Fred wrote: "Hangman" calls it a "rotten war" and brags about being part of it? Strange. Sorry, I have more respect for the "draft dodgers," who thought for themselves and had the guts not to participate in an illegal war, in which the US invaded a country most people had never heard of, committing atrocities, killing innocent people because all Viet Namese might be the enemy ("they all look alike"), destroying an already backward country, ruining people's lives. They have so much to be proud of. Funny how the people who talk so much about how they hate and distrust the government are so willing to do what it tells them - if that involves harm to foreigners.
I guess interpretation is up to the individual. I read the same post you did but did not take away that Hangman was "bragging". I too served in Vietnam and tell people about my experiences when it is appropriate but I do not consider that "bragging". I would opine that most vets are that way.
And you need to educate yourself on the reasons we went to war in Vietnam. For better or worse, and it did turn out worse, the effort was initially designed to support the corrupt Catholic dictatorship of the former French colony. That was mistake #1. We initially tried to issue a measured military response and hoped the insurgents would stay north of the DMZ. Mistake #2. We widened the war outside Vietnam into neighboring countries to address the enemy's supply lines. Mistake #3. But the biggest mistake was that we didn't fight to win. Our political "leadership", such as it was, was afraid of North Vietnam's sponsor countries and didn't want to antagonize them any more than necessary so we ended up sacrificing 50,000+ of our military and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese from both sides in a futile effort. Mistake #4.
Vietnam was a lot like the Pacific theater during WWII. It was a vicious, intense murderous conflict where no quarter was asked or given. It was impossible to tell the Vietnamese enemy from friend - and frequently friends turned into enemies overnight. If you have never tried fighting in such a war you cannot imagine the difficulties in identifying one from another and the mistakes that invariably happen. While it is true that a very few atrocities took place on our watch it is also true this was standard operating procedure for our enemy - most of the time against their own people.
I have a few Vietnamese friends today - all of whom were boat people who fled their country after the fall in 1975. Without exception they do not blame us for trying to help even though we caused a great deal of suffering. Their families who stayed suffered a great deal more at the hands of their new Communist masters.
And if you are going to lay the blame on an American politician for starting the war go back to Ike who, in 1954, picked up the war the French had already lost.
Fred wrote: The "support the troops" attitude Mr. Eduardo and Hangman demand, and which the media embrace, does nothing more than allow more such wars and more US service personnel to die, be injured for life or otherwise have their lives ruined. Maybe it helps those who have gone overseas to (as Rush puts it) "kill people and break things" to avoid shame and guilt and to feel better about their crimes but, more importantly, these undeclared "wars" are good for business.
"Support the troops" does not necessarily mean support for the reasons they are fighting. Whether you agree with the war's purpose or not you still must admit it takes a certain bravery to put on a uniform and go in harm's way. And for those who come back in poorer condition than they left it shows a nation's gratitude for their effort.
I will agree that in my lifetime America has gotten involved in many more conflicts that it should have. Interfering in the politics of South American countries in the 50's (and going back to the policies of Teddy Roosevelt), the Middle East and Southeast Asia but none of those were started by our military. It was the politicians who got us involved and then sent our armies in. If you are going to put the blame on someone at least put it where it belongs and not on the poor soldier who has no say.
Fred wrote: And back to slavery: People were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Call conscription what it is: Slave armies.
Most of us who fought in Vietnam were given little choice. We either were drafted directly into the military or "volunteered" under the threat of mandatory military service. I was one of the latter and I joined up before any of us had heard of Vietnam. I was in the Navy almost one year before anyone in my company knew where Vietnam was (it was called French Indo-China in the classrooms of our high school). We had no choice where we were sent. We could have ignored our draft notices and many did. We could have deserted once in the military and many did that too. The honorable ones were the people that served. That we were consistently lied to by our military and civilian leaders and put in a war we could not win as staged was not our fault. We did what we were told to do and most did it honorably and with significant bravery. It was the politicians and senior military who were and are responsible for the gaffe that was Vietnam, not the individual soldier, sailor, airman and marine.
Fred wrote: Germans, whose actions were no different than things US forces had done then and since, were considered war criminals. Different standards apply to winners and losers. Civilian targets in Germany were bombed to (Churchill's words) to promote "terror." Not much different than flying passenger planes in office buildings.
