Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.
Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.
Bookmarks