[Пятхъдесят Шест]

So, I was at a bar tonight (perfect place to talk politics, right?) and I was getting into it with this guy about President Bush, and the war in Iraq, and wars in general. Some how we got on Vietnam, and I pretty much questioned what it was soldiers in the Vietnam war died for, and a few people lost it on me. Leaving me feeling like shit, considering I have an uncle that fought in Vietnam. But to me it seems obvious that Vietnam was as a mistake, and that maybe they died for nothing....or at least nothing worth dying for. Is that just blind patriotism from them, or am I really in the wrong for saying that?

Do you guys think that is a lack of respect, or just a realistic view on Vietnam, years later...considering all that has happened to both sides of the conflict? I can't help but feel that many people died in vain.

Maybe I'm just as asshole.....or drunk.

What do you guys think?

[ronnierubbish]

For what it's worth, I think a lot (a LOT) of people are sentimental idiots. And I'm not merely name-calling by saying "idiots" -- I really feel that's an accurate description. People seem to be incapable of acknowledging mistakes when lives were lost; instead, they have to rationalize everything. This is exactly what Bush is doing with Iraq: if we leave now, he says, those who are dead will surely have died in vain (as if more deaths will somehow rectify this). Consequently, the administration changes our "reason" for being in Iraq every few months or so to help support this "argument" (they're looking for some goal that seems achievable). Argh. It irritates me just thinking about it.

So, in short: No, you're not wrong for being honest with yourself and others.

[Пятхъдесят Шест]

I mean, a lot of people died, I wonder how many of them didn't firmly believe in what they were over there for. Does that mean they died for nothing? Or does that just mean they died for their country and that justifies the reason for fighting a pointless war?

[ronnierubbish]

First of all, the phrase "died for their country" kind of irritates me (but I know you weren't invoking it in a pro-war kind of way) because it implies that a soldier's death somehow served or protected us. Just like with our situation in Iraq -- those soldiers aren't protecting us. They aren't dying for us. They're killing and dying for one person and one person only: GWB.

We all know that this war isn't in any way "serving" the interests of the American people (whether or not it's helping Iraqis is yet another debate). But for politicians to say that we should "support our troops" because they're helping us to be free is a load of shit. (Maybe if we were actually hunting down Osama, that would be a valid argument. Maybe.)

In Vietnam, kids got drafted. I'm sure quite a number of them died despite their desire to not even be there. In our present conflict, we have a mostly volunteer army (except for those soldiers who have been discharged and are being re-called) -- this is a key difference between Iraq II and Vietnam. A lot of those who died in the Vietnam War did die in vain. We have to admit that. But for the people who are volunteering to go to Iraq and then get killed -- well, it was their choice (for the most part).

Flame on.