It is only western leftists, at least in my experience, who engage in this kind of moralistic peacocking over people who by now are all either dead or very old.
Like yeah the viet cong were justified in doing whatever they had to do to get the US out of their country, even if that meant shooting teenagers conscripted against their will. But it's only in the US and Europe that you see leftists kind of reveling in post-hoc revanchist violence.
I think its another symptom of there being no consructive, material political project for people to rally around, and a reaction to the fact that we live in easily the most jingoistic, propagandized society on thr planet.
"Leftism" in the US (politics broadly you could say, but especially left-wing since we don't even have a party of our own to VOTE! for) is basically just a means of self-expression and trying to feel morally righteous.
Well... yeah. Real self-actualization is pretty thin on the ground around here. There's few meaningful lefty groups left so it's mostly atomized individuals being cynical as usual.
there is always a choice
prison or war crimes
anyone who chose war crimes deserved what they got
call me a "western leftist" all you like
there is no excuse for choosing to kill people who have done absolutely nothing to you over a stint in prison
i say this as someone who spent five years in one
We're talking around each other's points, which is what always happens in threads like these.
I'm not excusing any US soldiers from moral culpability for their actions in the Vietnam War, or any war, drafted or otherwise. Nor am I saying that Viet people's perception of America, whatever it may be, is unjustified.
I'm saying the urge to grandstand about how glad we are that US soldiers got owned 50 years ago is a symptom of political malaise and the general rudderlessness of the western "left." Like GnastyGnuts said, it shows that all we really have is performance and self-assurance of our own virtue. Replace "US soldiers in Vietnam" with the Romanov kids, or Germans deported from Poland after WW2, or whoever else you want. We fixate on retaliatory violence, even if justified, because we have no constructive alternative in which to direct our energies.
i am not one for retaliatory violence, especially against kids
i go against the grain for MLs in that i see the killing of the romanov kids as an excess, though i can understand the usual reasoning, i do not agree with it
but when it comes to enemy soldiers, all bets are off, conscripts or otherwise
The Romanov thing wasn't retaliatory. You have to kill the entire line of succession to deny the nobility any figure head to rally around. It's just business. Sucks for them, but then Nick could have abdicated and left Russia, so.
Only about 25% of US troops in Vietnam were draftees. Apparently a lot of men "volunteered" bc they got perks or something if they enlisted voluntarily, but were just assigned something if they were drafted. Either way, the idea that all US troops were drafted is a myth/revision. Apparently draftees had a slightly higher death rate. Didn't know that.
Like yeah the viet cong were justified in doing whatever they had to do to get the US out of their country, even if that meant shooting teenagers conscripted against their will. But it’s only in the US and Europe that you see leftists kind of reveling in post-hoc revanchist violence.
o that we all had the courage of our misspelled king :william-van-spronsen:
Are you the subject of the new *chan meme about people who can't process hypotheticals?
Here, I'll help: you laughably believe that a penchant for retributive violence is unique to the Western Left. In response to this, I posed a hypothetical that I have seen play out dozens of times.
People who have actual stakes in struggle love violence against their oppressors.
Moreover, the three examples of retributive violence that you've used (Vietnam, Germans in Poland, Romanovs) were carried out by non-Westerners.
What's your point? That being glad invaders are dead isn't building toward the revolution? Nothing anyone does on this website has ever mattered. It's a reflection of our political powerlessness (it's not, retributive violence happens all the time), so what?
It's clear that you're upset that people want invaders dead. Can you explain why it's worth condemnation and consternation?
If not, I'm going to make the assumption that has proven 100% accurate so far: you're an American and thus incapable of valuing the lives of foreigners.
It is only western leftists, at least in my experience, who engage in this kind of moralistic peacocking over people who by now are all either dead or very old.
Like yeah the viet cong were justified in doing whatever they had to do to get the US out of their country, even if that meant shooting teenagers conscripted against their will. But it's only in the US and Europe that you see leftists kind of reveling in post-hoc revanchist violence.
I think its another symptom of there being no consructive, material political project for people to rally around, and a reaction to the fact that we live in easily the most jingoistic, propagandized society on thr planet.
"Leftism" in the US (politics broadly you could say, but especially left-wing since we don't even have a party of our own to VOTE! for) is basically just a means of self-expression and trying to feel morally righteous.
Well... yeah. Real self-actualization is pretty thin on the ground around here. There's few meaningful lefty groups left so it's mostly atomized individuals being cynical as usual.
There's a lot of structural stuff working against organizing. : p
Bingo. :doomer:
there is always a choice
prison or war crimes
anyone who chose war crimes deserved what they got
call me a "western leftist" all you like
there is no excuse for choosing to kill people who have done absolutely nothing to you over a stint in prison
i say this as someone who spent five years in one
We're talking around each other's points, which is what always happens in threads like these.
I'm not excusing any US soldiers from moral culpability for their actions in the Vietnam War, or any war, drafted or otherwise. Nor am I saying that Viet people's perception of America, whatever it may be, is unjustified.
I'm saying the urge to grandstand about how glad we are that US soldiers got owned 50 years ago is a symptom of political malaise and the general rudderlessness of the western "left." Like GnastyGnuts said, it shows that all we really have is performance and self-assurance of our own virtue. Replace "US soldiers in Vietnam" with the Romanov kids, or Germans deported from Poland after WW2, or whoever else you want. We fixate on retaliatory violence, even if justified, because we have no constructive alternative in which to direct our energies.
i am not one for retaliatory violence, especially against kids
i go against the grain for MLs in that i see the killing of the romanov kids as an excess, though i can understand the usual reasoning, i do not agree with it
but when it comes to enemy soldiers, all bets are off, conscripts or otherwise
The Romanov thing wasn't retaliatory. You have to kill the entire line of succession to deny the nobility any figure head to rally around. It's just business. Sucks for them, but then Nick could have abdicated and left Russia, so.
this is the standard ML reasoning that i do not agree with, yes
i do not want to get into an argument or debate over it, so i would like to leave it at that
Only about 25% of US troops in Vietnam were draftees. Apparently a lot of men "volunteered" bc they got perks or something if they enlisted voluntarily, but were just assigned something if they were drafted. Either way, the idea that all US troops were drafted is a myth/revision. Apparently draftees had a slightly higher death rate. Didn't know that.
Don't you know guys? Real leftists post U.S. military propaganda.
deleted by creator
o that we all had the courage of our misspelled king :william-van-spronsen:
Do you think when members of the Resistance kill IDF conscripts, Palestinian Communists are shedding tears?
I think no one here has killed a US soldier in Vietnam.
Are you the subject of the new *chan meme about people who can't process hypotheticals?
Here, I'll help: you laughably believe that a penchant for retributive violence is unique to the Western Left. In response to this, I posed a hypothetical that I have seen play out dozens of times.
People who have actual stakes in struggle love violence against their oppressors.
Moreover, the three examples of retributive violence that you've used (Vietnam, Germans in Poland, Romanovs) were carried out by non-Westerners.
I stand in awe of your ability to miss the point.
What's your point? That being glad invaders are dead isn't building toward the revolution? Nothing anyone does on this website has ever mattered. It's a reflection of our political powerlessness (it's not, retributive violence happens all the time), so what?
It's clear that you're upset that people want invaders dead. Can you explain why it's worth condemnation and consternation?
If not, I'm going to make the assumption that has proven 100% accurate so far: you're an American and thus incapable of valuing the lives of foreigners.