Who Are the Real Heroes?

[MrFun]

About Vietnam . . . .

I read the official propaganda in history textbooks when I was a kid in school, yeah. I read how we are led to believe that we were heroically and unselfishly liberating the Vietnamese people from the "evil" communist government. If you mean by that propaganda.

And did you know that our South Vietnamese allies were increasingly turning over to our enemy's side later in the war because our soldiers failed many times to distinguish friend from foe?

Under the circumstances with guerrilla warfare, that would been very difficult to in the first place, but there were war crimes committed against both, our allies and our enemies in the Vietnam War as a result.

And yes -- atrocities were also committed by our enemies too. It went both ways in terms of the "excesses" of this war.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
About boat people ?

Don't get me started about boat people.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My vote is obvious (those who refuse, naturally).

What about defensively?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by MrFun
World War I (Allied soldiers and officers were the heroes here)

I would take serious issue with the allies being heros in WW I, regardless of one's defintion of what is a hero. The Allies were almost certainly the lesser of two evils, but they did not make any sort of noble effort to stop war from coming, even after it was clear that the war was going to bleed all belligerents in the conflict white.

[Imran Siddiqui]

only way this war could have been just, is if Cuba and other new possessions were liberated by United States after the war

Technically, Cuba was liberated.

And any war is 'just' if future generations believe it to be so.

[David Floyd]

MrFun,

There are just wars and there are unjust wars. But since David only sees in black and white, he can't make any distinction with the shades of gray that he completely ignores.

Actually I agree with the concept of a just war - that is, a purely defensive war against an invasion.

The point here is that if the government tries to draft you, regardless of the justice of the war, it is ALWAYS more moral to refuse to allow the government to violate your rights.

War of 1812 (American soldiers and officers, who fought to put an end to British impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, and demand for freedom to trade)

Yes, but the problem with the War of 1812 is that the US invaded Canada, and that an attempt to avoid war and reach a negotiated solution was not seriously made.

Civil War (Union soldiers and officers who gave their lives for preservation of a country that the Confederacy tried to destroy)

The Confederacy didn't try to destroy anything. The Confederacy was a legitimate nation, which the US invaded first.

World War I (Allied soldiers and officers were the heroes here)

Bull****. This war was blatant aggression and interference on the part of the US. Germany had no designs on the US, so you can't even claim "doctrine of preemption". The Lusitania wasn't even a US flagged ship, it was British, and it was carrying war materials to the British, AND the Germans tried to warn Americans not to travel on it, but Wilson suppressed the warning.

World War II (Allied soldiers and officers are the heroes here -- duh)

WW2 was by definition unjust because it involved the draft and other forms of coercion.

Slowwhand,

I wasn't around during what I assume you to mean the "Mexican" war, but you realize that South Vietnam wanted us there, right?

Oh, a brutal repressive dictatorship wanted us there? Then again, a good portion of the Vietnamese people didn't, and in any case, the war was none of our business, and outside of that, the draft made it unjust by definition.

You realize communists took over when we left?

So?

orange,

What about defensively?

In the case of a draft, the most moral decision is always to resist.

monkspider,

The Allies were almost certainly the lesser of two evils,

Erm, why? I might MAYBE grant you the point WRT the British, but I don't see how you can say that the French and especially the Russians were any better than the Germans or Austro-Hungarians.

Imran,

Technically, Cuba was liberated.

Maybe, maybe not, but the Philippines certainly weren't.

And any war is 'just' if future generations believe it to be so.

So if the Nazis won WW2, it would have been just?

[SlowwHand]

Dearest MrFun,

Don't ever suppose you can tell me jack about that war.

That's all I'm saying.

Sloww

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
orange,

In the case of a draft, the most moral decision is always to resist.

Who said anything about Draft? Is it immoral to volunteer to fight and defend your own country from an invader? Or does it, instead, make one a hero?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The Lusitania wasn't even a US flagged ship, it was British, and it was carrying war materials to the British,

There is no evidence to substantiate the Lusitania was carrying war materials or munitions.

Even if she were, there was certainly no way the Germans could have known about it with any certainty. No matter how you slice it, it was wrong for the Germans to sink an unarmed passenger ship, no matter how many warnings they gave.

I agree, however, that there is little reason to say the Allies were the "lesser evil" in WWI, except by following cheap American highschool textbook history.

[MrFun]

Slowwhand, I'm telling you what I have read and learned about Vietnam War -- outside the propaganda in feel-good textbooks. You have to have known that later in the Vietnam War, an increasing number of our former allies were turning over the enemy's side due to our failure to distinguish friend from foe.

And I don't see any moral rightousness in declaring war against a country simply because it is communist.

Originally posted by David Floyd
MrFun,

Actually I agree with the concept of a just war - that is, a purely defensive war against an invasion.

