The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[Rev. Powell]

If Iraq and Vietnam had been fought by mercenary armies instead of american soldiers would they then have been okay?

That question is not clear or simple to answer. It depends on a lot of factors that can't be expressed in a one-sentence proposal.

Vietnam was a civil war, it would have been fought in any case whether the Cold War powers supported one side or the other. I don't see it as immoral for us to side with the South Vietnamese against the Communists---it was imprudent because of the amount of resources we had to commit for no real gain for anyone. Merely supplying weapons to the South Vietnamese would have been fine. The draft, on the other hand, was immoral. It's not black and white.

I assume you mean Iraq 2, not Iraq 1. I don't know that I can envision a situation where it's fought by "mercenary armies." You mean by funding a revolution? I imagine it would depend on a bunch of hypotheticals that make it impossible to know. I mean, you could certainly design a scenario where it would be unjust.

I see a big difference between mere foreign aid and declaring war/committing American lives. It's a gradation. Support doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Edit: not sure I understood lester's question completely so I'm adding a bit.

"Mercenary armies" just isn't really a thing the US has done in the 20th/21st centuries. I mean, it's better than the draft, which should only be used when we face a near-existential threat. It seems inferior to simply arming the people who live there and are eager to fight, like Afghanis against the Soviets or the Ukrainians today. And we definitely do not want private armies like the Wagner Group in the US. there's something dad and distasteful about mercenaries, men who have nothing better to do with their lives than to risk them money. I don't know that literal mercenaries are an option that's on the table.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

here's a question:

If the US were to start putting troops into Ukraine and declared war on Russia would people have a problem with that? Also, considering we are literally paying the salaries of Ukraine's government and funding their military to massive extent is there really a difference between that and now?

Considering the war that the Biden administration has declared on energy & transportation, and considering the effects it's had on the supply chain, which has in turn wrecked various forms of employment as well as our ability to produce, not to mention the New Woke Military, the whole notion leaves me very nervous....

I'm unaware of any war President Biden has declared on energy and transportation.

[ralfy]

WAH-rong!   

"Wrong" means the opposite.

[ralfy]

People are blaming NATO for provoking the Russian attack on Ukraine. Has anyone considered Russia's seizure of Crimea 'provoked' countries to seek NATO membership?

I think neocons were provoking people in Crimea to protest against pro-Russian Ukrainians in 2014, and as part of color revolutions. The goal of the latter were to destabilize countries, foster revolutions, and then bring in political leaders who would work with and for the U.S. and its allies.

[ralfy]

here's a question:

If the US were to start putting troops into Ukraine and declared war on Russia would people have a problem with that? Also, considering we are literally paying the salaries of Ukraine's government and funding their military to massive extent is there really a difference between that and now?

My sense is that many U.S. citizens are suffering economically and argue that aid should go to them and not to Ukraine.

[ralfy]

If Iraq and Vietnam had been fought by mercenary armies instead of american soldiers would they then have been okay?

Interestingly enough, there's an article about that here:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/want-solve-america%E2%80%99s-recruiting-crisis-recruit-foreigners-204260

The U.S. is having difficulty recruiting because most U.S. youth are not qualified for military service and even many careers due to illness (physical and mental), vices, and low test scores. The writer suggests recruiting from foreigners.

Another problem is that the only way the U.S. has been able to spend on the military and even sustain its economy is heavy borrowing and spending, which is started doing during Reagan's term:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/164163-krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt



Ironically, the same thing is what fostered the military industrial complex, neoliberalism which led to a few Americans controlling the economy, and the 2008 financial crash. The country recovered from the latter by taking on more debt and then bailing out the rich for free.

It has to keep borrowing and spending to sustain the economy and cannot pay back total debt, just part of the interest on it. Total debt is estimated at $70 trillion, excluding over $170 trillion in unfunded liabilities:

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Meanwhile, more Americans are complaining about high military costs and even aid sent to other countries instead of the same going to them.

[Allhallowsday]

WAH-rong!   

"Wrong" means the opposite.

[ralfy]

That question is not clear or simple to answer. It depends on a lot of factors that can't be expressed in a one-sentence proposal.

Vietnam was a civil war, it would have been fought in any case whether the Cold War powers supported one side or the other. I don't see it as immoral for us to side with the South Vietnamese against the Communists---it was imprudent because of the amount of resources we had to commit for no real gain for anyone. Merely supplying weapons to the South Vietnamese would have been fine. The draft, on the other hand, was immoral. It's not black and white.

I assume you mean Iraq 2, not Iraq 1. I don't know that I can envision a situation where it's fought by "mercenary armies." You mean by funding a revolution? I imagine it would depend on a bunch of hypotheticals that make it impossible to know. I mean, you could certainly design a scenario where it would be unjust.

I see a big difference between mere foreign aid and declaring war/committing American lives. It's a gradation. Support doesn't have to be all or nothing.

