Vietnam vs. the Iraq War (Page 2)

No

If you are the victim of agression and go to war to protect yourself is that immoral.  Then that means the only moral action is allowing yourself to be subjugated?  Making blanket statements about something as complex as the reasons for conflict is irresponsible and naieve.

I did not mean to offend I meant that the statements are naieve and irresponsible not you as a person, that was your interpretation. 

How was the US defending itself from oppression during WWI or II?

A. War sucks - nuff said.

B.  Important in evaluating a war is not just the cost of going to war but the cost of not going to war.  I'm not as knowledgeable on Vietnam but I think in the war on terror and rogue nation aggression, we were going to have to fight regardless to do something about terrorism, the Middle East and people like Saddam Hussein who have a stated purpose of destroying us.

C.  I think suggesting the the Bush admin actually knew there were no WMDs but went to war anyway is preposterous.  He was willing to do what Clinton wasn't and that is to stand up despite being attacked (USS Cole, embassy bombings, WTC attack).  Terrorists are emboldend when we do nothing in the face of these attacks.  I believe that Hussein even said that in attacking Kuwait he figured we'd do nothing after seeing how weak the American support was when at war (Vietnam).  If the world sees us as weak and afraid then I significantly believe that the world has become more dangerous.

D.  What has the Bush Administration gained in being in the war?  Ratings down, lost congressional seats.  Thank God he was willing to do what he thought was right instead of making policy by putting his finger to the wind just to be popular.  Everybody makes the administration out to be war making cowboys but do you honestly think that war for the administration is just a game?  Again, if that's true, what have they gained other than an affairly marked legacy.

E. We have no idea how the world is better because of the US and its strength.  How much communisim would be in the world today if not for the US.  What other nut case leaders out there would be running rampant without a powerful nation to help keep things in check.  We are victums of our own prosperity though when we don't support our troops and understand that freedom and peace come with a price.  We are truely laughed at when the world sees us hand-wringing over these issues as it shows weakness and again weekness here creates strength elsewhere.

So Hitler would have stopped with Europe under his control?  It is not about who wins and who loses people who have fought justifiably have both won and lost throughout history.  Why do we only look at american history or even modern worl history and forget their have been wars and conflicts fought since man stepped out of the trees, or out of the garden of eden if you prefer. 

I had to do some research to appropriately answer this question. First I needed a better understanding of what unconscionable really means. I know what I think it means, but what does it really mean?

unconscionable -  not guided or controlled by conscience

Ok, so what is conscience?

conscience - the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

I believe that, for the most part, the people who made decisions and took actions that led the US into these wars did have the sense that they were doing right. I do think they were guided and controlled by their conscience. I also think there were some who felt they were doing wrong and did it anyway, and I think there were those whose sense of right and wrong is vastly different from most of civilized society. While I may not have made the same choices based on my conscience I cannot say, by definition, that either war was unconscionable. Perhaps that is not the appropriate word, since it seems to be very personal and subjective.

Kind of all over the map here, which is my biggest issue with the war in Iraq. Why did we go, why did we proceed they way we did, why are we still there, and what is our end game?

The United Nations had no gonads whatsoever to stand up to Saddam after the US led coalition drove him out of Kuwait. There seemed to be evidence that he was up to no good. He refused to let inspectors do their jobs and the UN just kept warning and threatening but never really did anything. It's like telling your kid he'll be grounded if he does that again. Then he does it and you don't ground him. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But, why did the US take it upon themselves to be the heavy handed disciplinarian? Is that really our job? Let's pretend it is. We go in, debilitate their military, ensure there are no WMD's, and then GO HOME. Now we are there to fight terrorism and promote democracy, to free downtrodden people from an evil and oppressive dictator, or to help prevent a civil war. You can't make up reasons AFTER THE FACT or correlate the war in Iraq to things that having nothing to do with Saddam and his regime. Seems to be a thousand points of reasons to be in Iraq.

Wasn't the reason given "Proactive self-defense"?  Attacking them before they had the opportunity to attack us or our allies?  

I'm not saying I in any way agree with that theory as a reason to be there.  I don't think we have any right to be in Iraq at all, nor did we have any right to go there in the first place.  

So every time we are afraid someone may attack us we should attack first to keep them from being the aggressor? Then why shouldn't they attack first to keep us from being the attacker

Fair enough.  I would still like to know what was actually in the minds of the decision makers, but that's not something any of us will ever know.

Whether or not WWII was a just war is up for debate, I think... by dropping an atomic bomb, the U.S. failed to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant... which of course became much harder in both Vietnam and Iraq.  And this has led some to question the relevance of the Just War Tradition anymore... Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just War on Terrorism," while I disagree with it, is a provocative read in this vein.

 Also within the JWT, pre-emptive attacks are generally verboten... but there is always the question of what to do when the enemy is massing troops on your border. 

And finally, the qualification that a war must be winnable, has come to mean to many proponents of the JWT that you cannot go to war against an ideology... thus by its label the "War on Terror" is inherently unjust.  We can go to war to redress the wrong perpetrated against us, but to wage war on terrorism is a losing battle.  We will never wipe it out entirely. 

And of couse the fire bombing of Dresden, The blitzkrieg of London and oh yea the slaughter in the polish ghettos, The wholesale slaughter of Chinese.  Will you stop the big bad USA dropped the atomic bomb on poor sleepy nagasaki and hiroshima.  I am sure both of these were chosen as military tagret not as civilian targets.  War is ugly and non combatants get killed.  If it were not for the Japanese surrender it would have required invasin of mainland Japan to end the war The casualty estimates for the US servicemen alone were something like 1,000,000 troops.  The casualty estimates for the japanese military and civilians alike were even higher.  What would you have done?