Looking Back: Was Vietnam "Worth It"?

There's a problem with declaring a "war" on terrorism.

I believe in the proper application of thoughtful violence. I do. Some folks, all they understand is the stick. But that violence has got to be carefully metered and controlled and used only when all other avenues are exhausted. One end of the spectrum of violence is soft, implied threat. The other end is loosing the dogs of war.

War, to me, means all out conflict. Trained soldiers do the bulk of the fighting but those on the homefront get involved too. Rationing is accepted by the citizens, donations are made to the war effort, civilians train in homeland security and industry churns out weaponry and medical supplies to send to the fronts. Diplomats and spys are put on full out mayhem alerts too.

But perhaps the main lesson to glean from Afghanistan and Iraq is that fighting terrorism with conventional warfare is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

A smarter way, one that gets greater results, faster and not as messily, is to use diplomacy, international courts, squeezing the money flow within terrorist organizations, teaching youngsters that there are alternatives (and good ones) to becoming a suicide bomber. Alternatives like being able to find a worthwhile job in a peaceful setting, getting married and raising a family, worshipping as they would like and feeling part of a greater good, for instance.

Not invading or threatening to invade the countries these young would-be terrorists identify with would have been a good start but the US blew that option, big time.

***

I was all for sending tiny squads of elite assasins (we do have them) into Afghanistan and displaying the heads of the leaders of al-Qaeda on spits, in the aftermat of 9/11.

Opps, my veneer of civility slipped for a minute. Sorry about that. The US does not use assasination as part of its foreign policy. Kennedy said so. Why? 'cause we're one of the good guys.

Damn! Hate it when we have to have scrupples.

 

Speaking as a dual citizen who lived most of his life in the United States and served in the Utah National Guard - which is *way* more than you did you upper middle class spoiled nut - you have once again proven the stereotype of the ignorant ugly American. The half of me that is American is truly ashamed. No wonder the rest of the world hates Americans.

You claim to have traveled the world. I frequently have to do international travel on business, and can assure you your "holier than thou" American attitude won't get you very far in places like Berlin, Paris, London, Geneva, Helsinki, Seoul, or Beijing. Yet whenever I travel to those places with my little Canadian lapel pin, I'm warmly welcomed. Including a certain bar in Munchen where the regulars insisted on getting me seriously silly.

Overall, the citizenship and border issues between the U.S. and Canada will impact the U.S. to a far greater extent, especially now with the growing anti-American sentitment in Canada. Don't forget how dependant the U.S. is on Canadian energy exports, and how recently Canada has begun looking to China and other Asian countries as a substitute for those exports.

As far as the Vietnam war, you obviously haven't lost anybody close. My Uncle, my Dad's baby brother, was killed in Vietnam in a friendly fire incident. The way the Marines handled that incident turned former fierce patriots into family who hates the government with every fiber of their being.

Once you blindly trust - and even worse DEFEND - a government, you're a fool.

And quit trying to "prove" how Iraq and that nut Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11. Even the Bush administration has given up on that lie. If you want to blame anybody for how Saddam turned out, blame Ronald RayGun and Cheney for nudging and winking while the United States built up Iraq to go to war against Iran.

The WMD's that Iraq did possess - including the chemical weapons used against the Kurds - were as much courtesy of the U.S. government as they were of Saddam Hussein. And what did RayGun do about the Arms For Hostages thing, or the Killing the Kurds thing?

That's right. Nothing.

 

Is anything worth fighting for?

 

When you can answer that question for yourself, then you'll have taken a huge step towards the Oracle at Delphi's "know thyself".

***

A big YES for me to that question.

I'm Japanese-American (JA). I study the internment of JAs during WWII and the varied responses of JAs to it and the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Too many of those folks offered their lives on the altar of the Constitution. They fought for the rights of citizens and I can't ignore their stories. They and the others of their generation made it possible for me to have the life I do.

I hope I would stand up for the Constitution as they did, even when their decisions were crowded by controversy and doubt.

Haven't been asked to fight as a soldier. Don't know how I'd react in battle. Just the thought makes me a bit ill but I think I could be convinced to kill someone. I hope I wouldn't just up and run away when the firing started. I do know some strategy and can recognize true leadership, realize the value of standing back to back with comrades.