From what I remember, the Communists won in elections, but the U.S. refused to accept that, so it propped up Saigon generals and fostered splitting the country, after which it used a false flag to instigate war. Meanwhile, it assassinated or oustered its own Saigon puppets who did not want to fight. Eventually, the Communists won, but the war led to two million dead.

The U.S. did similar in Iraq: it supported Saddam as part of pan-Arab nationalism and to counter the Soviets, after which it pushed Iraq into attacking Iran when the latter removed its U.S.-backed dictator. Later, it used false flags to invade Iraq, occupy Basra, and set up more military presence in the region. The irony is that most Iraqis don't like the U.S., and they were controlled for decades by U.S.-backed Saddam. That's why during the occupation the U.S. had to use Saddam's former men from the Ba'ath, their own puppets, and leaders from the same population to come up with some weird co-rule. It didn't work.

Finally, I think what they did was not to design intervention to make it appear that they were just but the opposite. Such intervention is unjust as the U.S. was not threatened physically by any of these countries. That's why the U.S. employed false flags, low intensity conflict, etc.

[ralfy]

Instead of acting like a buffoon, why don't you contribute important points to this discussion?

[Rev. Powell]

WAH-rong!   

"Wrong" means the opposite.

wrong
/rôNG/

    1.not correct or true; incorrect. "that is the wrong answer"

[Rev. Powell]

That question is not clear or simple to answer. It depends on a lot of factors that can't be expressed in a one-sentence proposal.

Vietnam was a civil war, it would have been fought in any case whether the Cold War powers supported one side or the other. I don't see it as immoral for us to side with the South Vietnamese against the Communists---it was imprudent because of the amount of resources we had to commit for no real gain for anyone. Merely supplying weapons to the South Vietnamese would have been fine. The draft, on the other hand, was immoral. It's not black and white.

I assume you mean Iraq 2, not Iraq 1. I don't know that I can envision a situation where it's fought by "mercenary armies." You mean by funding a revolution? I imagine it would depend on a bunch of hypotheticals that make it impossible to know. I mean, you could certainly design a scenario where it would be unjust.

I see a big difference between mere foreign aid and declaring war/committing American lives. It's a gradation. Support doesn't have to be all or nothing.

From what I remember, the Communists won in elections, but the U.S. refused to accept that, so it propped up Saigon generals and fostered splitting the country, after which it used a false flag to instigate war. Meanwhile, it assassinated or oustered its own Saigon puppets who did not want to fight. Eventually, the Communists won, but the war led to two million dead.

The U.S. did similar in Iraq: it supported Saddam as part of pan-Arab nationalism and to counter the Soviets, after which it pushed Iraq into attacking Iran when the latter removed its U.S.-backed dictator. Later, it used false flags to invade Iraq, occupy Basra, and set up more military presence in the region. The irony is that most Iraqis don't like the U.S., and they were controlled for decades by U.S.-backed Saddam. That's why during the occupation the U.S. had to use Saddam's former men from the Ba'ath, their own puppets, and leaders from the same population to come up with some weird co-rule. It didn't work.

Finally, I think what they did was not to design intervention to make it appear that they were just but the opposite. Such intervention is unjust as the U.S. was not threatened physically by any of these countries. That's why the U.S. employed false flags, low intensity conflict, etc.

OK, I guess? No false flags in Iraq, even intentional misrepresentation of WMDs would not technically meet the definition of "false flag." Like most of your posts, it seems intelligent but wanders way off topic.

[Allhallowsday]

Instead of acting like a buffoon, why don't you contribute important points to this discussion?

I'd rather annoy you.  You don't like being wrong, but you don't have to resort to insults.   Tap dancer. 

[LilCerberus]

here's a question:

If the US were to start putting troops into Ukraine and declared war on Russia would people have a problem with that? Also, considering we are literally paying the salaries of Ukraine's government and funding their military to massive extent is there really a difference between that and now?

Rereading & rethinking your question, I'd hafta go back to something that got me a lotta boos:
"Wag The Dog For Burisma"

[lester1/2jr]

remember when Biden said we were going to stay out of it?

[ralfy]

wrong
/rôNG/

    1.not correct or true; incorrect. "that is the wrong answer"

Lester: "I don't get it"

All: "We know..."

Ralfy: "I think he's trying to point out in a 4chan way that you're just cheerleading for the pro-Russia crowd. The problem is that much of media is doing that for the U.S. and its allies."

All: "WAH-rong!" [That is, I'm not claiming that he's cheerleading for the pro-Russia crowd."

Ralfy: "'Wrong' means the opposite." [That is, the opposite of the claim that "you're just cheerleading for the pro-Russia crowd."]

All: [posts the same pic in response to Ralfy]

Ralfy: "Instead of acting like a buffoon, why don't you contribute important points to this discussion?" [A buffoon is not interested in contributing important points. Rather, he only wants to annoy others.]

All: "I'd rather annoy you.  You don't like being wrong, but you don't have to resort to insults.   Tap dancer.  "