Hell, a busted clock is right twice a day. Der Trihs is a nasty little shite and a horrible person who wouldn’t survive without that which he hates the most - the United States. Once in a blue moon he pulls a gem out of his pig sty; the rest of the time it’s just the same old slop.
So why bother? Ignore ignore ignore.
I suppose it all depends on what one is rooting for. True. There are those (hopefully very few) who root for the troops in their battle to take out the muslims of any sort. But what about supporting them in the job which most of them are actually trying to do: to help the Iraqi people. To fix the mess which we have made. To leave the country in better shape than we put it in.
Whatever the motives of those who put the soldiers there, those people on the ground are trying to do what they can to make the best of a bad situation, for themselves and for the peope in Iraq.
Nice cherry-picking.
Any comment on this paragraph from the same post?
(I’ll add that I agree with you and not elucidator on the paragraph you did respond to.
Well, good, perhaps you can explain the relevance of his scenario, since you seem to understand it sufficiently to agree. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how it connects.
Sure.
The Viet Cong and NVA were the enemy. Regardless of one’s feelings about Vietnam, it was a very clearly defined war, with a very clearly designed purpose. Us and S. Vietnam against the Godless Commies.
I would support our troops in battle against such an enemy (even while I decried the war itself) just as much as I would support one of our troops preventing our side from committing an atrocity.
First you stop the enemy from beating up your brother; then you kick the shit out of your brother for starting it.
Actually, i think a more accurate description would be “Us and a puppet government and some wealthy elites against the people of Vietnam.”
Hell, even that well-known commie-lover Dwight Eisenhower conceded, in the wake of Dien Bien Phu in the 1950s, that Ho Chi Minh would, in a fair and democratic election, easily win the leadership of the country, probably with close to 80% of the vote. And the Geneva Accords that drew the demarcation line between north and south never actually split Vietnam into two nations; their intention was merely to provide a temporary split in anticipation of fair and open elections.
Elections which were won by US favorite Diem with close to 100% of the vote, allegedly, and over 100% (!!!) in the city of Saigon.
You’re missing the point. Their status as enemy combatants is of no real consequence in this *very exceptional * situation. If, by some miracle, a squadron of Dutch troops happened to be at hand, I would have expected them to open fire on the Americans if no other action were feasible to stop the massacre.
Any man engaged in massacre is “the enemy”. Period. Full stop.
Now, how this point relates to the reationship between the Ukranians and the Wehrmacht utterly escapes me.
Possibly.
Can’t disagree with that.
I’ll have to study Mr. Moto’s analogy a bit more. I’ve gone back and read it three times in responding to you, and I’m getting more confused each time.
mhendo, I appreciate your description of the results of a Vietnamese election.
My point simply was that judging the overall morality of a war by the bad behavior of individual troops might be a fools errand - but that point might be lost on some people for whom Vietnam is My Lai and little else.
Nasty as those fuckers were, it was for the best the Red Army won.
It was and it is. Abu Ghraib was bad enough…but still a representation of a minority of how American soldiers behave…and those at that prison were most certainly led by superior officers in conducting themselves.
Vietnam was FAR, FAR more than My Lai. And FAR FAR more than the Tet Offensive.
We would have easily won that war had we stuck around. The NVA was damn near done, but political will at home being swayed by the public opinoin of a war with uncertain origins and consequences carried the day.
Or, it might be that your analogy hasn’t the least bearing on the subject. Thats what “some people” might think. Me, for instance. There is nothing, nothing whatever in my post about the “overall morality” of the Viet Nam War. Zip, zero, zilch, nada damn thing.
Not to make too much of it since it is a bit irrelevant to the thread, but’s let just say that the above statement is a highly debateable point that a number of military historians remain at odds on ( on both sides ).
The “win” part is debateable, subject to very forgiving definitions of “win”. “Easily”, however, if the stuff of dreams.
What, you post in a vacuum? You have a history here.
And even if you didn’t have a history, your post all by itself muddied the distinctions that allows us to call others an enemy from time to time. Hardly surprising - it’s totally in keeping with your general pattern these many years.
Watch it. You are edging towards a very nasty insinuation.
Besides, elucidator isn’t the only one with a history, Mr. Moto.
It took a while, but I think we’ve finally worked out the point of Moto’s analogy. He equates criticism of the actions of some of America’s fighting men, with criticism of the entire military. A fascinating display of modern conservative thought, reflex and psychology.
Sure, the Vietnam War was probably ill-advised in many ways, and could arguably be characterized as immoral. But as an empirical matter, to say that Mai Lai was a good representation of typical combat in Vietnam is absurd – it’s an argument that with trivial exceptions is basically only constructed within the modern conservative mentality.
Why do they so easily reach for such straw men? Further research is necessary.
And so you have to be a warrior in order to have an opinion on the justification for making war? Is that what you are suggesting?
Der Shit only has opinion and belief, without fact or experience to back it up, so yeah, I’d say his opinions mean a whole lot less than say, a fart in the wind.
You don’t have to be a warrior to have an opinion on war or its justifications, but it helps bolster your opinion if you are or were a warrior, especially if you have nothing else to bring, like facts. Especially if you’re intent on condemning all warriors and any who support them to the dustbin of history without trial for the crimes of a select few.
To what other activities do you apply this standard? Politics? Crime? Protesting?
Daniel
All of the above. I am not saying personal opinions don’t count. I am saying the opinions of experts in a given field count for more than the opinions of complete novices.
There is every chance someone with experience will be aware of nuance that a tyro wouldn’t know about. A politician may understand intricacies of the process of government I do not. A criminologist may understand the underlying causes of crime better than I. A protester may understand what is being protested and why better than I. And I may understand computers, the ins and outs of the US Air Force, and the facts of being an American living abroad more than someone who has experience in none of those things.