I've exhibited protective instincts in the past and know I can respond with quick violence, without thought of protecting myself, if someone dear to me is threatened.
I've even been protective of strangers. Walked along a dirt path as a jogger ran towards me. As she got close, she tripped on a tree root and almost fell. I found myself lunging towards her with my arms outstretched, ready to catch her and ease a fall to the ground. She smiled and continued on, I was left analyzing my automatic response.

I used to be a nurse, guess I would have made a good cop.

 

I would not hesitate to defend this country like my father before me and like my children will after me.

 

Quite right, which is why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Since we must support our troops and their mission together, the mission must be crystal clear, well defined, and totally justified. If you start a war on less than that premise, you are doomed to failure. This is the lesson of Vietnam and the lesson of Iraq.

To demand support now is pointless. It is too late. The war was not justified in the beginning, and therefore it cannot be justified now. The war supporters who demand support of the troops and the mission must learn this. The supoort was lost before the first shot was fired, and you will never get it back no matter how strongly YOU believe in the "mission". Thats why we should never enter into war without clear purpose and overwhelming justification.

I am not making a left or right-wing point. I am making a universal point that has been proven over and over throughout history. In a democracy, to wage a "successful" war you must have the support of the people. To have the support of the people, you must have clear and strong justification for entering the war (and it isn't clear and strong if YOU think it is, its clear and strong if virtually EVERYONE thinks it is. That is the crucial test. Your and my opinions don't count). We must learn this lesson. We must NOT let ourselves get led into anymore unjustified wars, no matter what political party is behind them (it was the Democrats in Vietnam).

In this case Bush was wrong. His war in Iraq is unjustified, and I and approximately half of the country do not and will not support it. The reason we don't "support the troops" in the manner you want is because our leaders didn't support them. Sending troops into battle with a poorly defined and unjustfied mission guarantees a lack of support. Unfortunately for all of us, this is not just my opinion, it is fact. It is a fact of human nature, and nothing anyone says will change it.

 

you are free to follow the beat of your own drummer. putting American lives at greater risk would not be something i would ever do - whatever president made whatever decision to send troops into action would have my unwavering support. you are coming to a conclusion and basing your actions without possibly knowing all the facts. i hope one day decades from now when all the information pertaining to this war come to light, you do not regret your current position. i trust the president, any president, to do what they believe is right for this country - there is no greater responsibility than sending American troops to war that a preesident presides over. i trust in that they will do what is best for our country.

 

"i trust in that they will do what is best for our country."

Bush will do the best for those who financed his election - oil companies, drug companies, weapons makers and other huge corporations. He has, and will continue to futher impoverish ordinary working Amercans. Your trust is touching, but misplaced.

 

Unempolyment to record lows, minorty income up, % of minorities working up.... Seems the above entities you mention above have done well under EVERY president - democrat and republican

We will agree to disagree - I supported Clinton in Bosnia, Somalia, etc. I supported Carters attempt at freeing the hostages in Iran, the Mayaguez operation, etc.

All I would ask for is that you support the troops and their mission if it means decreasing the potential dangers they face. As long as the troops support the mission and continue to serve our country, we should too.

I trust whoever my country elects during times of war with American troops in harms way. And I will always support the troops and their mission - be it a democrat or republican in office - always.

 

That's great!

Then you'd be willing to take the President and the current administration to court if you thought they were violating your rights as a citizen?

That's what Korematsu and other dissenters did during WWII. They faced ostracism by their families and their communities, in the pursuit of justice and to uphold the Constitution. They were sent to prison and shamed into silence.

Every single one of them loved their country enough to tell it "no" and fought for their rights, at the cost of their personal lives. At least one of them later volunteered to fight for the US in the Korean war after he was released from jail.

Knowing what happened to Korematsu and others like him dampens my automatic enthusiasm for any particular individual and his policies, my President or no.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/65.htm
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/conscience/the_story/index.html
http://www.aaba-bay.com/aaba/showpage.asp?code=minamispeech

 

I would use all available tools at my disposal to do what I thought was right. My country is not perfect. That being said, my enthusiasm for it has never waned, and is greater each time I see us correcting a wrong.

