There are many wars where people and countries were saved by the US military and its allies. A few world wars come to mind immediately, but many other smaller conflicts probably also qualify, unless you define “saved” way down.

As for now, who knows? The present wars have liberated millions from dictatorships; the question is whether it can last, whether the people can stay saved.

I doubt the US military can save many people, let alone a country.

But isn’t that *the* key question in assigning blame for the deaths?

The Vietnam War had two components: a conventional military invasion from the North (the North Vietnamese army), and a guerilla anti-government insurgency in the South (Viet Cong). The US intervention, whether justified or not, left 60,000 American soldiers and somewhere between 200,000 and 2M Southeast Asian civilians dead, a tragedy of mind-numbing proportions for the region — imagine 100 to 1,000 consecutive 9/11 attacks, in an area with a fraction of the US population.

Most Vietnamese alive today were born after the war, and I suspect the person who posted that comment must be among the young. It’s hard to imagine anyone who actually lived through the war — no matter what side he or she supported then, and no matter how much he or she likes the US now — wanting to see American solidiers back in Vietnam. The memories would just be too painful.

“The United States — saviour of the Vietnamese people?”

It sounds ironic, but it really isn’t. The US fought to help a democratic nation filled with real live vietnamese people from communist invasion. The fight was not successful, and resulted in a lot of suffering for the subjected people and a lot of death nearby (ask Aviatrix). So, can we agree at least to “attempted saviour”?

And regarding weapons, effective self-defense against armed opponents requires weapons. There is not much point making some sort of moral judgment about weapons per se, as opposed to their employment in particular circumstances.