The point here is that if the government tries to draft you, regardless of the justice of the war, it is ALWAYS more moral to refuse to allow the government to violate your rights.

Yes, but the problem with the War of 1812 is that the US invaded Canada, and that an attempt to avoid war and reach a negotiated solution was not seriously made.

The Confederacy didn't try to destroy anything. The Confederacy was a legitimate nation, which the US invaded first.

Bull****. This war was blatant aggression and interference on the part of the US. Germany had no designs on the US, so you can't even claim "doctrine of preemption". The Lusitania wasn't even a US flagged ship, it was British, and it was carrying war materials to the British, AND the Germans tried to warn Americans not to travel on it, but Wilson suppressed the warning.

WW2 was by definition unjust because it involved the draft and other forms of coercion.

The Confederacy was not legitimate -- it sought to destroy a nation that it was a part of.

As for World War I, Germany was engaging in submarine warfare against ALL shipping -- whether they were Allied or neutral.

Granted, Great Britain was blockading all shipping to Germany as well, but she was not engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare that murdered civilians at sea.

And about World War II -- the Nazi regime was one of the most evil regimes in world history -- it deserved its destruction at the hands of the Allies.

[David Floyd]

Who said anything about Draft? Is it immoral to volunteer to fight and defend your own country from an invader? Or does it, instead, make one a hero?

I stated earlier in the thread that I misworded the poll - I was speaking of instances were the government tries to make one fight, and I just figured everyone would assume that's what I meant.

Boris,

There is no evidence to substantiate the Lusitania was carrying war materials or munitions.

Ummm, I'm not quite sure this is the case.

Even if she were, there was certainly no way the Germans could have known about it with any certainty.

Barring espionage, of course.

No matter how you slice it, it was wrong for the Germans to sink an unarmed passenger ship, no matter how many warnings they gave.

That's true, but it's also true that it was wrong for Wilson to suppress warnings of danger, and it was wrong for Wilson and the British to innocently pretend the ship was just a mere passenger liner, and it was wrong for the US to go to war over the sinking of a BRITISH ship that, let's face it, the Germans had no way of knowing FOR SURE that there were Americans on board (if you wanna use that argument).

MrFun,

The Confederacy was not legitimate -- it sought to destroy a nation that it was a part of.

This is not at all true. The CSA never aimed to destroy the United States, but rather to coexist. The same, of course, can't be said for the US.

Granted, Great Britain was blockading all shipping to Germany as well, but she was not engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare that murdered civilians at sea.

No, but her blockade was murdering civilians on land.

And about World War II -- the Nazi regime was one of the most evil regimes in world history -- it deserved its destruction at the hands of the Allies.

That's a highly emotional argument that is meaningless to me. Yes, the Nazis were evil, but the fact that the US used a draft made US involvement unjust, no matter who the enemy was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So if the Nazis won WW2, it would have been just?

Um... YEAH. Because as the victors, they get to write the history books.

No matter how you slice it, it was wrong for the Germans to sink an unarmed passenger ship, no matter how many warnings they gave.

And it was wrong for the British to engage in a crushing blockade of Germany. Germany fought back the only way it knew how.. Britain was killing civilians who starved in Germany, so Germany decided to let the British taste their own medicine.

I see nothing wrong about the Germans use of unrestricted sub warfare. If they only continued it, they may have been able to starve out the Brits.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Um... YEAH. Because as the victors, they get to write the history books.

Oh, so you use history books as your moral compass?

And it was wrong for the British to engage in a crushing blockade of Germany.

No it wasn't - the British won, remember?

I see nothing wrong about the Germans use of unrestricted sub warfare.

Sure you do. The Germans lost

[orange]

DinoDoc is right then. This is just a very thinly veiled attempt to gain praise.

Humility and morality go hand in hand, friend

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd

MrFun,

This is not at all true. The CSA never aimed to destroy the United States, but rather to coexist. The same, of course, can't be said for the US.

No, but her blockade was murdering civilians on land.

That's a highly emotional argument that is meaningless to me. Yes, the Nazis were evil, but the fact that the US used a draft made US involvement unjust, no matter who the enemy was.

The Confederacy had no constitutional perogative to secede from the Union. The Confederacy seceded because they mistakenly believed Lincoln would abolish slavery.

As for Great Britain's blockade, you are correct -- in fact, wasn't there a famine in parts of Germany as the result of this blockade??

In this aspect Germany believed she was justified in fighting this blockade with submarines. But to say that this should not have concerned the United States and all other nations who prospered through trade, doesn't make sense.

And back to World War II -- the Nazi regime was bent on conquering the European continent. This most definitely went against the interests of the United States.

So are you saying that libertarians believe that alliances are immoral? If that is what you believe, that does not make any sense to me.