posted
The Gulf of Tonkin certainly led to a formal declaration. Realistically we had already been fighting and the Vietnam War was already under way. See, I would classify the Vietnam War as a more just conflict than Iraq as well. Many people that found the conduct of the war to be deplorable saw that many South Vietnamese did not want to join North Vietnam. Of course that doesn't make how the war was conducted to be just. I think of it like this. A police officer may be justified in arresting a person, but that doesn't justify them to beat the heck out of that person, or destroying a neighborhood in pursuit of the suspect. If that makes any sense.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Given your standards the only war that is justified is a war of defense, or at least a war to defend another country.
That's definitely not my view. Afghanistan wasn't a defensive war, since the US was never attacked by the government of Afghanistan.
quote: Not really a bad thing, and a rather commonly held belief. However, I would say given your qualifications Vietnam would have been justified at the time using the same reasoning on why we went into South Korea in the first place.
In my view there's a big difference between defending a foreign government against external invasion (as in Korea) and against a popular domestic uprising, both morally and also in terms of how easy the war will be to win. (Ease of winning should definitely factor into whether a war is just.)
quote: Iraq was justified under a number of things. For one, the general populace of Iraq was suffering under sanctions that were doing little to undermine Saddam Hussein's authority.
Yeah, but it'd be hard to argue that this suffering was equal to or greater than the suffering caused by the US invasion. A lot of Iraqis were killed; also many Americans.
quote:However, for myself it is most justified by the fact that we encouraged the Shiite Arabs in the south of Iraq to revolt, and then left them out to dry.
Sounds like a sunk cost to me. We'd already made that mistake. Why follow it up by hurting the Iraqi people even more?
quote:I am a believer that any government not selected by its populace is simply unacceptable.
I agree, another reason I wouldn't have supported the Vietnam war.
quote: However, getting people killed on the promise that we would help them reclaim their government and then stopping at Kuwait is not quite the same. However, I think that the invasion was earlier than it should have been and that there were methods of getting Saddam out of power that would have been better on a number of levels.
That might be right. So are you saying a war can be just if there are better options available? That sounds implausible to me.
I should mention a further problem with the Iraq war that hasn't been mentioned. (Vietnam also had this problem.) Atrocities in a protracted war are inevitable. The stress on troops is just too hard; psychologically some of them are inevitably going to misbehave very badly. But in Iraq, since we were fighting partly to win over the populace, atrocities undermined that goal and set the war back (unlike eg in WW2).
I think it's a big mistake to start a long war knowing that atrocities committed by your own troops will undermine the war effort. You just can't control (not perfectly) whether such things will happen.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Gulf of Tonkin certainly led to a formal declaration. Realistically we had already been fighting and the Vietnam War was already under way. See, I would classify the Vietnam War as a more just conflict than Iraq as well. Many people that found the conduct of the war to be deplorable saw that many South Vietnamese did not want to join North Vietnam. Of course that doesn't make how the war was conducted to be just. I think of it like this. A police officer may be justified in arresting a person, but that doesn't justify them to beat the heck out of that person, or destroying a neighborhood in pursuit of the suspect. If that makes any sense.
Also it isn't a poor result that I am trying to get at, but the actual actions used to reach the result. A just war does not necessarily mean that all means are now acceptable. It is an interesting scale. For example, many see WWII as a just war for the Allies, but there are many actions on the Allies part that would be considerd unethical. It is scale of sorts when unjust conduct in a war can lead to the war as a whole to become unjust. In that manner an unjust war could have been justified in the beginning.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Vietnam was assuredly unjust as it was provoked by the United States in typical pedobear fashion waltzing in subverting the national elections for unification and installing a strong man in Saigon and then later faking evidence to justify intervention, the United States only had 1 reason for entry and that was to "stop the communist take over domino effect" something they wouldn't have needed to do if they had listened to Ho Chi Minh's request for aid and forced the French to negotiate with the Vietnamese freedom fighters.
IP: Logged |
posted
There is certainly some truth their Bradley. Had FDR not died as soon as he did we would never had problems in Vietnam as he was staunchly anti-imperialist and would not have supported the French going backing into Vietnam. Should we have supported a strongman in Saigon, of course not. Doing that really subverted the United State's goal for a democratic Vietnam. Does that mean that it was worthwhile to keep North Vietnam out of South Vietnam, I think so. Although I admit that the difference between Vietnam and Korea were immense as the relationship between Vietnam and China was much different, which is certainly evident when the Chinese invaded Vietnam. Not only this, but the Vietnamese were never really the stooges of the Soviets. The Soviets were simply a means to an end, unified Vietnam. That does not change the fact that many Vietnamese did not want to be Communist. Don't get me wrong, I think Vietnam is a cluster caused by many poor choices that occured long before we ever began to actively fight there. However, I would still say that a democratic freely elected Vietnam or South Vietnam would have been preferable to what happened and worth fighting for. Simply not how we did fight there.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There would have been no need to "keep" North Vietnam out as they would have democratically won the elections and unified it as a majority supported Ho Chi Minh, who I must point out had once visited the United States and admired its culture and based the constitution of Vietnam on the US constitution, yes he was Marxist but so was every independence movement as Marxism was a decidedly anti imperialist ideology nothing came close to it in the hearts and minds of asian anti colonial intellectuals. So talking about how it would have been morally better for South Vietnam to have won or have vietnam be democratic was bs and undermined by the very actions of the United States who pressued Saigon to CANCEL the elections that would have decided the issue.
Both China and the Soviet Union heavily supported Vietnam regardless of the split as theyre interests were aligned in keeping the US out of Vietnam and China allowed for the passage of Soviet arms through China, China and vietnam clashing came about afterwards due to circumstances completely different from the circumstances then.
posted
It has to do that Vietnam and China have clashed on multiple occasions across history. Whereas Korea was historically a Chinese protectorate. Which is why historically when Japan tried to take Korea they ended up fighting the Chinese. For this reason China fought against the United States in the Korean War, with the only provocation being that we pushed into North Korea. Not only this, but the Vietnamese had no interest in being stooges to any other communist power. That is all really an extreme simplification and I realize that.
