Neapolitan

Ngo Dinh Diem was a better role model for a hero then the Rosenbergs.

__________________

someonecompletelyrandom

It's because it's a controverisal area of history that tends to be polorizing - I thought it would make a great incentive for discussion.

TheBig3

so what are the two major sides?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

khfreek

I was a good man, before the war...

__________________
last.fm

someonecompletelyrandom

It's more complicated than this but... one example may be - justification for the killing of innocent civilians (they did it because they had too, acted out of duty, etc) vs. no excuses for the kind of colateral damage (rogue officers, "children strapped with bombs" stories a cover up for their actions, Military not investigating war crimes efficiently, etc).

But you probably weren't asking me that because you wanted to know, for whatever reason you seem to have a problem with this thread and with me in general and I don't seem to remember doing anything to deserve it.

TheBig3

Oh jesus, why don't you have yourself a good cry.

The reason I asked is because no one believes you should kill innocent civilians, and no one beleives it was an honorerable war. Thats why I asked about you wanting it to be the 60's earlier.

I don't know a single person who feels that Vietnam was justified. In fact the president then said "if we're going to go into Vietnam, why don't we go into Cuba since its of much higher national securities interest."

So I don't think, especially on MB, that anyones going to "justify" killing people. And for christ's sake its an internet form, stop assuming people hate you because of their interactions on it.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

someonecompletelyrandom

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding what I am trying to get across. I didn't say anyone would justify killing civilians - but used as an example the stories of children and other non-combatants being strapped with explosives by Viet Cong operatives, so the killing of civilians (even those who weren't a threat) was nessicary in order to protect the platoon's safety.

Others say this was a story invented afterwards to soften war crimes committed by some of the American G.I's.

You see what I'm saying? If you have no interest in discussing it I struggle to understand why you want to raise such a fuss about it. I didn't expect this thread to blow up and be filled with activity and passionate debate - I just wanted viewpoints and to discuss this with people.

I've chatted with people and veterans about this before and found it to be an interestng topic... not to mention the recent comparisons to current U.S Military actions abroad.

No matter how many times I've tried to be friendly you continue to either ignore what I say or insult my posts. I'm sure if we met somewhere you'd be a perfectly nice person and I don't think you "hate" me... but you have been a tad, well, rude in the past.

TheBig3

This was your original post so I'm going to stand by what I said.

And don't recoil into "everyones opinion is dandy." I asked a question and you got all bent out of shape.

I have no idea what you're refering to with this "I don't like you" stuff. My question of why you're asking this is still valid.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

someonecompletelyrandom

Yes, that was my original post. And the questions I asked in it are as valid as any other thread - why I'm asking is so I can have an interesting discussion... kind of what this website is for?

kouki

Just comment on the war please.Stop asking questions on "oh why do you keep bringing up the 60s?"
bu bye now.

__________________
It jiggles when he wiggles-Fez