When was the last time the pro-war crowd was right?

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
Watching the stuff on Ali today really got me thinking about this question. He was absolutely villified for his opposition to Vietnam.

And pro-war forces have ALWAYS been that way. Opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 was seen as betrayal. People who protested were traitors & terrorist sympathizers - the vitriol was incredible. And now the same people who hurled that vitriol are openly supporting a guy who opposed Iraq from the beginning. It's all "oh, I guess it wasn't the best idea" now.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya - it doesn't matter what it is. When it happens, the "rally 'round the flag" effect saps more than half of America of their reasoning power. It's one thing to support the troops. Quite another to blindly accept what our leaders are telling us.

They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and that has been shown time & time again.
 
WWII?

Korea, not sure if I would be comfortable saying the pro-war crowd were right or wrong then. Also, I don't think there really was a big pro-war crowd for Korea, but I do know the war, which technically is still ongoing, has been a benefit for the world and for South Koreans.

Vietnam, it was about stopping the Soviets and it turned in a disaster of epic proportions.

Iraq, well there is two there. The first, I am still undecided. The second, at first seemed legit, but I remember thinking at the time, who is going to replace Saddam? Without a dictator in that country, I thought, who is going to run the government and keep the sects from a civil war. Iraq turned out to be absolutely horrible. It might have gone better if Bush was a better leader, but I really don't think it had to happen at all. Saddam, as evil or bad as he was, was an essential check in the middle east. Now, there is a vacuum. And Bush jr. is entirely responsible for that.
 
Seahawk said:
WWII?

Korea, not sure if I would be comfortable saying the pro-war crowd were right or wrong then. Also, I don't think there really was a big pro-war crowd for Korea, but I do know the war, which technically is still ongoing, has been a benefit for the world and for South Koreans.

Vietnam, it was about stopping the Soviets and it turned in a disaster of epic proportions.

Iraq, well there is two there. The first, I am still undecided. The second, at first seemed legit, but I remember thinking at the time, who is going to replace Saddam? Without a dictator in that country, I thought, who is going to run the government and keep the sects from a civil war. Iraq turned out to be absolutely horrible. It might have gone better if Bush was a better leader, but I really don't think it had to happen at all. Saddam, as evil or bad as he was, was an essential check in the middle east. Now, there is a vacuum. And Bush jr. is entirely responsible for that.
Click to expand...

WWII was absolutely what I'd consider to be the last "just" war. There was no choice. It had all of the justification that you can ask for: threat to the homeland, genocide abroad, a guy who literally wanted to take over the world, last resort. Truly good vs. evil, imo. I don't think we had any choice.

I agree a bit about Korea; it's not as clear as Vietnam. But it was certainly more of a war of choice.

Vietnam is the ultimate example of abuse of power - a disconnect between theoretical ideas about what's "best for the world," and what the actual human cost is. That war still infuriates me. The damage we did - not just to so many young men here, but to innocents & even to the people we were trying to "save" in Vietnam. The ultimate example of arrogance of power.

I've just opposed everything since. James Baker famously said that Iraq I was "about jobs," and that just doesn't cut it for the horror that war is. Iraq II was disgusting to me. Leaders trying to find reasons to go to war, instead of reasons to avoid it.

You thought more into Iraq II than most. Even after all that we've been through, it was clear that most Americans were willing to accept what our gov't was telling us at face value.
 
Thing1 said:
WWII was absolutely what I'd consider to be the last "just" war. There was no choice. It had all of the justification that you can ask for: threat to the homeland, genocide abroad, a guy who literally wanted to take over the world, last resort. Truly good vs. evil, imo. I don't think we had any choice.

I agree a bit about Korea; it's not as clear as Vietnam. But it was certainly more of a war of choice.

Vietnam is the ultimate example of abuse of power - a disconnect between theoretical ideas about what's "best for the world," and what the actual human cost is. That war still infuriates me. The damage we did - not just to so many young men here, but to innocents & even to the people we were trying to "save" in Vietnam. The ultimate example of arrogance of power.

I've just opposed everything since. James Baker famously said that Iraq I was "about jobs," and that just doesn't cut it for the horror that war is. Iraq II was disgusting to me. Leaders trying to find reasons to go to war, instead of reasons to avoid it.

You thought more into Iraq II than most. Even after all that we've been through, it was clear that most Americans were willing to accept what our gov't was telling us at face value.
Click to expand...

WWII.
 
Seahawk said:
WWII?

Korea, not sure if I would be comfortable saying the pro-war crowd were right or wrong then. Also, I don't think there really was a big pro-war crowd for Korea, but I do know the war, which technically is still ongoing, has been a benefit for the world and for South Koreans.

Vietnam, it was about stopping the Soviets and it turned in a disaster of epic proportions.

Iraq, well there is two there. The first, I am still undecided. The second, at first seemed legit, but I remember thinking at the time, who is going to replace Saddam? Without a dictator in that country, I thought, who is going to run the government and keep the sects from a civil war. Iraq turned out to be absolutely horrible. It might have gone better if Bush was a better leader, but I really don't think it had to happen at all. Saddam, as evil or bad as he was, was an essential check in the middle east. Now, there is a vacuum. And Bush jr. is entirely responsible for that.
Click to expand...

But you have to wonder how Iraq would be if Obama would have secured a status of forces agreement. Maybe ISIS would stayed JV.
 
Grenada? the idea is to influence events to the advantage of your goals. but wars take funny bounces
 
I would say gulf war, if you are into the whole not minding our own business thing, at least we did a good job.
 
Thing1 said:
Watching the stuff on Ali today really got me thinking about this question. He was absolutely villified for his opposition to Vietnam.

And pro-war forces have ALWAYS been that way. Opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 was seen as betrayal. People who protested were traitors & terrorist sympathizers - the vitriol was incredible. And now the same people who hurled that vitriol are openly supporting a guy who opposed Iraq from the beginning. It's all "oh, I guess it wasn't the best idea" now.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya - it doesn't matter what it is. When it happens, the "rally 'round the flag" effect saps more than half of America of their reasoning power. It's one thing to support the troops. Quite another to blindly accept what our leaders are telling us.

They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and that has been shown time & time again.
Click to expand...
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
 
Seahawk said:
WWII?

Korea, not sure if I would be comfortable saying the pro-war crowd were right or wrong then. Also, I don't think there really was a big pro-war crowd for Korea, but I do know the war, which technically is still ongoing, has been a benefit for the world and for South Koreans.

Vietnam, it was about stopping the Soviets and it turned in a disaster of epic proportions.

Iraq, well there is two there. The first, I am still undecided. The second, at first seemed legit, but I remember thinking at the time, who is going to replace Saddam? Without a dictator in that country, I thought, who is going to run the government and keep the sects from a civil war. Iraq turned out to be absolutely horrible. It might have gone better if Bush was a better leader, but I really don't think it had to happen at all. Saddam, as evil or bad as he was, was an essential check in the middle east. Now, there is a vacuum. And Bush jr. is entirely responsible for that.
Click to expand...
no war since WWII, with maybe the exception of Korea, met the standard of a clear and present danger and resulted in unpredicted consequences. There is no arguing base on the facts, that the American people were purposely mislead by our political leaders for political reasons and that basis for waging war in both Vietnam and Iraq were both wrong and immoral.

Afghanistan is the only truly legitimate war this nation has been in since WWII.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top