Nobody can tell me...

[slimm50]

I think that was brought up extensively by a lot of people bfore we invaded, and, arguably, our administration, using the established criteria,  made a pretty strong case for a "just" war.

[Toad]

One more thing Senna.

I've read pretty extensively about the VietNam war but I must have missed the ones about how the ARVN were uncompromising, ferocious fighters that would never give up. I missed the on about how SVN didn't need a draft because their sons were so eager to get at the enemy that they volunteered in droves.

Give me a few titles, will you?

Thanks!

[Toad]

I disagree.


Principles of the Just War

Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

[senna]

I believe there was a draft for those of military age. Basicaly everybody that I ever met of my fathers friends served except for a small number who did not. Sure there were draft dodgers. As I stated above, Im sure there were some or perhaps many but still many more who did serve.

[Toad]

Originally posted by senna
I believe there was a draft for the vietnamese of military age. Basicaly everybody that I ever met of my fathers friends served except for a small number who did not. Sure there were draft dodgers. As I stated above, Im sure there were some or perhaps many but still many more who did serve.

Open your eyes and READ what I posted.

I haven't said a SINGLE THING that's negative about American participation.

Here, re-read this:

Look, putz, I didn't say a word about US troops that fought in VietNam. Didn't knock their courage, didn't slam their dedication, didn't impugn their honor or decry their reason for being there.

I think the US did an honorable thing in VietNam, I think those that fought and died there are heros.

I respect and admire the US troops... of ALL branches and ALL military specialties........ that served in VietNam.

I cannot say the same, however, for most of their ARVN counterparts.

What I'm saying, and what YOU keep missing, is that the South VietNamese didn't want freedom badly enough to "pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" in pursuit of that goal.

The US trooper should hold his head high. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. I salute them all.

Unlike you, apparently.

[senna]

Toad, you are entitled to your own opinion. I do agree with you on the part about US forces in SVN. As for your family history, good for you.

Very hot here, think my air conditioner is broken today.

[NUKE]

Toad, going back to the orginal arguments, I do not take a casual view of the 800 plus soldiers who died in Iraq.

When I said "mission accomplished" I said that with these thoughts in mind:

No one was ever going to be sure Iraq did not have WMD of would rebuild themafter Hanx Blix declared them compliant.

The point of this war was not to take down Saddam, free Iraqis or find WMD. The point of the war was to ensure Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons ( which he did have)

The mission was accomplished. We now have Iraq in full compliance and Saddam will no longer be a threat. A bonus is that Saddam is out of power and Iraqis have the oppertunity to be free.

I never made the point that freedom was "given" to Iraqis, I meant that they are free from Saddam....liberated.

Toad, you jumped into the thread before I could get a chance hear from the non-Americans why they where so extremely opposed to our war with Iraq. I wanted people from other countries to explain to me what exactly it is that effects them and their countries that makes the war against Iraq so bad.  

I guess I hit a nerve with you Toad. Maybe you thought I was being thoughtless about the loss of American lives? That was not my intention at all. I was aiming the whole post at non-Americans and people that complained so bitterly, yet are not effected by our actions in Iraq.

[Toad]

Look chum, you come in here and slam my service because I was not a front-line combat troop.

I take extreme umbrage to that. You still have not apologized for this insult.

The implication is that NO ONE who wasn't in combat really "served". That's an incredible position, particulary given that nearly 90% of the Army forces in VN were in "support" roles.

I think even your father would tell you that you stepped on your crank with golf shoes here.

You have NEVER addressed the South VietNamese and the "willingness to fight for their own freedom" question, other than to say you disagree.

Fine, disagree.

But the only thing you've really posted in support is slams on my service.

Pretty thin.

Good day.

[VOR]

Thanks Toad.

[NUKE]

I hope Toad wasn't refering to me...

I have the highest respect for any person who serves and who has served our country.

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Toad
Nuke, the lesson I took from VietNam was that you can't "make other people free". They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves.

It's always a mistake to assume "good ideas" in one culture represent "good ideas" in another culture.

I'm still not sure if Vietnam wanted Western style success for their country.  And, who knows, over the long haul, they may be correct.

Arab culture is so very strange by Western standards, I'm not sure it's possible for us to relate to it.

I sure agree with the sentiment, "They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves."

curly

[Toad]

Nuke, that one was for Senna. Sorry, thought that was obvious.

Now to your post.

If you wanted only Euro answers, you should have put it in the Title.
 
Don't want to get into a tit for tat, but I'll take the time to reply point by point in hopes you understand my position a little better.

Then, I'm reformatting and installing XP. Time to be drug into the present, I guess. I have fears it'll take weeks to get everything working again.

Anyway:

Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, going back to the orginal arguments, I do not take a casual view of the 800 plus soldiers who died in Iraq.

