[fricat1ve]

>there has been a massive campaign to roll back what was called “Vietnam syndrome” — the idea that you should consider the morality of your actions and contributions to society, not mere legality.

Is that what is typically meant by "Vietnam syndrome"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Syndrome

Also, isn't it a stretch to say Hollywood movies about WWII propagandize the idea one should only consider the legality of one's actions rather than the morality? If anything I would think most films attempt (in a sappy and trite way) to defend the rightness of the Allied cause.

[abalone]

Didn't say that. WWII was a case where legality and morality overlap more conveniently which is why it is a favored topic. Still debatable in many aspects e.g. Nagasaki, firebombing cities, not bombing the concentration camps, etc., but in comparison to say Vietnam, you see the point. You don't see too many films these days celebrating the nobility of unquestioningly doing one's duty to support the righteous fight in Vietnam.

[fricat1ve]

Ok, I understand a little better now. I still think this "legality" line of argument is a bit of a red herring and I'm not sure where the poster you responded to got his ideas about how things were "in earlier days" and what "was always the standard."

I think it's probably fair to say that Vietnam was an eye-opener that shook a lot of people's trust in the wisdom of our society's leadership in general. And that a segment of society nevertheless responded like Kissinger by doubling down and shaming the doubters.