This is something I'm curious about. I was re-reading his article about the Pianist and he refers to the "real world" as
quote:The world in which only a few people protested the Vietnam War and most people supported it.
Which leaves me wondering -- does he think Vietnam was a war worth fighting? I really do wonder how he might justify that idea, if he does in fact believe it. Most people I talk to these days, from all points on the political spectrum, just take for granted that Vietnam was a pointless war and proceed from there.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't know how he feels about Vietnam, but the point he makes is a valid one (and one that does not necessarily support the war). I have read some very credible sources that show evidence that the anti-war movement comprised a minority of Americans, but the popular perception was that nearly everyone, or at least, nearly everyone under the age of thirty-five at the time, was a hippie or anti-war protester. It's a misconception that at best is due to how vocal the anti-war group was, and at worst is revisionist history.
Incidentally, there are a lot of people to this day who believe we should have been in Vietnam, and condemn only the way in which the war was carried out. Plenty of people do believe that defending South Vietnam was a worthwhile objective, but that the US screwed up by "tying the hands of our soldiers." I've known some people with these beliefs, and they're not some sort of wacko right-wing fringe.
I frankly don't know the answer here. It's a complex issue. But it is by no means cut and dry that everyone opposed US involvement in the region, or even that everyone does in hindsight.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ran across this while looking for Viet Nam polls. Ha.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think this is what we want.(Edit--I assume that the poll numbers he's referencing are from the Gallup polls her mentioned. I know it's not clear, so there's no way to really verify that the numbers he's showing are accurate.)
[ October 07, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I still support our intentions in Vietnam I just think our method in going about our goals was seriously detrimental to our overall effort.
Its easy to overestimate the oppositon to a policy because protesters attract notice and generally its the opposition that's protesting.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
nfl, from what I've been able to gather from googling around for numbers for this thread, that seems to be the position that many/most Americans took. That is, they supported 'the war', but not the methods. OSC doesn't take a lot of space to elaborate on his point, and instead turtles into his usual 'us vs. them' mode by saying 'most people supported the war'. Obviously, the question of who supported the war, and when, is complex. Semantics, sex, age and region are all going to weigh heavilly in how people supported the war. If OSC grew up surrounded by conservatives, then it is likely that he would believe that 'most people' supported the war.
The numbers from my link , if accurate, show that 'most people' supported the war early on, but after about 67, 'most people' did not.
I encourage other people to look for and post other percentages that either refute or support what I've posted.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I am not sure what it means to support the war but not the methods.
There are many different reasons that a person might oppose a war.
They might oppose it because they are pacifists and opposed all war.
They might oppose it because they believe the goals of the war were immoral.
They might opposed it because they believe the goals of the war were unachievable through military means.
They might oppose it because they believe the goals were not worth the sacrifice.
They might oppose it because they believe the war will have catastrophic consequences.
They might oppose it because they agree with the other sides ideology.
They might oppose it because they are scared of being sent to fight.
There were People who opposed the Vietnam war for all those reasons. There are people who oppose our current war for all those reasons.
Prior to war and during war, the proponents of war try to lump all of these together and characterize all those who oppose the war as either chickens or traitors.
In hind site, the proponents of the Vietnam war want to separate those who opposed the war based on their reasons by saying "He didn't oppose the war, he just thought it was unwinnable?"
The statement is illogical. Why would anyone support a war they thought was unwinnable?
The truth is that some people opposed the war for many different reasons but by the late sixties the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the war as evidenced by the fact that Nixon won in 1968 running on a platform that he would end the war.
Today there are those who continue to insist that if we had fought the war more agressively would could have won. What they forget is that the reason we did not fight the war more aggressively was that we didn't want to start a full scale war with China and we didn't want to risk a nuclear confrontation with Russia. Does anyone really believe it would have been worth a nuclear war in order to win the fight in Vietnam?
[ October 08, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
When I say I support the war but not the method in which it was fought I mean I support fighting it but I think the way in which we fought it could have been much improved. I'm not such a defeastist as to say we should uninvolve ourselves from the doing the right thing because our tactics have much to be desired. If in theory the war in Iraq was fought by using soldiers armed only with sharp sticks I would support the war but not the method. If there was no way to fight the war without the method then I would oppose fighting the war but not the war itself, to me there is a difference.
If any part of this thread is incoherent it is because I'm in dire need of sleep. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Rabbit, I think you are assuming when you say that it is proponents of the Vietnam who want to categorize the people who opposed the war.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
It is entirtely possible to support both the idea behind the war and believe that fighting the war is feasible while acknowledge that the execution of that war is poor. For example, I can support both the idea of the Union fighting the Civil War and believe that McClellan's campaign on Richmond was winnable while still opposing the details of how he handled the campaign.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)