Vietnam dodging views

>>1711977
Social contract. If called upon you're expected to serve your country. If you don't, why should the country serve you? The whole point is rather moot anyways. Most soldiers in Vietnam weren't draftees and draft dodging was extremely uncommon with only a few notable cases.

>>1711977

Criticism usually comes from two groups:

>Democrats who shame draft dodging Republicans as unpatriotic hypocrites

>Republicans who shame draft dodging Democrats as unpatriotic hypocrites

So in other words, it is politics. It is a thing used to say that your opponent is unpatriotic.

>>1712019
>why should the country serve you?
you still pay taxes

>>1712029
You still broke the social contract. Taxes or not, the country needed you and you shirked your end of the bargain. You have proved that you are completely unreliable. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" - That Guy I Hate

>>1712037

Maybe my country needed me to protest a foolish war.

>>1712043
Maybe that war was only foolish because people were stuck in the same draft dodging mindset you hold. You're not helping your case here.

>>1712019
>>1712037
>social contract
I didn't sign shit. I certainly didn't agree to get myself killed fighting people who never directly threatened the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW3cpK39jGs

this guy had a great point

>>1712056
>I didn't sign shit
>MUH SOVEREIGN CITIZEN
Why don't you fuck off

>killed fighting people who never directly threatened the country.
>communism
>not a direct threat to the country and your countries allies

>>1712052

Literally what?

>>1711977
A lot of Americans (like Mohammad Ali) are seen as HEROES for dodging the draft. Why do Europeans act like America is a conservative monolith.

>>1712063
Vietnam didn't do shit to the US before or after the war.

>>1712063
basing on this logic anybody not supporting your political views or system abroad is a enemy to be fought
warmongering 101

>>1712065
Dolchstoss. You doomed an entire region to purges and communism out of perfidy.

>>1712068
>openly funded communist insurgencies in Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia isn't a direct threat to America or her allies
Are you really this retarded?

>>1712076
>unironically defending stripping people of basic liberties

This thread is quickly turning into something that belongs on /pol/. I'm peacing out before it becomes even more of a shitflinging contest.

>>1712079
>unironically defending stripping people of basic liberties
The draft is slavery. You're the one defending it.

>>1712066
man i know it doesn't represent every American, but it seems that this subject is still bring up by media every presidential elections

>>1712079
>>unironically defending stripping people of basic liberties
i'm not a communist, not even close, but it's not my business what kind of system some country in the other part of the world wants to apply in its own soil

the only draft that has any legitimacy is for when your country is under a credible threat to its existence

Because hippies contributed more to the war than the cv did. Their entire shit culture was a soviet psyop, and leaving vietnam caused three times as many civie deaths than we had in soldier deaths.

The only upside was that tensions were lowered, which are worthless. Today china sqnctions u.s. corporations like google but still gets money from us because our presidents don't care about the economy, but at least we have peaceful relations xD

better question, when does it become obscene and cowardly to join the draft.

In this day and age, i would predict the only time someone would get shit on for avoiding the draft (if it still existed in some countries) is when your being invaded.

going to a far off country to protect an ally nation should only involve a countries standing army and even then only invest a small percetage of them.

Dont get me wrong Anyone not willing to defend there own country from attack should be view as a coward though and nothing more.

If anyone disagrees with my above statement please do tell me your reason. Id like to understand what logic a traitor would use (traitors arnt bad, its subjective but give a good reason at least).

>>1712260
fuck i meant dodge the draft. Im tired.

>>1712052
If you had read a single fucking book about Indochina and its history you would know it was a Retard's war

>>1712052
That's offering no recourse based on supposition. At least his reason is tenable because it's his own will

>>1712260
>the world should work around my asspull viewpoints.
The united states did that for the white army and dien bien phu and look what happened.

>>1712082
You don't know what the fuck slavery is you pasty ass fat motherfucker

>>1712019
This.

The public image of Midwestern farm boys in the jungle getting sniped by spoopy pajama men is mostly due to movies.

80% of Vietnam was bombing runs

>>1712310
80% of the casualties, but youd be wrong.

