 

[janklow]

Ok my post went over your head-

hah, no, this is not what happened.

-what I meant is that America had no business fighting the Viet Cong, even if they were fighting an ally of the US.

of course, you could have said this, but... anyway, the point is, there's an argument for why you'd help a US ally with an insurgency (strictly speaking of the VC-SV conflict and not the NV-SV conflict, of course). you DON'T have to agree with it, but many people did think that

Viet Cong did more to America than support communism? have they been proven right? seems unlikely.

Why? Because an Asian ally could have easily fought to protect our "ally" fighting the Viet Cong.

you need to back up this theory with SOME notion of who this Asian ally capable of going to battle for South Vietnam would be if you want this argument to hold merit.

Why butt in another nation's business if it doesn't directly affect us? Vietnam was and is hundreds of miles away from America, there was no urgent need for that war...

the distance from the US does not mean there was no direct effect, especially in a world where the US can't just say "we're not dealing with anyone outside our borders" and be done with it. and, right or wrong, the Vietnam War was motivated by a Cold War philosophy that stated letting the Soviets (in a general sense) gain ground was an existential threat to the US.

..as far as WW2, it was a necessary war because Japan started the war with America after Pearl Harbor. It was a war of self defense, therefore making it necessary to teach Japan and Germany a lesson.

this, however, is an absolutely cop-out, because the comparison regards the "the height of extreme evil" statement.

further, if you're claiming the US did the evil in Vietnam, then you should not be comparing the US in Vietnam to the US in WWII; you should be comparing whatever evils you're identifying in each war... and THAT is where it's immediately apparent that WWII goes far beyond what happened in Vietnam.

 

[kingblaze84]

hah, no, this is not what happened.

of course, you could have said this, but... anyway, the point is, there's an argument for why you'd help a US ally with an insurgency (strictly speaking of the VC-SV conflict and not the NV-SV conflict, of course). you DON'T have to agree with it, but many people did think that
Viet Cong did more to America than support communism? have they been proven right? seems unlikely.

you need to back up this theory with SOME notion of who this Asian ally capable of going to battle for South Vietnam would be if you want this argument to hold merit.

the distance from the US does not mean there was no direct effect, especially in a world where the US can't just say "we're not dealing with anyone outside our borders" and be done with it. and, right or wrong, the Vietnam War was motivated by a Cold War philosophy that stated letting the Soviets (in a general sense) gain ground was an existential threat to the US.

this, however, is an absolutely cop-out, because the comparison regards the "the height of extreme evil" statement.

further, if you're claiming the US did the evil in Vietnam, then you should not be comparing the US in Vietnam to the US in WWII; you should be comparing whatever evils you're identifying in each war... and THAT is where it's immediately apparent that WWII goes far beyond what happened in Vietnam.

I hear what you're saying but Vietnam was not fought for moral purposes and was fought for selfish economic reasons that did not involve in any way shape or form the SAFETY and PROTECTION of the American people. That's what wars are really supposed to be fought about. I understand atrocities were committed on an even larger scale in WW2, but WW2 was fought for pretty good reasons. Japan and the Axis powers were truly about to harm American citizens. Vietnam on the other hand was fought mostly to protect the economic interests of America, which did not want communism spreading through Asia or the world. That's no different than doing a home invasion and killing everyone inside the house because the killers "needed the money". That's thug tactics which I'm very aware America has been doing for a long time. Vietnam was fought for evil reasons and I'm surprised you don't know that by now.

 

[janklow]

I hear what you're saying but Vietnam was not fought for moral purposes and was fought for selfish economic reasons that did not involve in any way shape or form the SAFETY and PROTECTION of the American people.

first, let's agree that hindsight being 20/20, it's fair to say the war was not necessary for the safety and protection of the US.

second, the point about the Cold War is that people promoted/backed the Vietnam War on the grounds that it was necessary to support an ally (admittedly a weak and poorly-run one) in the face of Communism (admittedly being secondary to nationalism in the eyes of the NVA) thinking that failing to stand against it WOULD lead to an existential threat to the US. again, do we know now that this was not accurate? sure... but this is unfortunately not something that could be verified at the time.

I understand atrocities were committed on an even larger scale in WW2, but WW2 was fought for pretty good reasons. Japan and the Axis powers were truly about to harm American citizens. Vietnam on the other hand was fought mostly to protect the economic interests of America, which did not want communism spreading through Asia or the world.

again, i think you are missing my earlier point(s):

01. "the comparison regards the "the height of extreme evil" statement"

02. "if you're claiming the US did the evil in Vietnam, then you should not be comparing the US in Vietnam to the US in WWII; you should be comparing whatever evils you're identifying in each war... and THAT is where it's immediately apparent that WWII goes far beyond what happened in Vietnam"

if you're making it a comparison of evils, then you need to compare THOSE. if it's a debate about which war was more righteous for the US to fight, i don't think anyone's saying it was Vietnam.

Vietnam was fought for evil reasons and I'm surprised you don't know that by now.

i tend to go with "misguided." in some respects this may be worse.

 

[kingblaze84]

first, let's agree that hindsight being 20/20, it's fair to say the war was not necessary for the safety and protection of the US.

second, the point about the Cold War is that people promoted/backed the Vietnam War on the grounds that it was necessary to support an ally (admittedly a weak and poorly-run one) in the face of Communism (admittedly being secondary to nationalism in the eyes of the NVA) thinking that failing to stand against it WOULD lead to an existential threat to the US. again, do we know now that this was not accurate? sure... but this is unfortunately not something that could be verified at the time.

again, i think you are missing my earlier point(s):

01. "the comparison regards the "the height of extreme evil" statement"
02. "if you're claiming the US did the evil in Vietnam, then you should not be comparing the US in Vietnam to the US in WWII; you should be comparing whatever evils you're identifying in each war... and THAT is where it's immediately apparent that WWII goes far beyond what happened in Vietnam"

if you're making it a comparison of evils, then you need to compare THOSE. if it's a debate about which war was more righteous for the US to fight, i don't think anyone's saying it was Vietnam.

i tend to go with "misguided." in some respects this may be worse.

Well we can agree on these points than......I stand by my statement that Vietnam was fought for evil reasons though.

 

[janklow]

Well we can agree on these points than......I stand by my statement that Vietnam was fought for evil reasons though.

at some point, we're also talking about people's personal motivation that you or i can't really prove: if you want to call the reasons evil, i may disagree for reason X or Y, but hey, it's your position. i just dispute the "height of extreme evil" ranking.

 

[Madbeats]

I think it is highly likely.

 

[SoutCity]

I have two passports *post*

 

[kingblaze84]

I'm bitching in this thread cuz I have none = (

I lost the one I had smh

 

[Wild Self]

All the conservatives brag about is "freedom isn't free" but they themselves would not fight in a war or for a country they love so dearly.