Vietnam dodging views

Literally what?

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.

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

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

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

>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?

>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.

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

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

>>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).

fuck i meant dodge the draft. Im tired.

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

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

>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.

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

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

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.

>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

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

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

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.

>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?

>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

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

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.

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.

i love bernie sanders haha you caught me! xd

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.

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

OH YOU RAPSCALLION YOU

>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

>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.

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.

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