Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ian

Trouble

Recommended Posts

Ok I'll make trouble,

 

I believe in our soldiers but I don't believe either Iraq or Viet Nam were defensible wars.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq, a total screwup. Viet Nam, it's impossible to say for sure. How can you 1) prove the was no "domino effect" and 2) that Viet Nam had no effect if there was?

 

"absence of proof is not itself proof" by (to be filled in by Iain cause I dunno :mrgreen: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'll make trouble,

 

I believe in our soldiers but I don't believe either Iraq or Viet Nam were defensible wars.

 

I

One of the Vietnams that was our allies was invaded by another country. Sounds like good reason to me.

 

But then again, if I had a friend who was getting beat up, why would I wanna defend him??? It's not "defensible" to protect allies or friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'll make trouble,

 

I believe in our soldiers but I don't believe either Iraq or Viet Nam were defensible wars.

 

I

What is a defensible war?

 

 

Our participation in WWII is often seen as very noble, yet it was started by a tyrant that exterminated millions with the intent of domination and gaining territory. It was an indefensible war.

 

The idea itself does not make sense to me, no war is defensible. One can only judge a war many years later by understanding the ultimate results. Even our own revolution is still not defensible, but the outcome has been favorable to us so we can justify it. Yet in the strictest sense it is not only not defensible but unjustified to the UK. They even tried to reverse the result, or do you forget that they later invaded? The peace that ensued and eventual ally status has arisen only because they could not defeat us in war.

 

The root cause of any war is indefensible so I have to agree with you, I just don't understand why it is necessary to point it out, except of course as you say, to make trouble.

 

Can you identify some wars that have been defensible? I am not speaking of a certain country's involvement in a war...US involvement in WWII is defensible for example, but the war itself is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Vietnams that was our allies was invaded by another country. Sounds like good reason to me.

 

But then again, if I had a friend who was getting beat up, why would I wanna defend him??? It's not "defensible" to protect allies or friends.

You can consider the "help" defensible, but not the root of the conflict, hence the conflict overall is not defensible. That's why you get in trouble in school for fighting even if you were defending a friend, or didn't you ever learn that lesson?

 

 

Even in self defense the root of the conflict is indefensible since it first requires the indefensible act of you having been attacked first. You can consider your self defense defensible, hence the use of the the word, but the existence of the physical conflict at all is indefensible.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can consider the "help" defensible, but not the root of the conflict, hence the conflict overall is not defensible. That's why you get in trouble in school for fighting even if you were defending a friend, or didn't you ever learn that lesson?

I never got in a fight at school, and yes I know that you get in trouble.

 

You have a point there.

 

I knew all along that the conflict was a waste of time, but hell, the US had the right of way to defend its allies, and in defending its allies, it had to enter a war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that the Viet Namese themselves defeated the occupying Japanese army at the end of the Second World War? Did you also know that they surrendered the occupying force to the Australians? Did you know that the Viet Namese constitution was word-for-word the American constitution? Did you know America was willing to grant French Indochina independance but only failed to do so to ensure France's entry into NATO?

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that the Viet Namese themselves defeated the occupying Japanese army at the end of the Second World War? Did you also know that they surrendered the occupying force to the Australians? Did you know that that Viet Namese constitution was word-for-word the American constitution? Did you know America was willing to grant French Indochina independance but only failed to do so to ensure France's entry into NATO?

 

I

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't misconstrue my position as being always against any war, or even always against initiating war. Despite the fact that it is indefensible it is sometimes necessary.

 

I consider the first strike to be very difficult to justify. In the case if the most recent war, the first strike was not made by the United States and hence the burden of justification for the first strike does not fall on the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that wasn't the position you took.

 

Having given the points you've conceded, how do you defend American adverturism in Viet Nam?

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone call a doctor....we have sick man in need of help :lol:

 

 

Shock & Awe was quite a show. Sorry you missed it as it made fascinating TV :rolleyes:

Yes, I would call that a mighty response to having been fired upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that there were American advisors, if not commanders, with the Viet Namese when they dedeated the Japanese army?

 

Did you know the America provided many of the arms used by the Viet Namese?

 

Did you know that the war in Viet Nam was part of the much larger war against Japan hapenning in China?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much of an answer.

 

Perhaps you could elucidate.

 

I

Yes, I knew those facts. You asked "Did you know that....". How can I further elucidate a responce in the sffirmative to a question regarding whether or not something was known to me? It simply was known to me.

 

 

If you have some position on these facts and how they have a bearing on the topic at hand I might lend some thoughts on that. I might agree or disagree or find myself somewhere in the middle, I don't know because all you did was state the historical facts and ask if they were known.

 

I could assume that you are pushing me to go into how I might feel those historic facts apply to the subject at hand...but I am not certain of that intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that the war in Viet Nam was part of the much larger war against Japan hapenning in China?

I take it you mean the Greater East Asian Co-Enonomic Sphere. That was done then, along with the Pacific fleet. The war was over, not least because of the efforts of the Viet Namese.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly do have a position.

 

At the end the war Viet Nam invited America to be it's partner and America agreed.

 

But very soon after, France expressed its intention to keep its colonies and said it would only join NATO if alowed to do so. America relented.

 

In 1951, America assigned military advisers to Viet Nam.

 

In 1954, France experienced a catastrophic defeat in Viet Nam at Dien Bien Phu.

