4 ms·

And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to

by b112 2mo ago

And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't do better and shouldn't. But we do need to compare "How things have been for all of human history" to "How we do things now", and see that our modern democracies show immense restraint and a lack of malfeasance, compared to how they've been used in the past. I feel that people view how the world is today, through such a restricted world view. Where the history of how things were, and the immense and great and incredible progress we've made, is thrown aside because "Oh bad thing happened!", and therefore "The entire West is completely corrupt and everything sucks and we should rip it all down because it's bad". One only need take a tour around the rest of the world. To compare our militaries to those in non-democratic nations. To how those leaders act, in reality, compared to our leaders. Even the current US admin looks good, comparatively. And yes, I know that's saying a lot.

ElProlactin 2mo ago
> And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so. Are you serious? During the Vietnam War era, the US dropped over 7.5 million tons of ordnance across Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, which is more than double the tonnage dropped in all of WW2. In rural parts of Laos and Cambodia, unexploded ordinance is still a daily threat to people. 50 years on. As for raping and pillaging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Vietnam_War > To compare our militaries to those in non-democratic nations. To how those leaders act, in reality, compared to our leaders. Even the current US admin looks good, comparatively. When I see comments like this, I want to believe that it's not real but sadly, I suspect you really believe this.
- spwa4 2mo ago
  I understand the Vietnam war is a sore point in America due to recruitment. But your comment is so incredibly one-sided that it's not a serious argument anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_of_Vietnam_use_of_terror_in_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_... The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratically selecting laws here? Well: the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets.
  - ElProlactin 2mo ago
    > the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets. The 1954 Geneva Accords, which ended the French war, called for nationwide reunification elections by July 1956. Those elections never happened. Ngo Dinh Diem, the US-backed first president of South Vietnam who was a brutal authoritarian, refused to hold them. The US backed his refusal and kept backing him afterward. In Eisenhower's 1963 memoir, he wrote that everyone knowledgeable he'd spoken to believed Ho Chi Minh would have taken around 80% percent of the vote if elections had happened. The Vietnamese didn't really care about the Soviets. They are a fiercely independent and proud people with a long history of defending themselves against foreign interlopers and aggressors. So let me restate your asinine and totally inaccurate conclusion: The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace.
    - b112 2mo ago
      The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace. And yet, the poster you're replying to said no such thing. Not even close. They merely said they wanted help repelling an enemy. You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in. edit -- Re your response. Were they ordered to rape and pillage by their full chain of command? Or were they acting illegally, regardless of the outcome? Would a military in a dictatorship have deemed that "illegal"? What about 200 years ago? 1000? You seem to be ignoring the concept of comparables. And taking acts that the military itself teaches its own soldiers, was wrong. It's good to have principles. And good to defend them. But if you ignore what others are saying, and the context of their words, you start to slide into zealoty.

by b112 2mo ago

ElProlactin 2mo ago

> And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so. Are you serious? During the Vietnam War era, the US dropped over 7.5 million tons of ordnance across Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, which is more than double the tonnage dropped in all of WW2. In rural parts of Laos and Cambodia, unexploded ordinance is still a daily threat to people. 50 years on. As for raping and pillaging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Vietnam_War > To compare our militaries to those in non-democratic nations. To how those leaders act, in reality, compared to our leaders. Even the current US admin looks good, comparatively. When I see comments like this, I want to believe that it's not real but sadly, I suspect you really believe this.

spwa4 2mo ago
I understand the Vietnam war is a sore point in America due to recruitment. But your comment is so incredibly one-sided that it's not a serious argument anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_of_Vietnam_use_of_terror_in_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_... The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratically selecting laws here? Well: the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets.
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  > the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets. The 1954 Geneva Accords, which ended the French war, called for nationwide reunification elections by July 1956. Those elections never happened. Ngo Dinh Diem, the US-backed first president of South Vietnam who was a brutal authoritarian, refused to hold them. The US backed his refusal and kept backing him afterward. In Eisenhower's 1963 memoir, he wrote that everyone knowledgeable he'd spoken to believed Ho Chi Minh would have taken around 80% percent of the vote if elections had happened. The Vietnamese didn't really care about the Soviets. They are a fiercely independent and proud people with a long history of defending themselves against foreign interlopers and aggressors. So let me restate your asinine and totally inaccurate conclusion: The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace.
  - b112 2mo ago
    The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace. And yet, the poster you're replying to said no such thing. Not even close. They merely said they wanted help repelling an enemy. You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in. edit -- Re your response. Were they ordered to rape and pillage by their full chain of command? Or were they acting illegally, regardless of the outcome? Would a military in a dictatorship have deemed that "illegal"? What about 200 years ago? 1000? You seem to be ignoring the concept of comparables. And taking acts that the military itself teaches its own soldiers, was wrong. It's good to have principles. And good to defend them. But if you ignore what others are saying, and the context of their words, you start to slide into zealoty.