That and even the Soviet Union based many of their rights on the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, not that they always gave those rights. On many occasions the Soviets loved to bring up the fact that they had more rights in their constitutation than were written in our own. However, I think what you mean to say is that Ho Chi Minh's Proclamation of Independence is based off the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. If their constitution was based on the Constitution then it would have the same political structure as the United States, which it does not.
The Soviets were not really hot on the whole Vietnam issue until they saw that they could put a hurting on the United States. They really didn't care much for the Vietnamese themselves. The Soviets just always liked to show that they were the big boys on the block when it came to communism.
Either way, Vietnam was a big big mess that shouldn't have come to what it did. However, all I'm trying to say is that to promote a democratic government and to allow a people to become self determining is worth the violence that comes along with war. Obviously it is much nicer when we can do it without a war. I simply believe that at some point the suffering and loss that can occur waiting for some perfect moment for this to occur may end up causing more suffering then a short war. As I've been trying to say, I don't think we should just invade every non-democratic nation as we will be seen as a bunch of imperialists and doom the cause that we hope to promote. The thing is that certain situations end up occuring where we become involved in certain areas due to actions of people who came before us that may morally obligate us to fight and or become proactive to maintain a certain level of freedom ( I hate using that word due to all the Bush and anti-Bush rhetoric). I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or even American actions over the last 200 years. However, at certain moments of time you can only try and do what is best for that situation. Obviously I think there are an endless amount of decisions better than war in Vietnam before we came to war itself. However, by the time that we became seriously involved there I feel that there were limited options in what we could have done. I know that I would rather live in South Korea than Vietnam. That Taiwan would be preferable to China.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's definitely not my view. Afghanistan wasn't a defensive war, since the US was never attacked by the government of Afghanistan.
Sheltering an organisation which commits acts of war on the scale of 9/11 is an attack, and a legit casus belli, by any interpretation of international law. If Afghanistan had handed over the Al-Queda leaders, that would be one thing; refusing to do so was an act of war, and the resulting invasion legitimately defensive.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: easier winning = less death, hardship, destruction of livelihood, requirement for non-voluntary participation, etc
That certainly makes the war more pleasant. But more just?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's fair to say that the more death and destruction something causes, the harder that thing is to justify.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goals in warfare all hit a point where they are not worth the cost in human lives and collateral suffering.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sad to say, but death and destruction is the method of war. If you accept that wars can be just, then you're saying some things are worth fighting against even if that results in widespread death and destruction.
In terms of death and destruction caused, Iraq doesn't even scratch the surface of most of our historic wars. I guess that means it's the most just?
Edit: Samp's post slipped in while I was writing this.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of death and destruction caused, Iraq doesn't even scratch the surface of most of our historic wars. I guess that means it's the most just?
No. Noting that the amount of collateral damage and death and hardship that a war imposes must be factored into whether or not a war is justifiable is not saying at all that this is the sole metric by which a war can be considered more or less just.
For instance, the goals in warfare can be wrong in and of themselves and make war unjust even if it causes no death and destruction in the conventional warfare sense. Or a situation could be such that it is more unjust not to commit to the war and its consequences rather than do nothing, even if the toll is great.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not in the slightest. All he said was it was ONE factor. Justification usually comes down to:
Predictable Benefit - Cost = Quality of Justification
Benefits can include upholding human rights, bringing justice to criminals, improving welfare of citizens, among other things.
Things with high costs can be justified, but only if the benefit is huge. Things with low costs can be unjustified if the benefit is even lower. When measuring costs on the scale that even the quickest wars require, the benefit has to be pretty big no matter what.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would wholeheartedly agree with you Sam. The big question ends up becoming exactly where that line is. I think for many people it is impossible not to cross it with warfare, and some simply have a dedication of sorts that lets things get a lot worse then they ever should have gotten.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Goals in warfare all hit a point where they are not worth the cost in human lives and collateral suffering.
This may be true from a standpoint of practicality—if you've lost too much, and have no hope of winning, perhaps you should surrender— but I don't think it has any bearing on whether or not the war is just.
I submit that if a metric of lives lost is the only basis for determining how just a war is, there's a good chance the war in question is already unjust. In an unjust war, each additional life lost is another reason to pack it in and go home. In a just war, those lives are still a terrible tragedy, but the greater purpose of the war doesn't vanish in the face of that tragedy. The survivors need to push on and continue to try to find victory.
I hate to mention WW2, because everybody does this, but it's really the only war where I can basically be sure everyone here agrees was just. Right?
How many more lives would the USA, or Great Britain, have to have lost before it became an unjust war? I don't think that number exists. I think using lives lost as a metric for a war's justness is fundamentally flawed.
Edit: Gah, I am way too slow on the draw. This was written before all those replies above me. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I submit that if a metric of lives lost is the only basis for determining how just a war is
quote:Noting that the amount of collateral damage and death and hardship that a war imposes must be factored into whether or not a war is justifiable is not saying at all that this is the sole metric by which a war can be considered more or less just.
quote:Not in the slightest. All he said was it was ONE factor.
quote:I submit that if a metric of lives lost is the only basis for determining how just a war is
quote:Noting that the amount of collateral damage and death and hardship that a war imposes must be factored into whether or not a war is justifiable is not saying at all that this is the sole metric by which a war can be considered more or less just. [/b[
quote:Not in the slightest. All he said was it was [b]ONE factor.
Yeah, thanks Samp. See the above edit. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: The big question ends up becoming exactly where that line is. I think for many people it is impossible not to cross it with warfare, and some simply have a dedication of sorts that lets things get a lot worse then they ever should have gotten.
I think this is accurate. More than that, I think that in the modern age, people have become less and less comfortable with the idea that some loss of life can be necessary to accomplish a goal. And less comfortable with the idea that in war, like in everything, mistakes happen, but when they happen in war, people die.