 

In 1956, France withdrew from Viet Nam.

 

In 1960, France withdrew from NATO and has never been a member since.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By whom?

I don't know and in fact because of the utter destruction of the opposing force the facts are probably lost. If you insist on a name we can call him Ernie if you like.

 

In the first war, or first part of the war, whichever way you like to see it, the first shot could have been fired either by an Iraqi or a defending Kuwaiti, I really don't know.

 

In the second war or the second part of the war, whichever way you choose to see it, US aircraft were fired upon in clear aggression, in violation of the UN, and as an act of war. These aircraft were patrolling and defending the no-fly zones dictated by the UN.

 

If another country decides to fire on armed US warplanes it will not surprise me to see a military response. We went through decades of such dances with the USSR with both planes and ships without shots fired and they had a much greater force than the Iraqis. I would say that makes the Iraqis under Saddam foolish. The scale of the responce that preceded the invasion was spectacular no doubt, but hardly disproportionate with the capability of the invading force so not really so surprising.

 

The fact that Ernie missed is immaterial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly do have a position.

 

At the end the war Viet Nam invited America to be it's partner and America agreed.

 

But very soon after, France expressed its intention to keep its colonies and said it would only join NATO if alowwed to do so.

 

I

Yes, I know, thank you for elaborating the history. The Colonialism that France demonstrated at such an advanced stage of world development when such a thing should have been reversing is disappointing. Is that what you are getting at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly hold the view that 'Shock & Awe' was a direct result of Ernie firing upon the other members of Sesame street as they patrolled the no fly zone in their big birds :woot:

 

 

:help:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you mean the Greater East Asian Co-Enonomic Sphere. That was done then, along with the Pacific fleet. The war was over, not least because of the efforts of the Viet Namese.

 

To label American actions in Viet Nam as "adventurism" is at best superficial and at worst plain ignorance of history. America was involved in Viet Nam long before the 60s.

 

My sources incude my father who served in Viet Nam 1959/1960 as well as some books, one of which I cited in a previous thread. Another specific to WW2 American involvement in Viet Nam would be A dirty Distant War by E.M. Nathanson; an historical novel.

 

"Aventurism" certainly fits a number of American actions prior to WW2, but I do not see it as appropriate thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

I'm not keen on you citing books as specific references but I'll take your criticism under advisement. I haven't seen your previous post.

 

As for the notion of adventurism, I think it's up for grabs. Thus, you make a good point.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly hold the view that 'Shock & Awe' was a direct result of Ernie firing upon the other members of Sesame street as they patrolled the no fly zone in their big birds  :woot:

 

 

:help:

Well no.

 

It could have been Grover for all I know.

 

 

Whether or not the first shot was drawn or offered without cause is immaterial. The UN had put in place strict guidelines for Iraq to follow. In the course of enforcing those guidelines US warplanes were fired upon...multiple times. Iraq was in continuous violation of UM mandates in addition to those shots. Since the US was there representing the UN one would think the UN would not take kindly to that but it didn't seem to bother them too much. The US did try to get the UN on board with the invasion but they declined. So the US did go a bit renegade no doubt.

 

But that does not change the fact that we said to our allies "we have been fired upon by a force that is acting in direct opposition to the mandates you have imposed and that we were defending in your name", because of that we wished to dissolve by force a proven aggresive government that was in direct conflit with us and our allies. Some of those mandates violated included inspection for weapons of mass destruction and we considered that highly suspicious and wished to move swiftly. We gave them an ultimatum to let the inspectors in to look around as they pleased but that was their last chance. All the while they were still taking potshots at warplanes from the most formidable military force in the world...not very bright.

 

That is the way that it happened. A great deal of the rest is hype added by the media and foreign governments. Whether or not that was all orchestrated really does not matter because the fact remains that had they complied with what the UN had mandated the US would not have invaded. That last sentence says it all.

 

 

If aguy I know to be a criminal, let's call him Bert, meets me in an alley with his hand in his pocket and there is rumor he has a gun, I will think he might have a gun. I will be concerned if the police have told him he is not allowed in that alley. If the police have deputized me I have the right to tell him to get out of the alley. If he slaps me on the face with his other hand but never produces the gun we may get into a fight because of the slap. If my friends decide to stand there and try to talk him out of slapping me again it may not help avoid the fight. If we get into the fight and I get a good first punch in so much the better. If he runs from the alley back into his home and I pursue him I would say he made a grave error in pi$$ing me off by slapping me. If after the fight he is found to have a roll of Lifesavers and not a gun, I was still correct in assuming he had a gun, and he was dumb not to have shown me because I might not have felt it necessary to feel so threatened and fight so hard so fast.

 

 

Sesame Street is fun......but slapping the biggest guy you can find while acting like you have a gun after your distant cousin kicked his dog really isn't very smart and will likely get your a$$ kicked.

 

 

As high and mighty as you might like to see it the fact is that even world politics at it's most sophisticated level works just like the schoolyard.

 

I only wish there was a schoolbell that would ring so a few of the offenders could be taken by the ear to the principal. You see without that, the one that misbehaves and starts all the trouble ends up in Juvenile Detention, and the other becomes the Captain of the football team and eventually the others that just watched work for him. They will hate him and resent his success, but nonetheless that's the way the schoolyard and the world works.

 

 

Rise above it and stop participating in it and one can be part of the resolution, otherwise one is part of the problem.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...