5 ms·

>By the end of the war in Vietnam, a fairly sizable number of Republic of Vietnam Military Forces (the South) officers and senior enlisted soldiers/airmen, as w

>By the end of the war in Vietnam, a fairly sizable number of Republic of Vietnam Military Forces (the South) officers and senior enlisted soldiers/airmen, as well as their families, were marked for death. Their civilian peers in the South were especially fearful of reprisal from the invading North Vietnamese Army for supporting and harboring ranking RVNMF personnel, who were often unceremoniously dragged out from their houses and shot in the streets, their bodies left to rot as both a warning to anyone who wouldn’t give up RVNMF troops and to the soldiers themselves that their demise was imminent. War absolutely disgusts me, but the Vietnamese war in particular was a horror show. My grandpa tells me stories that make me want to vomit. Study the history as much as I'd like, I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution.

refurb 8y ago
I’d say “start killing people” is a great solution when other people are trying to kill you (e.g. WW2, Korean War).
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Self defense is easy. So too is violence in defense of others. What becomes harder, particularly in modern war, is killing people who are no immediate threat: the enemy asleep in their barracks. Harder still is killing people working in something like a munitions factory, the people who build things that other people might one day threaten you with. You cannot rely on emotional crutch of self defense in such tenuous circumstances.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    Israelis, US Army and many other would like to disagree about the hardships of killing people who are not an immediate threat. I don't think some Israeli fighter/bomber pilot can't sleep because he killed some iranian nuclear engineers, or construction workers. Same would go for any US drone pilot - often, to get 1 important target, tens of civilians are killed/wounded too. It ain't clear on the screen who is who, so plenty of room for the doubts. I am sure some of them have PSTD or are depressed, but many others sleep well at night, feeling they do serve their country well. Humans have strong need to feel OK with themselves, and if the reality doesn't support this, then they twist/ignore some parts of it to make it better.
    - komali2 8y ago
      >I don't think some Israeli fighter/bomber pilot can't sleep because he killed some iranian nuclear engineers, or construction workers. >but many others sleep well at night, feeling they do serve their country well. Your experience doesn't match with mine, or really most soldiers': >What we’re beginning to learn now is that, of all those things Marlantes mentioned, unaddressed guilt might be the most dangerous for returning veterans. A recent study by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) shows that nearly two-dozen veterans are killing themselves every day, nearly one an hour. This attrition, connected at least in part to combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other war-related psychological injuries, is an enormous price to pay for avoiding the subject. So great, in fact, that the total number of US active duty suicides in 2012 (349) was higher than the number of combat-related deaths (295). https://www.google.com/amp/s/aeon.co/amp/essays/how-do-soldiers-live-with-their-feelings-of-guilt https://www.google.com/amp/s/aeon.co/amp/essays/how-do-soldi...
quietthrow 8y ago
In a word - emotion. To be specific, fear which is largely responsible for survival is a huge contributor. In general, Those who can manipulate others emotions by triggering them can manufacture certain outcomes. If you create a environment of fear humans can do a lot of things that otherwise outside the context of fear would be unspeakable. Fear in the masses usually leads to confusion and/or convictions. Confusion is what allows bystanders to do nothing. Conviction is what allow doers to do.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 8y ago
> I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution. It's always the solution. The reason a "civilized" world exists is there are people out there who are willing to commit extreme amounts of violence upon others if called for. The credible threat of violence is what puts negotiation and diplomacy on the table. Even something as civilized as a court of law depends on the existence of armed enforcers in order to be respected.
- komali2 8y ago
  >Even something as civilized as a court of law depends on the existence of armed enforcers in order to be respected. I disagree with the premise that the threat of institutionalized penalty is what causes people to be good. I think the primary cause of good behavior is lack of reason to commit crime (i.e well fed and housed comfortably) as well as culture. Why else would cities with exactly the same legal systems across the USA have different crime rates?
  - ddingus 8y ago
    Both can work. Greed complicates things.
  - matheusmoreira 8y ago
    Society cannot guarantee that 100% of the population will have no reason to commit crimes. Even something as fundamental as not agreeing with a certain law can be reason enough to break it, as seen in the case of civil disobedience. When we talk about the reason to commit crimes, we're talking about intent, the very first stage of violent crime. That's the part where someone convinces himself that it makes sense to use violence to get what he wants. Of course, the less intent people are on committing crimes, the better. However, at this point, violence is not happening yet. Violence comes into play during later stages, when the criminal is actually making his move. The purpose of the threat of violence is to convince people that it's in their best interests to behave according to the rules. Warranted use of violence exists to convince criminals that things could end up very badly for them should they choose to escalate the situation. Violence is what you use to make unwilling people do what you want. Robbers use overwhelming violence to make victims give up their belongings. Cops use overwhelming violence to make the robber surrender to arrest. If someone is being judged in court, what stops them from literally getting up and walking out to freedom? There are police officers there who will violently prevent that from happening.
essayist 8y ago
Erica Chenoweth would agree with you. She's done the research that shows that "start killing people", in many situations, is ineffective. https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw
mrep 8y ago
> I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution. If another group of people decides to start a genocide on your people (IE, kill you and all of your people), what would you do? Edit: I'm not familiar with the vietnam war, I am just responding to the claim for why "killing people is a valid solution".
- komali2 8y ago
  I don't understand how "start genociding" became a valid solution.
qubax 8y ago
> but the Vietnamese war in particular was a horror show. It wasn't any more a horror show compared to any other war. > Study the history as much as I'd like, I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution. You studied history and you don't understand war? That doesn't seem possible.
- komali2 8y ago
  >You studied history and you don't understand war? That doesn't seem possible Why don't you just rephrase this as "you're lying." Or maybe "having also studied this subject, I can speak to all others that have studied this subject. They clearly would have reached the exact same conclusiond as me, therefore you must be lying."

