Talk:Robert McNamara

		This article was nominated for deletion on June 30th, 2010. The result of the discussion was Keep.

From the debate in Votes For Deletion

McNamara's legacy was not, in this article's trite, anti-American tradition, toasting tens of thousands of Vietnamese, but to the contrary, embracing the philosophy of, "Let's bomb them a little, pull back, and see if they've gotten the message," the message being that I am One Tough Customer. This is the posturing "statecraft" that has since motivated a generation of American nation-builders, when they are not busy spoiling their kids. McNamara deserves to be remembered through an Uncyclopedia article that is as dark as we can make it. Spıke Ѧ 02:56 30-Jun-10

McNamara is one of the evil guys, even though he admitted it later in life so that was cool. But still, a special place in hell was reserved for him. I know, I've seen it. Aleister 2:59 30 6 MMX

I disagree with Aleister in Chains. McNamara was not evil. Out of his league, perhaps. Fighting a losing cause with one arm tied behind his back, yes. Made plans that he later (and even at the time) regretted? Yes. War criminal? Yes. Evil, not so much. Note that all governments have war criminals in them. Napalm is no more evil than Fuel Air Explosives. One burns to death and the other bursts your soft tissues to death. They're both terrible ways to die and, in a just world, nobody would use them. Cluster bombs/submunitions and landmines, too. A .50 bullet is no worse than a .223, but only one of them is "okay" to be fired at personel. Killing "the enemy" the "right" way and the "wrong" way are the same way; making a bigger mess of "the enemy" than they make of you, breaking them before you break. In the case of the US, it's a strong enough State that "our" war criminals don't get prosecuted. Granted, it's been quite a while since I fought in The 'Nam, so there is some Fog on the War. I do remember a nice helicopter ride with about eighty other people. Some guy in a suit ate my peanuts! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

No, sent you to war and tied one of your hands behind your back. That's evil. Like many Secretaries of Defense and their writers of Rules of Engagement ever since. You have a valid point about the useless nuances of war treaties. But your appeal to justice in a "fair" world must distinguish between the guy who starts the war and the guy who tries to take him down. Given strongmen bent on territorial conquest, preoccupation with the fact that a given outcome is unfair to a given individual is dangerous. Spıke Ѧ 12:29 5-Jul-10

McNamara didn't start it. He got the Big Chair just before it all went sideways and got stuck overseeing a steadily-rising pile of dead sons (and innocents) on both sides. He tried to lead an profoundly irrational war rationally. The world is far greyer than we'd prefer it to be (for one, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, conspiracy theories aside, was not clear-cut at the time). Curtis Lamay was a monster. McNamara (and LBJ) were not. Nor were the VC (or even our South Vietnamese allies) angels. Life is rarely so simple. Granted, my opinion itself is conflicted as I have an uncle who looks just like and has similar mannerisms to him (not exactly so, but close enough to be...familiar), which may be adding a layer of empathy he hasn't earned. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:17, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

So, if he wasn't utterly evil, then what was he? A psychopath or just morally ignorant? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:24, 5 July 2010

Human. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:56, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

No, McNamara didn't start the war--but we had a duty under treaty to defend the South against invasion. Signing such a treaty might be ill-advised; initially "fighting" merely by sending "advisors" might be treachery. But once engaged, sacrificing troops in order to posture is evil. Spıke Ѧ 22:32 5-Jul-10

I'm pretty sure that your first sentence cancels out your last. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:46, July 5, 2010 (UTC)