Basically, it seems to me that in our recent conflicts public opinion has been insanely fickle, based on, I think, unrealistic expectations of what war is. And because people were using lives lost as a primary metric for how just the conflicts were.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Dan, I am going to have to disagree with you there on a few points.
1)If American society had to suffer a totalitarian dictatorship with dreams of expansion across the Americas and killed millions of Germans in America to beat the Nazi menace. Well, I think that would simply be too far. I know that sounds comical, but I think it is clearly one case where a just war should no longer be fought.
2) I am not so much disagreeing here, but I think part of the problem here is our defining a just war. I think that the justifications to instigate violence never become unjust, however the actual conflict itself. The real war itself, can become unjust. The justification still exists to have potentially began it, however the consequences of the conflict were so great that the conflict itself is no longer a just one.
Example ( to beat the WWII metaphor to death ): Instead of Japan surrendering after two atomic bombs being dropped on it the resolve of the nation is bolstered. A quick end to the war actually ends in over a million American combat deaths and millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. Not only this, but we drop one more atomic bomb on Tokyo to finally break the back of the Japanese resistance. The resulting fallout and loss of life pushes the Japanese culture and society to break and practically vanish from the planet. At this point I think we can say that the war ( the actual application of force itself ) was no longer just/ethical/morally correct. Of course that wouldn't change the fact that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and that we were completely justified to attack Japan.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Basically, it seems to me that in our recent conflicts public opinion has been insanely fickle, based on, I think, unrealistic expectations of what war is. And because people were using lives lost as a primary metric for how just the conflicts were.
Studied this. A lot of this has to do with the social fallout of how the rationale for war with Iraq completely fell apart, alongside a timeframe where the administration's constant stressing of imminent victory came as the nation plunged into further chaos.
When people go from being told that the war was necessary and we would be cheered as liberators to having all of that turn out to be completely false, and then spend months being told that victory is right around the corner (death throes, etc) as grimmer and grimmer news and scandals like Abu Ghraib pop up, people's idealism burns out. It becomes an equation of lives lost cleaning up a mess.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Why would kiloton sized nukes (which the Hiroshima city busters were roughly) on only three cities make Japanese culture "vanish"? This is a nation that managed tocompletely resist western imperialism and join the international system as a great power in of itself.
America was arguably justified to engage in hostilities against Japan as soon as it commenced to invade China in violation of international treaties and definately justified once it attacked Britain the military attack by Japan on Hawaii just ensured that the American people would be all for it.
Whether dropping more bombs 9when they eventually roll off the assembly line) or the physical invasion of Japan was just depends on how much we consider allowing for the possibility of japanese militerism to slunker off to come back another day. The war wasn't just a matter of international law of one nation defending itself but a global coalition to defeat the forces of reactionary fascism once and for all an utter rejection of the previous system of nations using war as a means to international ends.
Thus it was absolutely nessasary to deprive Germany and Japan of their soverignty and occupy them for the greater good of imposing democracy and disposing of their militeristic past via publicly trying their war leaders and war criminals as a lesson that this crud won't be tolerated by the international community forevermore.
To this end had the Japanese not surrendered after the second bomb (or more accurately had the Allies finally compromised and agreed not to force the abdication of the Emperor) then it would have seemed completely nessasary to invade (or drop more bombs) to insure once and for all that Japanese militerism was dead and its people could then move on more constructively.
The war has had an ideological depth to it as a war between Justice and Might.
quote:It has to do that Vietnam and China have clashed on multiple occasions across history.
Vietnam was just as often a protectorate/tributary state as well depending on the dynasty, that China provided arms, expertise and officers and volunteers to aid the Vietnamese is indisputable.
quote:For this reason China fought against the United States in the Korean War, with the only provocation being that we pushed into North Korea.
Among other incredibly thoughtless actions and statements by certain generals to provoke the reaction.
quote:but the Vietnamese had no interest in being stooges to any other communist power.
How is this relevant to the discussion? They also didn't want to be stooges to western imperialists as well, but the USSR and China still gave them aid and they still accepted it, this doesn't imply anything.
quote:That and even the Soviet Union based many of their rights on the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, not that they always gave those rights. On many occasions the Soviets loved to bring up the fact that they had more rights in their constitutation than were written in our own. However, I think what you mean to say is that Ho Chi Minh's Proclamation of Independence is based off the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. If their constitution was based on the Constitution then it would have the same political structure as the United States, which it does not.
The hypocrisy of one government doesn't bear anything to another, recall that Ho Chi Minh died of natural causes during the course of the conflict so we're unsure to what extand he would have reformed/loosened the system once the national emergancy was over, the point is that Ho Chi Minh had made many statements expressing a certain level of admiration of the United States based off of first hand experience, the United States should have more carefully considered Ho Chi Minh's request and more carefully treaded in the situation rather then a knee jerk reaction to oppose Communism on all fronts regardless of threat level.
quote:Either way, Vietnam was a big big mess that shouldn't have come to what it did. However, all I'm trying to say is that to promote a democratic government and to allow a people to become self determining is worth the violence that comes along with war.
There's got to be a word for this kind of soapboxing misdirection falacy argument but it currently leaves my mind, the second half here COULD be a valid point if it had any connection to the main argument and contention regarding the Vietnam conflict.
As it is historically clear that the goal in Vietnam WASNT to support the spread of democracy but instead to strangle the spread of socialism to which the United States was willing to use any means to stop even if it meant propping up right wing dictatorships.
quote:Obviously it is much nicer when we can do it without a war. I simply believe that at some point the suffering and loss that can occur waiting for some perfect moment for this to occur may end up causing more suffering then a short war. As I've been trying to say, I don't think we should just invade every non-democratic nation as we will be seen as a bunch of imperialists and doom the cause that we hope to promote. The thing is that certain situations end up occuring where we become involved in certain areas due to actions of people who came before us that may morally obligate us to fight and or become proactive to maintain a certain level of freedom ( I hate using that word due to all the Bush and anti-Bush rhetoric). I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or even American actions over the last 200 years. However, at certain moments of time you can only try and do what is best for that situation. Obviously I think there are an endless amount of decisions better than war in Vietnam before we came to war itself. However, by the time that we became seriously involved there I feel that there were limited options in what we could have done. I know that I would rather live in South Korea than Vietnam. That Taiwan would be preferable to China.