refurb 8y ago

I’d say “start killing people” is a great solution when other people are trying to kill you (e.g. WW2, Korean War).

sandworm101 8y ago
Self defense is easy. So too is violence in defense of others. What becomes harder, particularly in modern war, is killing people who are no immediate threat: the enemy asleep in their barracks. Harder still is killing people working in something like a munitions factory, the people who build things that other people might one day threaten you with. You cannot rely on emotional crutch of self defense in such tenuous circumstances.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  Israelis, US Army and many other would like to disagree about the hardships of killing people who are not an immediate threat. I don't think some Israeli fighter/bomber pilot can't sleep because he killed some iranian nuclear engineers, or construction workers. Same would go for any US drone pilot - often, to get 1 important target, tens of civilians are killed/wounded too. It ain't clear on the screen who is who, so plenty of room for the doubts. I am sure some of them have PSTD or are depressed, but many others sleep well at night, feeling they do serve their country well. Humans have strong need to feel OK with themselves, and if the reality doesn't support this, then they twist/ignore some parts of it to make it better.
  - komali2 8y ago
    >I don't think some Israeli fighter/bomber pilot can't sleep because he killed some iranian nuclear engineers, or construction workers. >but many others sleep well at night, feeling they do serve their country well. Your experience doesn't match with mine, or really most soldiers': >What we’re beginning to learn now is that, of all those things Marlantes mentioned, unaddressed guilt might be the most dangerous for returning veterans. A recent study by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) shows that nearly two-dozen veterans are killing themselves every day, nearly one an hour. This attrition, connected at least in part to combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other war-related psychological injuries, is an enormous price to pay for avoiding the subject. So great, in fact, that the total number of US active duty suicides in 2012 (349) was higher than the number of combat-related deaths (295). https://www.google.com/amp/s/aeon.co/amp/essays/how-do-soldiers-live-with-their-feelings-of-guilt https://www.google.com/amp/s/aeon.co/amp/essays/how-do-soldi...

quietthrow 8y ago

In a word - emotion. To be specific, fear which is largely responsible for survival is a huge contributor. In general, Those who can manipulate others emotions by triggering them can manufacture certain outcomes. If you create a environment of fear humans can do a lot of things that otherwise outside the context of fear would be unspeakable. Fear in the masses usually leads to confusion and/or convictions. Confusion is what allows bystanders to do nothing. Conviction is what allow doers to do.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 8y ago

> I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution. It's always the solution. The reason a "civilized" world exists is there are people out there who are willing to commit extreme amounts of violence upon others if called for. The credible threat of violence is what puts negotiation and diplomacy on the table. Even something as civilized as a court of law depends on the existence of armed enforcers in order to be respected.

komali2 8y ago
>Even something as civilized as a court of law depends on the existence of armed enforcers in order to be respected. I disagree with the premise that the threat of institutionalized penalty is what causes people to be good. I think the primary cause of good behavior is lack of reason to commit crime (i.e well fed and housed comfortably) as well as culture. Why else would cities with exactly the same legal systems across the USA have different crime rates?
- ddingus 8y ago
  Both can work. Greed complicates things.
- matheusmoreira 8y ago
  Society cannot guarantee that 100% of the population will have no reason to commit crimes. Even something as fundamental as not agreeing with a certain law can be reason enough to break it, as seen in the case of civil disobedience. When we talk about the reason to commit crimes, we're talking about intent, the very first stage of violent crime. That's the part where someone convinces himself that it makes sense to use violence to get what he wants. Of course, the less intent people are on committing crimes, the better. However, at this point, violence is not happening yet. Violence comes into play during later stages, when the criminal is actually making his move. The purpose of the threat of violence is to convince people that it's in their best interests to behave according to the rules. Warranted use of violence exists to convince criminals that things could end up very badly for them should they choose to escalate the situation. Violence is what you use to make unwilling people do what you want. Robbers use overwhelming violence to make victims give up their belongings. Cops use overwhelming violence to make the robber surrender to arrest. If someone is being judged in court, what stops them from literally getting up and walking out to freedom? There are police officers there who will violently prevent that from happening.

essayist 8y ago

Erica Chenoweth would agree with you. She's done the research that shows that "start killing people", in many situations, is ineffective. https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw

mrep 8y ago

> I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution. If another group of people decides to start a genocide on your people (IE, kill you and all of your people), what would you do? Edit: I'm not familiar with the vietnam war, I am just responding to the claim for why "killing people is a valid solution".

komali2 8y ago
I don't understand how "start genociding" became a valid solution.

qubax 8y ago

> but the Vietnamese war in particular was a horror show. It wasn't any more a horror show compared to any other war. > Study the history as much as I'd like, I will never understand how "start killing people" becomes a valid solution. You studied history and you don't understand war? That doesn't seem possible.

komali2 8y ago
>You studied history and you don't understand war? That doesn't seem possible Why don't you just rephrase this as "you're lying." Or maybe "having also studied this subject, I can speak to all others that have studied this subject. They clearly would have reached the exact same conclusiond as me, therefore you must be lying."