Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
And I see this side as well. But my practical side bumps up against it. This isn't the way it works. Certainly we had uniformity behind WWII, and perhaps WWI. But I suspect that the civil war had pretty significant dissenters, in the North. Not sure what vague memories of school generate that thought, but something sure does.
More relevantly though: nothing is going to change the dissent now. Whether it's because we are too polarized, or because of basic political or philosophical differences, I don't see it ending.
Because it's the way it is (until something dramatic happens to end the polarization)(hell freezing over??), I don't find arguments that we need to get together and support <whatever> particularly useful. I just don't think it will happen. Telling others to "get with the program" actually seems to make things worse, IMO. (not that you are saying that, exactly)
|
But the problem is that we are left at a stalemate-protesters won't quit protesting, and supporters won't quit supporting. I see one as being more in the wrong not necessarily from an ideological standpoint, but from a practical standpoint. People's lives are being put in danger by some of the anti-war rhetoric. And its also having no disernable impact on stopping the war.
I think the comparisons to the pre-Vietnam wars are apt. Even though there were people against many of these wars, once the war started the protests stopped (except in fringe cases). The contry presented a unified front. And the election seemed to make clear to many supporters that more people were at least passively in favor of the Iraqi actions. So to many of them, the anti-war camp seems to be whiny and anti-american because they haven't shown the unity found in other wars (or at least quiet disapproval).
Quote:
I've certainly seen this opinion. And it's sure impossible to definitively argue against. It has a tremendous amount of logic on it's side.
But boy, the Vietnamese can sure hold a grudge. You mention their current reactions to the Chinese. That's just the tip of iceberg. Vietnam was ruled with an iron fist for hundreds of years by the Chinese (as previously mentioned). And they never stopped fighting. Well, until they kicked the Chinese out, that is.
One example: we bombed the BEJEEZUS out of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and we closed it for 2 whole days during the war. We had planes, bombs, crazy munitions, money, etc. They had crappy shovels, bodies and will power. And it was no contest.
I hear what you say, about a gloves off, no-holds-barred type of war. It could sure have been 'over' pretty quickly. Sort of like Gulf War II...
We could have declared Mission Accomplished and everything. I just don't believe it would have been over. Sort of like...
|
There's a big difference in that Vietnam had a recently deposed government that had some native support before the communists came into power. It would have been seen more like restoring things to the previous status quo after a military revolution. But in Iraq we are attempting to establish a new government, so there is more of a vacuum effect. But it's hard to look back and know for sure what would have happened if things had been done differently.