Ronald Reagan called Vietnam "a noble cause," implying that even though the war failed to stop the Communist conquest of SE Asia, it was right to fight for freedom. Can a similar case be made for the Crusades as a disorganized and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to liberate the Holy Land from Islamic despotism?
2007-09-01 04:50:37 · 14 answers · asked by Bruce 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
As you have already seen, such a question has no simple answer. I will not get into Vietnam. You have made a supposition that it was a noble cause. I will leave it at that.
The Crusades were a mixed bag of nobility and courage. When we speak of the Crusades, we often talk as if they were one. They were many and for various reasons. To begin with, the first agressors were the Muslims of modern day Iraq and Iran. They were reaching out to create an empire and successfully captured Israel and Jerusalem. In so doing, these Holy Lands were out of the control of Christians for the first time in centuries.
The original Crusades were sometimes stupid and sometimes noble. Stupid as the Children's Crusade when a priest led children into battle and they were killed. There was nothing noble about that.
In the early stages, many Christian nations put aside differences to work together to save the Holy Lands from the Muslims. This was perhaps the most noble effort of all. With King Richard the Lion Hearted we had devout Christian forces fighting for what they perceived was Holy Land. Unfortunately even then it turned. When Richard captured Jerusalem, he ordered the murder of all who had fought. What followed turned into a massacre of innocents and eventually led to the loss of the Holy Lands.
The least Noble Crusades were the later. In these times, the Pope promised absolution of all sins and a guarantee of heaven to anyone who would fight in the Crusades. Thus from the beginning it was doomed to be a less than noble failure.
In all, there were moments of greatness and moments of honor. But these moments dissolved with cruel acts and the return of national loyalties (some armies were killed by Christians before they ever got to the Holy Land).
Most importantly, they were conducted in the name of the Prince of Peace which makes them less than noble.
However one thing stands out. Some had the wisdom to understand that this wasn't a religious war. They knew that it was a war over dominion. With the failure of the Crusades, the Muslims captures the stronghold of Constantinople and destroyed the Byzantine Empire of Orthodox Christianity. This led to the modern Middle East and the ongoing fights and battles we have there.
For the few that understood this (and the popes weren't among them) their goals were in my opinion noble.
Pastor John
2007-09-01 05:00:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The United States wanted to see the Government of South Vietnam develop into a prosperous, democratic society that benefited the people. Recent history suggested that a Communist takeover would lead to a blood-bath, the people would be crushed under the heal of a policy state, and they would be forced to live in poverty and fear if the Communists took over. For 20 years our protection provided most South Vietnamese with the kind of environment where they could live in relative comfort, security, and prosper. When North Vietnamese solders were exposed to the standard of living in even the most remote villages in rural South Vietnam they never ceased to be amazed at how much better these poor villagers were living then villages in North Vietnam that were considered prosperous. For years after the war the area that had been South Vietnam was more prosperous than the area that had been North Vietnam in the 60s. South Vietnam is one of the most pro-American regions in the whole of Southeast Asia today. Despite claims to the contrary, the American troops made a good impression on the people of South Vietnam and our time in that country is not remembered with any great animosity.
2016-04-02 22:04:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Arthurian legend is the fictional origin of England.
The Knights Templar lost the Holy Land to Saladin of Egypt in a series of battles, and were burned on crosses by the pope.
A contemporary equivalent of the Knights Templar is the Halliburton corporation. A contemporary equivalent of the Knights of Malta, (Knights Hospitaller), is the Blackwater security agency.
Capitalism is the psychology of imagining that employers are beneficial parent figures, instead of possible criminals practicing deception. Therefore, voting at work in order to control the property you are paying for isn't needed.
2007-09-03 03:52:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ideally, perhaps the Crusaders were on a noble cause, but in reality it wasn't.
2007-09-01 05:01:12 · answer #4 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither were in the least noble.
Both were calculated acts of brutality designed to achieve political domination by force. Neither had a great deal to do with religion, or indeed with principle. The Vietnam war failed ultimately because invasion - whatever its motive - is fundamentally evil. It was not learned then. I doubt it will be learned with Iraq - even though Iraq is the mightiest defeat of the last 100 years. The US and its allies, like in Vietnam, have lost on moral grounds, on military grounds, on political grounds, on grounds of principle and on practical grounds.
2007-09-01 04:59:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
20/20 hindsight dictates that the only "noble" wars are those that are won by the good guys, like the independence of the United States.
Otherwise, they're ill-conceived, too costly and for all the wrong reasons -- according to the pundits.
2007-09-01 04:59:52 · answer #6 · answered by felines 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
veitnam was not noble and nor where the crusades, learn a little more than what they teach you in history class biased to the american flag, ha no no they went there like 'they have a differrent plotical system, lets take it out' noble? same with the crusades, they have a different religion kill em
2007-09-01 04:56:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
That is what we like to call a cluster ****. And no, there is not comparison. Vietnam was about Communism, not land or religion.
2007-09-01 04:53:55 · answer #8 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. You do realize that the leader of South Vietnam wanted to wipe out all of the Buddhists don't you? Similarly the Crusaders wanted to kill all of the Muslims.
2007-09-01 04:54:29 · answer #9 · answered by The Return Of Sexy Thor 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Crusades- Vietnam ...Noble ??? Both were bloody well bull s..t........Can you spell Politics.....Power...
Different Century same BS...same kind of young blood spilled ---
2007-09-01 05:04:45 · answer #10 · answered by aredsailjunk 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