10-27-2016, 04:28 PM
(10-27-2016, 11:28 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(10-27-2016, 12:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(10-26-2016, 07:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Actually, prior to turning against the war when it clearly became a phony war that we would not try to win, many "Silent Majority" GI gen people were very much in favor of it. The salt of the earth approved, and therefore, up until the late 1960s, being pro-war was populist. Only people in coastal urban bubbles were anti war, early on.
I just remind people that real "populist" does not refer to what's "popular," but what's best for the people. And no, the people don't always know. But if they take some trouble and inform themselves, or others help inform them, then they can and they do know. No matter what class they are supposedly in. And certainly, the War in Vietnam was not of any advantage to the people; nor was segregation, nor corruption and abuse of power by the president. And it wasn't because we didn't "try to win the war" that it was bad for the people, clearly. And clearly, the US tried to win, dropping more bombs than in all of WWII, and killing proportionally many more people than in Europe. It was bad for the people because many American soldiers died in it, fighting for nothing, and killed many more for nothing in the name of America. Same as what Bush did to us in Iraq, though on a smaller scale in a smaller country. Same as what the USA did in the Phillippines that Bryan opposed in 1900. No, anti-war can be populist, if the war is not good for the people. Policies that benefit the people are populist, even if they are unpopular. And policies that are popular, but don't benefit the people, are not populist.
Reagan's policies were popular too, in the 3T. They were not good for the people. If some people are well-informed and educated enough to know what policies are good for them, then they should be congratulated and listened to, just as I listened to those who knew what the Vietnam War was, and then I turned against it; not called "elitist" just because they know more than those who are uninformed or deceived. In America, unfortunately, that happens a lot. Or maybe Bush would never have been elected, and Trump would not be so "popular" and have so many followers for his phony "populism," which consists mostly of policies that would not benefit them. And no-one has any excuse for not being informed about what policies benefit them. No-one.
We didn't try to win it Eric. It was always scoped as a limited war. To win it we would have had to invade North Vietnam, take over Hanoi, depose the Soviet stooges, de-Sovietize the system, etc. But we were shit scared the USSR would respond by going nuclear or perhaps launching an invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap. We lacked the courage to win.
Did we have any right to invade North Vietnam? And wasn't it correct that it might have gone nuclear if we did? Sometimes "courage" is foolishness, and discretion is the better part of valour. But the USA made up for it by bombing Vietnam into the stone age and destroying villages in order to save them. To quote one soldier or general, we kicked the ass of the enemy in Vietnam. We smothered them. They won anyway, because we could not invade and occupy another country and get away with it, just like we couldn't do in Iraq. Same deal; even worse outcome for the USA in Vietnam. But, in Vietnam, the communist victory didn't turn out to be such a bad thing. They have been virtually our allies in every problem or conflict there since.