I went door to door with my dad during the civil rights time period. I have volunteered to feed the homeless, to help vietnam veterans, in nursing homes, and disabled childrens facilities to name a few things. i continue to donate my time and effort to help people, and will always pursue actions to correct what i believe are injustices in our system. For being able to that, I remain proud to be an American, and will never lose faith in our system.

 

I refer you to the following article about how income inequality has increased under Bush - http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/365

 

"As measured by the Gini index, inequality in the U.S.is closer to levels of inequality in the Philippines(46.1) and Kenya(44.5) than it is to Canada(31.5), the UK(36.0) or Japan(24.9), according to World Bank data."

 

You completely miss the point. It doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think. It does't matter what drum beat you or I follow. The troops will be supported in a clearly justifiable war. They won't be supported if the war lacks sufficient justification. And it isn't for you or I to decide what constitutes suffcient justification. These are facts, and neither you nor I can change these facts.

So what to do? Never ever start a war without clear purpose and overwhelming justification. Otherwise, suffer the consequenses of lack of support. This is not personal and it is not opinion. This is the way the world, and human nature work.

But this is a lesson that you need to learn. Our wars will not go smoothly and will not get the support they need if they are not sufficiently justified at the outset. Bush failed to recognize this fact when he started the Iraq war, and you fail to recognize it now.

I have used the analogy of a trial. We do not a defendent to the electric chair because 7 of 12 jurors thought it was the thing to do. We only send them to the electric chair if 12 of 12 jurors agree. Sending someone to the electric chair and starting a war are enormously consequential actions (war, obviously, far more so). We should apply a similar test before starting a war if want "support for the troops". 51% doesn't cut it. Lack of support for the troops in the Iraq was guaranteed before the first shot was fired.

 

I am not aware of the Gini index but would love to look at it critically. i can only tell you that from my perspective the economy is humming and everyone - everyone is benefiting. another tax cut or permanent reductions in capital gains taxes, estate taxes, etc would only continue this economic expansion. but we are off point here.

 

"i can only tell you that from my perspective the economy is humming"

That is called anecdotal evidence. I give more weight to World Bank statistics.

 

The World Bank?? Anecdotal evidence???

So tell me how do you measure the strength of our economy?
Unemployment figures?
GDP growth?
Net Worth Growth?
Government income derrived from tax receipts?

Do you honestly think we are in a recession?
Was the economy good or bad from 1994-2000? If so, how did you measure success during that time period? How do those measurements differ from today?

 

Brother-in-law Dan is a career Navy guy. He's still pissed at Clinton over his response to the USS Cole attack. Dan isn't afraid to disagree with or criticize his commanders or his Commander-In-Chief. Most of his officers ask for and listen to his opinions (he's very experienced, critical to ops and a good judge of people and situations and they know it) and usually take his views into consideration. But of course, Dan will follow his orders, looking for ways to tweak them to best match the situation. That's part of being a good fighter, to be able to think for yourself and to do what is required.

Perhaps things are much more complicated than political pundits and civics teachers would have us believe. Our reponses and support therefore needs to be metered out in thoughtful ways and never be automatic "givens".

Trust should be earned and not simply given away, gratis.

 

Unemployment may be at record lows but most new workers are under-employed, under paid and understandably dis-satisfied. Bare-faced, unemployment rates numbers are meaningless statistics when standing on their own.

% minority workers? What, are you celebrating 'cause more welfare moms of color might be off the dole? Are more minorities getting equal pay for equal work and do they have more opportunities to gain skills so they can qualify for better jobs at higher pay? "% of minority workers up" could be another hollow statistic.

 

Welfare is destructive and should be a means of last resort and of measured duration coupled with tools to increase the employable skills of those who for whatever reason enter into it.

Under employed......... bare faced stats on unemployment..... what do you use to measure the economies success or failure?? those bare faced stats move markets and are used by those smarter than i as important indicators of our economies strength or weakness. maybe france with 11% unemployment is what you are referring to - is their economy stronger than ours - maybe their 50% minority unemployment is INDICATIVE of their OVERALL unemployment data????? I anxiously await your reply.