Words fail to describe this mess of an argument, yes there are justified wars and yes they are for the sake of brevity also morally just wars but the vietnam war wasn't just and never will be just no matter how much revisinism is done because the reasons for going in do not match the reasons that would make it just.
If entering Vietnam was justified then they would have been justified entering immediately, if they had to fake evidence to get in on the bombing brown people action then there was absolutely no possibility that the war ever would have been justified.
quote: I don't think we should just invade every non-democratic nation as we will be seen as a bunch of imperialists and doom the cause that we hope to promote.
This is what Iraq and the Vietnam debacle precisely appear to be to most of the Third World and 'the south'.
quote: The thing is that certain situations end up occuring where we become involved in certain areas due to actions of people who came before us that may morally obligate us to fight and or become proactive to maintain a certain level of freedom ( I hate using that word due to all the Bush and anti-Bush rhetoric). I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or even American actions over the last 200 years
Flat What.
quote:. I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire
Objection, relevance?
quote:However, at certain moments of time you can only try and do what is best for that situation.
How idealistic of you unfortunately American's don't have the patience of the competance to do anything other then 'Break things' and 'blow things up'.
quote: Obviously I think there are an endless amount of decisions better than war in Vietnam before we came to war itself.
There's only one decision that you should have made differently, not entering period.
quote: I know that I would rather live in South Korea than Vietnam. That Taiwan would be preferable to China.
Also for your information Vietnam, Mainland China are both very nice places to live in, have you ever been to these places or talked to people who've been there? Yes they have a lower standard of living but it doesn't make them wastelands or something out of Half Life 2.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Well Dan, I am going to have to disagree with you there on a few points.
1)If American society had to suffer a totalitarian dictatorship with dreams of expansion across the Americas and killed millions of Germans in America to beat the Nazi menace. Well, I think that would simply be too far. I know that sounds comical, but I think it is clearly one case where a just war should no longer be fought.
2) I am not so much disagreeing here, but I think part of the problem here is our defining a just war. I think that the justifications to instigate violence never become unjust, however the actual conflict itself. The real war itself, can become unjust. The justification still exists to have potentially began it, however the consequences of the conflict were so great that the conflict itself is no longer a just one.
Example ( to beat the WWII metaphor to death ): Instead of Japan surrendering after two atomic bombs being dropped on it the resolve of the nation is bolstered. A quick end to the war actually ends in over a million American combat deaths and millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. Not only this, but we drop one more atomic bomb on Tokyo to finally break the back of the Japanese resistance. The resulting fallout and loss of life pushes the Japanese culture and society to break and practically vanish from the planet. At this point I think we can say that the war ( the actual application of force itself ) was no longer just/ethical/morally correct. Of course that wouldn't change the fact that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and that we were completely justified to attack Japan.
I think you made some excellent points all around. I don't think I disagree with any of them, either. I especially agree with...
quote: I think that the justifications to instigate violence never become unjust, however the actual conflict itself. The real war itself, can become unjust. The justification still exists to have potentially began it, however the consequences of the conflict were so great that the conflict itself is no longer a just one.
That's a great point. In this context, I agree that "ease of winning" or lives lost can be considered.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How idealistic of you unfortunately American's don't have the patience of the competance to do anything other then 'Break things' and 'blow things up'.
This is similar to how you will often use your being canadian as a fiat to proclaim you are more knowledgeable on Insert International Subject X.
It's also as annoying and useless, so quit it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... This is a nation that managed tocompletely resist western imperialism ...
No.
Yes. Some unequal treaties at the beginning not withstanding but they managed to completely resist any foreign power from military intervening in Japan, avoiding the partitioning of its territory among foreign powers into spheres of influence and quickly managed to tear up the earlier treaties allowing for the ONLY foreigners allowed in being the ones who were providing support for Japan's dirigist economic development.
In short yes Japan quite handidly managed to avoid becomming a tool of foreign imperialism but isntead became its own energetic imperialist that merely borrowed and then improved upon western ideas.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:How idealistic of you unfortunately American's don't have the patience of the competance to do anything other then 'Break things' and 'blow things up'.
This is similar to how you will often use your being canadian as a fiat to proclaim you are more knowledgeable on Insert International Subject X.
It's also as annoying and useless, so quit it.
It is precisely because I am not American that I am able to generalize modern american ability to do things into two such categories and one that is backed up by evidence.
Afghanistan? Easily toppled the Taliban check.
Is Afghanistan now a fully functioning secular society with regular and effective elections under the rule of law with American forces showing any kind of competance in doing repairs? No. With the work that IS being done being done by Canadians.
Iraq, military wiped out and the country occupied within a month? Yes. Country now stabilized and rebuilt? No.
Care to give an example of where HAS the US military managed to occupy a country AND managed to rebuild it post hrrm Maybe 1980? Maybe Panana, okay I'll grant you panama.
Of course I do notice that this is the only thing you decided to contest implying that your uncomfortable with arguing on the actual subject preferring to challenge my rhetoric.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, by bringing up the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire I am trying to say that I can't change the context of the world today. That is I can't just go back in time and change the decisions that my forefathers made in America or Germany. I can't change the fact that the British Empire arbitrarily said this big piece of land will be India and this will be Nigeria etc. The Ottoman Empire over the fact that their loss in WWI led to the Middle East being caught in Western Imperialism and being partitioned into countries with no real basis of existence. I can't change the fact that who knows what high level individual in the State Department or the executive made some really botched calls in regards to Vietnam. I also can't help that the Soviets, especially Stalin, called for armed revolution all over the place and that Communism should be spread by the sword.