Didn't say you did. Good. Now, tell me, given the "achieved goals" would you be able to say it was worth it if YOUR son died in achieving them? I can't say that.

When I said "mission accomplished" I said that with these thoughts in mind:

No one was ever going to be sure Iraq did not have WMD of would rebuild themafter Hanx Blix declared them compliant.

Nonstarter, Nuke. No one can be SURE of anything in the future. This argument is absolutely destroyed in any event by the NK and Iran nuke situation. Hell, if Blix could show Iraq clear, that'd be more than could be shown about either NK or Iran at the same time. They are part of the named "axis of evil" and their nuke programs are demonstrably farther along than any evidence showed Iraq'a to be. Yet we are managing to deal with NK and Iran without invading them. So, your point fails. If we can deal with NK and Iran without invasion, we could deal with Iraq in the same way in the "unknowable future".



The point of this war was not to take down Saddam, free Iraqis or find WMD. The point of the war was to ensure Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons ( which he did have)

Again:

The WMD

A) were non-existent and never were there

B) are still there but we don't know where they are

C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizations


Which is it? Or do you have another answer?

After picking your answer, explain how that justifies invading a sovereign nation and losing 800+ of your finest citizens while saying "mission accomplished".

We HAVE NOT "ensure Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons"; they may still be buried in the desert 1/2 mile from that MiG for all you and I know. And they may dig them up and "get even" as soon as we leave. It's unprovable at this point; we found essentially NOTHING.


 

The mission was accomplished. We now have Iraq in full compliance and Saddam will no longer be a threat. A bonus is that Saddam is out of power and Iraqis have the oppertunity to be free.

Yeah, we made Iraq "comply" with the UN resolutions. Given that we really DIDN'T FIND A DAMN THING, was it worth 800 empty chairs around the table next Thanksgiving? Sorry, I dont' think so. If it was my son, I'd be p*ssed majorly.

The bonus, yeah, I agree, that's a bonus for the Iraqis. Something they should have done themselves, of course (see my previous posts on the VietNamese). So was that worth the life of your son? Any of our sons?

[mosgood]

Originally posted by AKcurly
It's always a mistake to assume "good ideas" in one culture represent "good ideas" in another culture.

I'm still not sure if Vietnam wanted Western style success for their country.  And, who knows, over the long haul, they may be correct.

Arab culture is so very strange by Western standards, I'm not sure it's possible for us to relate to it.

I sure agree with the sentiment, "They have to want it bad enough to die for it themselves."

curly

Hear Hear!  

[Shuckins]

Well Toad, I have a number of questions.

1.  You keep rattling on about the U.S. invading a "sovereign nation."  How does Iraq fit that description?  Nearly 70% of the population, counting both Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds, were disenfranchised and subject to mass murder if they raised an eyebrow in protest.

2.  You stated that the ARVN were unworthy of our help and our blood because they did not fight ferociously enough for their freedom.  Following that line of reasoning then, do you think the French deserved our help in 1944?  After all, they surrendered after only 6 weeks of combat and many in the Vichy government were corrupt opportunists who collaborated with the Germans.

3.  Don't you think your collective condemnation of the ARVN troops is unfair?  It's a little hard to give throat to lusty battle cries when one lives with the fear of North Vietnamese reprisals against one's family.  This would especially be true of those troops recruited from farming villages.  

4.  A righteous war?  What rubbish.  Whose definition of a righteous war are you going to adopt?  You act as if you think preemptive war were a new concept.  Nations have launched preemptive wars to eliminate threats as far back as the time of the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt.

5.  According to your own statements, you supported the war based on what you were told about wmds by the government.  Since none have been found so far, you are agin it.  How convenient...you've changed your mind to suit the situation.  Bush and Powell testified that all the evidence gathered by intelligence sources indicated that Saddam was developing wmds.  They never said that it was an iron-clad certainty that the weapons were there.  Were you not listening when they listed other, equally important reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?

6.  Don't you think that Saddam needed to be deposed?  Do his attempts to destabilize the region and his crimes of genocide count for nothing?

7.  The U.N. had given every indication that, despite it's own resolutions to the contrary, it was going to do nothing about Saddam.  If not the U.N. then who?  Russia or France?  Countries that were knee-deep in shady economic and oil deals with that butcher?  Why not the United States?  By sheer elimination, there was no one else.

[Horn]

Ooh, ooh! I'll take number 5 and #2!

Though I don't like the flag representation at the end, here are some quotes regarding the admin's stance on wmd's. In their own words:

http://www.kaicurryservices.com/gwbush/remindus.swf

The word "indicated" was never mentioned. However, "fact" and "immediate threat" and "millions dead" are.

#2: {Sovereign state}, a state which administers its own
   government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to,
   another power.

h