It was divisions of formal militaries being put in the middle of a jubgle ambushung peasants with ww2 weapons.

>>1712019
>social contract
>I am now obligated to die for my countries foreign policies wars for the agenda of rich dudes who will never bequeath me any of the fruits of my own labors earned in war.

yeah naw fuck those niggers

>>1712079
Did you forget that communist Vietnam took down genocidal US backed Pol Pot?

>people here are nationalists
>people here like war
>history and "humanities"

>>1712292

so what are you suggesting? non intervention is always the right policy?

If that were the case, all of europe would be engulfed to be a fascist/communist hellhole. By that i mean that had america not helped in the second world war, europe would have been one of these two things being the dominant faction or indeed a mixture of the two having a defacto cold war on there hands well up to now.

Im not sayingh countries shouldnt solve there own shit in terms of civil war im talking about maintaining a status quo with that country and therefore favouring it govement or failing that funding a rebillion that favours you in the long run but only IF that rebellion wer organic without outside fuckery.

So yes my asspull viewpoint seems to be how most view it, unless you have something to counter-offer.

>>1712329
>people that have different opinions from me?!?!?
>ugh I mean come on it's the current year I'm telling my wife's bull about this

What did he meme by this?

>>1712310
>>1712316
>implying Vietnam wasn't like 6 different wars ranging from the stereotypical patrols in triple canopy jungle to Korea style conventional warfare on the DMZ, to brown water warfare in the Mekong Delta

>>1712329
Of course, we all read horrible histories here and liked it rather than got scared/grossed out by it like you did, big jessie.

>>1712337

This person is the guy who is most correct. Your "Nam" experience could vary greatly depending on what exactly you end up doing and especially what unit you got attached to. Some units just didn't give a fuck and spent most of the war doing copious amounts of drugs. But there were also try-hard units that really believed in what they were doing.

>>1711977

DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY, PROLE. IT'S ALL YOU'RE GOOD FOR. DIE FOR OUR PROXY WARS.

It's all a bunch of shit. I'd defend my home and the people of my community but I'll be damned if I leave American soil to fight anything.

>>1712335
>>1712339
i love bernie sanders haha you caught me! xd

>>1712037
As far as I know there is nothing in the constitution regarding a draft or a social conscience. Aggressive war is fine if you have a professional army to fight it, but if you have to conscript regular citizens to take a fight to a foreign shore you can't expect any reasonable person to just go along with it.

>>1712331
I actually was saying interventionist policy was good. And only losers are needed to serve in wars, with more status if they survive.

>>1712349
OH YOU RAPSCALLION YOU

>>1712256
>china sqnctions u.s. corporations like google
in their own country they are free to sanction whatever they want if it goes against their laws

File: 1470185603038.jpg (120KB, 674x672px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 674x672px

>>1712355

>only losers are needed to serve in wars

well you'll be the first sent over then

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

sorry, couldnt resist.

anyway I only wanted to ask you why certain affairs of history mean you dont go and fight/suppress hostile elements?

The truth is the only reason most conflicts now end in staemate and many people going "what was the point?!" is because on one key issue: its modern warfare.

In the past you took no half mesures in resolving your war. now the mistake is that pure democracy will end your conflict. this can work but only if both sides armies are exausted due to lack of manpower.

Consider the following: Why does the syrian war still rage on? many steps have been taken to stop the war diplomaticly which i find comendable, however, when this failed by say, year 3, the rational course would have been to clearly fund one paticular party. In western intrest that would have been the assad regime with clear words saying that in return you keep a lid on it and become our (the wests) 'ally' and we get whatever spoils we wish.

In short, Russia strong arm tactics in the region have done more to crush 'rebels' than any fine words and trainers because they are using techinal superiority and dont care about collateral in urban areas and being branded the 'bad guys' hell, we see this recurgence of them being the bad guys happening right now.

>>1712376
Yeah, and it costs us money. Yet we dont sanction them.

Recently they fucked one of our corporations called uber and bought their clients for pennies on the dollar.

>>1711977
There's people citing social contract, which is a valid point, but Vietnam was a dumb war that needlessly got tons of people killed.