That being the case, we did one Vietnam to be a democracy, perhaps not for the lofty goal of freedom. Mainly for the fact that we wanted all markets to be open for American trade. Read the Atlantic Charter signed by FDR and Churchill.
Also I don't think the Gulf of Tonkin was a conspiracy, it was just a screwup on the level of the USS Maine blowing up in the harbor of Havana. There is some evidence to show that the US ships may have fired on one another, or that they were actually in North Vietnamese waters ( hence justifying any potential attacks against them ). Or that there was some glitch in the electronics on board the ships etc. etc. Things happen. Not to mention you obviously don't know much about the Vietnam War as American forces were in a shooting war long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The Japanese certainly stopped any Western influence on the level of the Philippines, conquered by the Spanish, or what occured to China, Opium wars. However, given the fact that they were forced to open their society by Commodore Perry and some American warships (military intervention) it would seem that the were pushed by the West. Not to mention the transfer of power from the Shogun to the Emperor was extremely influenced by the West. The very fact that they industrialized ( westernized ) shows that they did not escape western influence.
I am not trying to diminish their historical achievements, just saying that you are perhaps being a little too bombastic. Also, I would love to see how you would explain their becoming the democratic nation they are today without American military intervention.
Also socialism does not equate to communism. If we hated socialist so much we would have invaded Norway a long time ago. Not to mention our efforts to "strangle socialism" were not always from the high ground, but in the case of Vietnam we did want some form of Democracy. To go into all the reasons why that was not going so well one only has to look at the context thrust upon us by the French etc. Anyhow, I'm beating a dead horse there and I doubt you're actually going to agree with any of that.
If only "us" Americans wouldn't just break stuff all the time. Must come from our Anglo-Saxon tradition that loves to beat on Celts, yeah like that one that took hold in Canada. Oh yeah, and those French that live up north that took Vietnam by the bayonet. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you, as it does to me. The comments you made were on the same level.
That and you have obviously not lived in Vietnam. We have a large refugee community and I have many Hmong and Vietnamese friends that would denounce what you just said very loudly. My Cousin just spent a year in China and said it was a very wonderful interesting place, but that she felt rather sorry for the conditions that the people had to live in and the scrutiny they were forced to live under. Have you even seen video of the environmental destruction going on in China? Not only that, but I would love for you o tell a bunch of Uyghurs that China is a wonderful place and that they would hate to live in a system that might actually protect some of their rights.
Little comical side note: I served with a bunch of Canadian EOD guys in Afghanistan who hated the fact that everyone thought of Canadians as somehow not having a martial spirit. They were more than happy to bring up the fact that they had a military tradition stemming directly from the British Empire.
Believe it or not, but America is not full of raging idiotic psychopaths, just saying.
[ June 16, 2010, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Black Fox ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In short yes Japan quite handidly managed to avoid becomming a tool of foreign imperialism but isntead became its own energetic imperialist that merely borrowed and then improved upon western ideas.
I too resist Lady Gaga by learning how to dress like her and singing her songs in karaoke clubs.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In short yes Japan quite handidly managed to avoid becomming a tool of foreign imperialism but isntead became its own energetic imperialist that merely borrowed and then improved upon western ideas.
I too resist Lady Gaga by learning how to dress like her and singing her songs in karaoke clubs.
I'm pretty sure Karaoke is a Japanese word. In either case, resisting Imperialism isn't the samething as resisting foreign culture of which a healthy exchange of is nothing to be ashamed of.
In short stop being contrary for the sake of being contrary if you have an argument substantiate it.
IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I love the Canadian guys in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't go so far as giving them even half the credit in the part of Afghanistan run by ISAF. The Brits tend to do a much better job in there. The Danes also do a great job for the number of men that they have there. I like to give them props whenever I can as NO ONE talks about the Danes.
I also don't believe that Eisenhower put soldiers into Vietnam to kill brown people. Neither do I think that LBJ, the executive that pushed civil rights in the United States, was out to kill brown people. I really don't believe that kind of off the wall unsubstantiated pure conspiratorial hyperbole.
"The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means" Eisenhower to Ngo Dinh Diem in 1954 on why he would support South Vietnam. A nation created by an agreement signed by North Vietnam. A nation that had all the Casus Belli to engage in warfare against North Vietnam, a nation that was attacking it. Not the other way around.
America's escalation of force was directly linked to Hanoi sending regular army units into Sout Vietnam in 64. Casus Belli.
Oh, I also would love to hear your justification for North Vietnam's annexation of the South Vietnamese.
One of America's greatest moral failings in the last century was our not supporting South Vietnam with air power, thus allowing the Soviet/Chinese backed North Vietnamese to defeat South Vietnam.
Being a student of history I do not see the Vietnam War as beginning in the 60s, but in the 50s under Eisenhower. At the very least the American participation in the war. Do I believe we were justified in supplying the South Vietnamese with trainers and weapons to defend itself. No. Hence, extremely justified war. Did LBJ make a mistake by escalating troop numbers, maybe. However, he had that hand pushed on him by the Soviets and North Vietnam.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Eisenhower
Words of a true breaker and smasher. Reading that it should not be hard for you to imagine why I was never a big fan of the Soviet Union or their push to spread their idealogical empire by the sword. One that had little to do with socialism, and much more to do with Russian nationalism, Russian imperialism, and pride.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Blayne, by bringing up the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire I am trying to say that I can't change the context of the world today.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
quote:I can't change the fact that the British Empire arbitrarily said this big piece of land will be India and this will be Nigeria etc.
What does this have to do with the context of the discussion.
quote:he Ottoman Empire over the fact that their loss in WWI led to the Middle East being caught in Western Imperialism and being partitioned into countries with no real basis of existence.
Also not relevant and also kind of wrong, Turkey, Iraq, Israeli and arguably Saudi Arabia all had a basis for existance, I'm a little fuzzy on whether Jordanians are their own ethnic group or not you would have to ask Lisa.
quote:. I can't change the fact that who knows what high level individual in the State Department or the executive made some really botched calls in regards to Vietnam.
