5 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

> 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.
    - ElProlactin 2mo ago
      > You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. Millions upon millions of people around the world protested the Vietnam War, including millions of people in the US. On one day alone, an estimated 2+ million Americans participated in anti-war protests. Over 500,000 men were officially categorized as draft dodgers, more than 200,000 charged with violating the Selective Service Act and millions more found a way not to go to Vietnam through deferments and exemptions. It's both amusing and sad that there are some people (like you) who 50 years later can't see what was apparent to so many people at the time. > The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in. That's right. Those pesky Vietnamese villagers just wouldn't let American GIs stop torching their villages, gang-raping their women and children, and executing them. The American military was trying to leave but spreading democracy demanded sacrifice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
      - spwa4 2mo ago
b112 2mo ago
OK. Now compare the entire world's militaries, over the last 50 years, worst-for-worst act. Or since you mentioned WWII, what's the worst done by armies during that time? Hmm? After all, you're trying to find and hold up the worst the US has done, right? So to compare, you need to find the worst in modern militaries. In militaries of all time. That was what I discussed, after all. I was quite clear. Compare to all of history. Compare to all militaries today. Instead you grab at part of an action, and hold it up, without making that comparison. Still. As a Canadian who has had your current ridiculous president state that we should be the 51st state, and belittled us by calling our Prime Ministers "Governors"? Who has talked about unilaterally redrawing borders? As a Canadian who has considered how I may have to one day slaughter Americans crossing our border? How I may have to look my brothers in the eye, and kill them? I still say that the US military has been a shining light for freedom around the world. If I can remain impartial, then surely you can. I also say that about police officers in the West, including the US. Are there bad actions taken by police departments? By individual officers? By groups of officers, over the last decades? YES! Yes, most assuredly. Now compare the overall score with police in totalitarian regimes. Comparison is vital, important, key, and any finger pointing has to be in context. And also note, I said "yes we must do better". But if you think the US military is evil, then you have never seen evil. Ever.
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  > But if you think the US military is evil, then you have never seen evil. Ever. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2006/08/nachtwey_photoessay200608 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2006/08/nachtwey_phot... It takes a lot to get me to want to say something very nasty to a person but you, sir, would deserve it.
  - b112 2mo ago
    You're becoming abusive. But I guess if people don't agree with you, that makes it OK to step out of bounds. Sort of like when military units go out of bounds, or the police? Back to the point, have you yet made the comparisons I mentioned?
  - 2mo ago

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.
  - ElProlactin 2mo ago
    > You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. Millions upon millions of people around the world protested the Vietnam War, including millions of people in the US. On one day alone, an estimated 2+ million Americans participated in anti-war protests. Over 500,000 men were officially categorized as draft dodgers, more than 200,000 charged with violating the Selective Service Act and millions more found a way not to go to Vietnam through deferments and exemptions. It's both amusing and sad that there are some people (like you) who 50 years later can't see what was apparent to so many people at the time. > The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in. That's right. Those pesky Vietnamese villagers just wouldn't let American GIs stop torching their villages, gang-raping their women and children, and executing them. The American military was trying to leave but spreading democracy demanded sacrifice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
    - spwa4 2mo ago

b112 2mo ago

OK. Now compare the entire world's militaries, over the last 50 years, worst-for-worst act. Or since you mentioned WWII, what's the worst done by armies during that time? Hmm? After all, you're trying to find and hold up the worst the US has done, right? So to compare, you need to find the worst in modern militaries. In militaries of all time. That was what I discussed, after all. I was quite clear. Compare to all of history. Compare to all militaries today. Instead you grab at part of an action, and hold it up, without making that comparison. Still. As a Canadian who has had your current ridiculous president state that we should be the 51st state, and belittled us by calling our Prime Ministers "Governors"? Who has talked about unilaterally redrawing borders? As a Canadian who has considered how I may have to one day slaughter Americans crossing our border? How I may have to look my brothers in the eye, and kill them? I still say that the US military has been a shining light for freedom around the world. If I can remain impartial, then surely you can. I also say that about police officers in the West, including the US. Are there bad actions taken by police departments? By individual officers? By groups of officers, over the last decades? YES! Yes, most assuredly. Now compare the overall score with police in totalitarian regimes. Comparison is vital, important, key, and any finger pointing has to be in context. And also note, I said "yes we must do better". But if you think the US military is evil, then you have never seen evil. Ever.

ElProlactin 2mo ago
> But if you think the US military is evil, then you have never seen evil. Ever. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2006/08/nachtwey_photoessay200608 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2006/08/nachtwey_phot... It takes a lot to get me to want to say something very nasty to a person but you, sir, would deserve it.
- b112 2mo ago
  You're becoming abusive. But I guess if people don't agree with you, that makes it OK to step out of bounds. Sort of like when military units go out of bounds, or the police? Back to the point, have you yet made the comparisons I mentioned?
- 2mo ago