Just because you can't change it doesn't mean you can somehow wish it all away and make it alright, "sorry we goofed, no harm no foul right?".
This is starting to remind me of the whole Cylon-Human thing on New Caprica.
quote:I also can't help that the Soviets, especially Stalin, called for armed revolution all over the place and that Communism should be spread by the sword.
Not really it was Lenin and Trotsky and Mao who called for it, Stalin was more then happy to be cautious to the point of paranoia to avoid clashing with the west.
quote:That being the case, we did want Vietnam to be a democracy, perhaps not for the lofty goal of freedom.
quote:mainly for the fact that we wanted all markets to be open for American trade. Read the Atlantic Charter signed by FDR and Churchill.
Yay for Imperialism and neomercantilism!
quote:Also I don't think the Gulf of Tonkin was a conspiracy, it was just a screwup on the level of the USS Maine blowing up in the harbor of Havana.
"I am not a crook!"
quote:There is some evidence to show that the US ships may have fired on one another, or that they were actually in North Vietnamese waters ( hence justifying any potential attacks against them ).
And I may have or may not have slept with your mom. Or that there may have been some glitch unfortunately with my electronics if you know what I mean but things happen.
quote: Not to mention you obviously don't know much about the Vietnam War as American forces were in a shooting war long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Thats putting words into my mouth, as I certainly didn't say they weren't there to some capacity prior to the incident, it is also not relevant that there were some 50,000 personnel sent by the Kennedy administration before hand to whether they were justified to invade with the full efforts of the United States military in the internal struggle of Vietnam.
quote:The Japanese certainly stopped any Western influence on the level of the Philippines, conquered by the Spanish, or what occured to China, Opium wars. However, given the fact that they were forced to open their society by Commodore Perry and some American warships (military intervention) it would seem that the were pushed by the West.
Words fail again, and you fail some relative economics. The point is that Japan is a nation that had such great pool of resources in terms of its national cohesion, its moral, its willingness to accept sacrifices for the goal of national determination and self-strengthening is that how can three piddly sized nuclear weapons that only could kill maybe 400-500 thousand at most destroy the culture of Japan with its population of 80 million?
ALSO I am saying is that the total value of economic growth and freedom of indepedence Japan acquired from its modernization along selective western lines far outweighs the opening by the US by many orders of magnitude, yes it got the ball rolling but by 1905 Japan had clearly shown itself free of undo influence by the west on Japanese soveriegnty.
quote:I am not trying to diminish their historical achievements, just saying that you are perhaps being a little too bombastic. Also, I would love to see how you would explain their becoming the democratic nation they are today without American military intervention.
More of that logical googilygok of yours, misdirection! No bearing or relation to the other parts of the argument we had already just established that for a multitude of ideological reasons occupation was required to destroy Japanese militerism in fact I was the one who stated that, however it wasn't so much as American intervention as it was Japan shooting itself in the foot by attacking the USA when it was woefully inadequate for war with the economic powerhouse the US was.
quote:Also socialism does not equate to communism.
I didn't say it was.
quote:If we hated socialist so much we would have invaded Norway a long time ago.
That was more Americans living in denial then an acceptance of soclialism as a legitimate form of government just look at all the "Obama is a socialist!" cries from half the US nowadays.
quote:Not to mention our efforts to "strangle socialism" were not always from the high ground, but in the case of Vietnam we did want some form of Democracy.
Firstly what do you mean by high ground, this is an ambiguous statement with many meanings, moral high ground? Order from on high in the administration? Strategic high ground?
And no you didn't want democracy only that a functioning democracy would have been a positive result as long as it wasn't the Communist Party who won the elections and THUS WHY YOU CANCELED THE ELECTIONS.
quote:To go into all the reasons why that was not going so well one only has to look at the context thrust upon us by the French etc. Anyhow, I'm beating a dead horse there and I doubt you're actually going to agree with any of that.
Well no duh sherlock.
quote:If only "us" Americans wouldn't just break stuff all the time. Must come from our Anglo-Saxon tradition that loves to beat on Celts, yeah like that one that took hold in Canada. Oh yeah, and those French that live up north that took Vietnam by the bayonet. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you, as it does to me. The comments you made were on the same level.
I'm certain that may be a possibility if I could ever figure out what the crap your trying to say.
quote:That and you have obviously not lived in Vietnam.
I haven't but I've seen enough specials, documentaries and books to tell that it is probably half decent if I am willing to give up on somethings we soft westerners consider necessities.
But hey 30 million dong for a motorcycle sounds cool and it DOES have the best motoring way the Top Gear team have ever been to.
quote: We have a large refugee community and I have many Hmong and Vietnamese friends that would denounce what you just said very loudly.
Blah blah blah to the cry babies who lost.
quote: My Cousin just spent a year and China and said it was a very wonderful interesting place, but that she felt rather sorry for the conditions that the people had to live in and the scrutiny they were forced to live under.
Considering what conditions your used to no duh! But we aren't comparing here to there only that on their own merits these places would be alright to live in.
quote:Have you even seen video of the environmental destruction going on in China.
I have seen many, many, many documentaries and very well read on the subject of the changes going on in China and is essentially my hobby to study it [China] and while bad is essentially just the same kind of stuff any developing country goes through to get to where we are but doesn't really have bearing over whether it would be a fine place to live in or not, only practically which areas should be avoided.
quote: Not only that, but I would love for you o tell a bunch of Uyghurs that China is a wonderful place and that they would hate to live in a system that might actually protect some of their rights.
Hey, I think there's some Indians I should introduce you to...
Oh and those Mexicans in AZ...
But the relationship between the Han Chinese and how the PRC treats its minorities is a complex story that I am skeptical that you have any of the minimal grounding in to make any valid complaints about.
quote:Little comical side note: I served with a bunch of Canadian EOD guys in Afghanistan who hated the fact that everyone thought of Canadians as somehow not having a martial spirit. They were more than happy to bring up the fact that they had a military tradition stemming directly from the British Empire.
Again flat what please quote to me where I somehow stated the opposite, I think your doing more of that logical humbugary again here, pulling out random stuff hoping to confuse the issue.
quote:Believe it or not, but America is not full of raging idiotic psychopaths, just saying.
Realistically yes, but its easier and more humorous to describe American actions and cowboy diplomacy on the international as just being that of a rampaging bull in a china shop, and especially humorous that it is at least loosely based on fact.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Oh, I also would love to hear your justification for North Vietnam's annexation of the South Vietnamese.
*cough*
quote:Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel, and under the terms of the Geneva Convention, civilians were to be given the opportunity to freely move between the two provisional states for a 300-day period. Elections throughout the country were to be held in 1956 to establish a unified government
quote: In the south, former Emperor Bao Dai's State of Vietnam operated, with Ngô Đình Diệm (appointed in July 1954) as his prime minister. In June 1955, Diem announced that elections would not be held. South Vietnam had rejected the agreement from the beginning and was therefore not bound by it
That to me seems like a pretty good casus beli and the justification for the North to unify the country, thus the North wasn't attacking a sovereign nation but instead settling an internal affair.
IP: Logged |
posted
That and I honestly know there is no reason for me to argue any "facts" with you as you'll simply claim that Diem was a US puppet, instead of his simply being a nepotist, corrupt politician, and all around jerk. He canceled those elections, but I have a feeling you'll blame that on US influence somehow. I also love how people tend to turn every protest against Diem into a protest against America. Instead of a protest against a scum bag.
Anyhow arguing against you is completely futile as you have found it completely impossible to grasp the larger picture, or simply wish not to for some other petty reason.
Cowboy diplomacy? I find it a bit humorous that one president could change the past. That and "I'm not a crook" was Nixon, who was not the president that put us in Vietnam in mass ( that was LBJ ). It was the crook that pulled us out, funny huh. I find your anachronism to be a bit... no, extremely childish.
You would charge others with not going after a substantial part of your argument, I've noticed you do the same with my own. I am not a blind person and its easy enough to see what topics you don't want to touch with a long stick, most likely for the reason that you even know you're wrong.
Since we're just randomly bashing nationalities: You're Canadian, why don't you just go beat a Somali to death! Or even better, how about you turn over a bunch of Afghani prisoners to the Afghan Army to be tortured to death! Completely idiotic statements with kernels of truth to them. I find your method of discourse to be distasteful and practically useless to respond to.
I also find your attacks on my person to be proof of one thing: I made the better argument ; )
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And we were simply assisting in that internal affair, so we really weren't at war. Really we were completely justified in our "police action." lol
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:That and I honestly know there is no reason for me to argue any "facts" with you as you'll simply claim that Diem was a US puppet, instead of his simply being a nepotist, corrupt politician, and all around jerk. He canceled those elections, but I have a feeling you'll blame that on US influence somehow. I also love how people tend to turn every protest against Diem into a protest against America. Instead of a protest against a scum bag.
Is why the North won but your still missing the point of the argument here, is that the US was not justified for its military intervention in the internal affairs of another nation especially because it was for realpolitik considerations not for liberty.
Its pre-1964 support I am actually and I have stated already ambivilent towards as both sides of the Cold War were giving support there and everywhere as long as the support was proportional I couldn't care less.
quote:Cowboy diplomacy? I find it a bit humorous that one president could change the past.
Sorry my mistake, pedobear diplomacy is the correct term.
quote: That and "I'm not a crook" was Nixon, who was not the president that put us in Vietnam in mass ( that was LBJ ). It was the crook that pulled us out, funny huh. I find your anachronism to be a bit... no, extremely childish.
That was satire, the fact of the matter is that the Tonkin Incident however it happened WAS used and passed on as a casus beli by the US to escalate its involvement and regardless of what happened at the actual boats no effort was made by the administration to insure it was legit.
quote:You would charge others with not going after a substantial part of your argument, I've noticed you do the same with my own. I am not a blind person and its easy enough to see what topics you don't want to touch with a long stick, most likely for the reason that you even know you're wrong.
The only parts of your argument I thus far have "avoided" are the ones that are so utterly unreadable and riddled with facetious circular logic that its a wonder that you could come up with them accidentally.
quote:Since we're just randomly bashing nationalities: You're Canadian, why don't you just go beat a Somali to death!
I actually was one of those... It was fun.
quote:I also find your attacks on my person to be proof of one thing: I made the better argument ; )
If I actually did insult you that would be one thing but I haven't actually insulted you ant any point of this discussion.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: And we were simply assisting in that internal affair, so we really weren't at war. Really we were completely justified in our "police action." lol
By international law it is illegal to infringe on another nations internal sovereignty, so no you weren't.
IP: Logged |
posted
What I mean by you missing the point is far far FAR earlier in this entire conversation I labeled out what I was talking about.
We were justified in defending South Vietnam, not in the manner that we did. Why? Because Diem was obviously a corrupt president. Really a bad situation, however strategic interest kept us from just letting things go on in complete accordance with the treaty ( since it was a military demarcation, not a political border). I really agree with all this. Just so we can stop bickering about all that.
I am not trying to say that all the decisions made by the administrations of that era were good ones, however they were in the attempts to do something good. Even if they were rather misguided.
Do I believe that we were justified to defend South Vietnam, conduct war, and a number of other things to attempt and build a free South Vietnam, yes. Did we do that, no. We allowed things to go the way they did in the name of utility, that the ends justified the means. That maybe we could fix things once the war came to an end etc. Really faulty thinking, I know.
Vietnam War = Bad
Think of it in terms of propositional logic
If the United States conducts war for a democratic South Vietnam it is possible that the war is justifiable ( due to what I was talking with Dan about earlier no war is necessarily justifiable)
To say the it is not the case that the United States conducted war for a Democratic South Vietnam and therefore it is not possible that the war is justifiable is a logical fallacy referred to as denying the antecedent.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that we didn't actually fight the war for a Democratic South Vietnam. You can say it violates international law until you're blue in the face all you want. I am talking about moral justification, which does not necessarily have anything to do with any legal justice. So what is the point of us arguing about it? None!
I am not trying to make the claims that you think I'm trying to make. I just fell into the trap of trying to argue about some other topics on the matter of the Vietnam War that have nothing to do with what I was trying to assert.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That and to be downright honest with you I agree with a majority of the points you bring up. I do sometimes just like to argue certain points for the sake of seeing where someone will go. Sorry about that, it can be a bad habit. That is why I tried to bring it back to what I was really trying to claim in the first place.
You do have a fairly decent command of the subject, but I would still argue with a number of points. Our response in Vietnam was certainly larger than the Soviets, but I believe that when you look at things globally and historically it was far more balanced towards the Soviet side of the equation.
I also hate using my personal laptop for typing as the keyboard is junk, but I'm on TDY at the moment so I have to deal with it.
That and you did personally attack me, although nothing like Mal. I just don't like being referred to as an idiot, or being part of some odd beast known as the pedobear. I fear for the little cubs.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except I didn't call you an idiot, I may have said that Americans are stupid and only good for breaking things and I suppose you decided that as an American I was applying this to you but I feel that there is still an obvious distinction here is that I am not calling you one... yet.
Also weren't you just going on spouting how the PEOPLE aren't the same as the GOVERNMENT!? Ergo that me calling the US government out on its pederastic foreign policy should thus not be equated with me calling you that by your rules.
Also its an analogy, its more then a little flabbergasting to expect solid discourse while at the same time conflating my colourful descriptors as personal attacks every which ways.
Regardless though I feel that you have been doing a pretty long winded effort at disguising the issue which doesn't particularly involve Vietnam but more about your main gut-felt argument which I will summarize as this:
That the United States has the moral obligation and ethical duty to use military force to intervene in any nation, conflict, or region that it has the moral or ethical justification for.
The point is that you seem to feel that for long as we can justify it, then it is justified. My point is that this only works in theory. In practice this is an impossibility outside of a few clear cut issues of blatant aggression and that no amount of dancing around it and sugar dressing is going to change irreversible facts.
A war between two or more nation-states can only be a Just Cause if it is in self defense or in the aid of another sovereign nation operating in self-defense.
That I venture forth is my solid definition of a just war that one is morally and ethically inclined to fight, here's the ideological total war version.
A total war is only ethically and morally just to fight is if and only if it is in self defense or in aid of another nation also operating in self-defense and if it is fought to its natural conclusion of where the ideological forces that caused the war against all peace loving peoples is destroyed once and for all.
Under this working definition I would posit that invading Afghanistan was justified because they were holding Alqieda who had attacked the US and giving them shelter.
Intervening in the Persian Gulf War would then also be justified because Iraq had invaded Kuweit, if we ignored of course Kuweits own casus beli to Iraq and Suddams godawful diplomacy.
This breaks down with Iraq now because Iraq hadn't done anything.
This would make intervening in Vietnam not justified because that is only a civil war between two rival political forces not between two nation-states.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Of course I do notice that this is the only thing you decided to contest implying that your uncomfortable with arguing on the actual subject preferring to challenge my rhetoric.
The reason why I contested it in general was not because I have any discomfort arguing on the subject of your general sinophiliac obsessions (the weaknesses of which have already been documented to you in excess at numerous points in the past) but because I'd like only to hope you don't continue to rely on such base generalizations and fallacy.
Since you've already moved beyond that to a completely puerile defamation and are in full-on hot mode on the subject, I don't see any reason to try to get you to change your course. You are determined to remain reliant on immature tactics and overt hostility.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Nah you know what, you ain't getting a rise out of me this time.
IP: Logged |
posted
A war between two or more nation-states can only be a Just Cause if it is in self defense or in the aid of another sovereign nation operating in self-defense. That is really not a bad definition, one I would accept as well. The question is then to defend oneself or someone else from what? Would it be right to defend another sovereign nation from an idea, principle, or institution. I think that a majority of Americans, even George Bush, would have been happy to simply have Saddam step down or have some form of a graduated process to democracy. Of course we didn't see that ever happening.
I also hate to bring this up, but I really believe that the American Government ( wrongly ) believed that there were WMDs. Far too many of the individuals in the process were intelligent people with very little to gain from invading Iraq. I know people love to crack jokes along the lines of don't underestimate the stupidity of Bush, but still. Also look into psychology related to probability. People overwhelmingly get a 20/20 hindsight phenomena where looking back we tend to think it is obvious that something would happen, when in reality it wasn't. 9/11 is a great example, it really wasn't that obvious, you get your black swans sometimes and you have to roll with them.
That and I really do believe that a country that is governed by a non-elected government is not a nation-state. For this reason in my mind neither Iraq or North Vietnam are nation-states. Even if you vote to have a non-representative government I still feel it is not a nation-state. Simply as that government is simply the will of the nation at one point in time, not necessarily the current point and time.
With this line of thinking, by deposing a non-representative government you are defending the nation. This is why I would say that the wars could possibly be just. Iraq is slowly turning around, but nothing is certain. Afghanistan will realistically probably continue to be a massive problem, but we can hope. Vietnam was obviously a debacle and we, America, have much to atone for there. From Agent Orange poisoning, massive loss, and more than can be quickly listed in this short post.
I also agree with you when you state that "Iraq" the nation did nothing, but Saddam did. I would also argue that there are multiple nations within Iraq. Specifically the Kurds and Arabs, with a real potential split between portions of the Shiite community and the Sunni community. As I have stated before I see the invasion of Iraq mainly being a war against Saddam and Bathist forces rather than a war against the nation(s) of Iraq.
That and under your definition are we allowed to defend a nation against itself?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