You are a first class idiot. American forces did not maintain concentration camps and the wholesale murder of civilians who belonged to a certain class of people. American troops did not massacre entire villages in retaliation for the activities of underground soldiers or civilian spies. American troops did not burn down entire towns as a means of terrorizing the locals into submission. American troops did not massacre captured enemy soldiers. And our enemies were treated for the most part in line with the Geneva Convention and given adequate food and shelter as captives. When German troops were on the verge of defeat and had a choice of whom to surrender it was always the armies of the West they would go to. Although there are always incidents in war that are outside the boundaries of the general rules of warfare it was not official policy in the Western armies as it was with the German Wehrmacht.
And, once again, if you care to educate yourself you will find that Churchill began his "terror bombing" of German cities only after Germany unleashed its own bombing of civilians in England.
I do not know how old you are nor your background but will estimate you are operating from hindsight in your knowledge and evaluation of the war in Vietnam. Much of what you spew sounds identical to that flushed out of ultra-liberal media. Unless you lived through those times you cannot possibly understand how it occurred.
I guess interpretation is up to the individual. I read the same post you did but did not take away that Hangman was "bragging". I too served in Vietnam and tell people about my experiences when it is appropriate but I do not consider that "bragging". I would opine that most vets are that way.
And you need to educate yourself on the reasons we went to war in Vietnam. For better or worse, and it did turn out worse, the effort was initially designed to support the corrupt Catholic dictatorship of the former French colony. That was mistake #1. We initially tried to issue a measured military response and hoped the insurgents would stay north of the DMZ. Mistake #2. We widened the war outside Vietnam into neighboring countries to address the enemy's supply lines. Mistake #3. But the biggest mistake was that we didn't fight to win. Our political "leadership", such as it was, was afraid of North Vietnam's sponsor countries and didn't want to antagonize them any more than necessary so we ended up sacrificing 50,000+ of our military and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese from both sides in a futile effort. Mistake #4.
Vietnam was a lot like the Pacific theater during WWII. It was a vicious, intense murderous conflict where no quarter was asked or given. It was impossible to tell the Vietnamese enemy from friend - and frequently friends turned into enemies overnight. If you have never tried fighting in such a war you cannot imagine the difficulties in identifying one from another and the mistakes that invariably happen. While it is true that a very few atrocities took place on our watch it is also true this was standard operating procedure for our enemy - most of the time against their own people.
I have a few Vietnamese friends today - all of whom were boat people who fled their country after the fall in 1975. Without exception they do not blame us for trying to help even though we caused a great deal of suffering. Their families who stayed suffered a great deal more at the hands of their new Communist masters.
And if you are going to lay the blame on an American politician for starting the war go back to Ike who, in 1954, picked up the war the French had already lost.
Fred wrote: The "support the troops" attitude Mr. Eduardo and Hangman demand, and which the media embrace, does nothing more than allow more such wars and more US service personnel to die, be injured for life or otherwise have their lives ruined. Maybe it helps those who have gone overseas to (as Rush puts it) "kill people and break things" to avoid shame and guilt and to feel better about their crimes but, more importantly, these undeclared "wars" are good for business.
"Support the troops" does not necessarily mean support for the reasons they are fighting. Whether you agree with the war's purpose or not you still must admit it takes a certain bravery to put on a uniform and go in harm's way. And for those who come back in poorer condition than they left it shows a nation's gratitude for their effort.
I will agree that in my lifetime America has gotten involved in many more conflicts that it should have. Interfering in the politics of South American countries in the 50's (and going back to the policies of Teddy Roosevelt), the Middle East and Southeast Asia but none of those were started by our military. It was the politicians who got us involved and then sent our armies in. If you are going to put the blame on someone at least put it where it belongs and not on the poor soldier who has no say.
Fred wrote: And back to slavery: People were drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Call conscription what it is: Slave armies.
Most of us who fought in Vietnam were given little choice. We either were drafted directly into the military or "volunteered" under the threat of mandatory military service. I was one of the latter and I joined up before any of us had heard of Vietnam. I was in the Navy almost one year before anyone in my company knew where Vietnam was (it was called French Indo-China in the classrooms of our high school). We had no choice where we were sent. We could have ignored our draft notices and many did. We could have deserted once in the military and many did that too. The honorable ones were the people that served. That we were consistently lied to by our military and civilian leaders and put in a war we could not win as staged was not our fault. We did what we were told to do and most did it honorably and with significant bravery. It was the politicians and senior military who were and are responsible for the gaffe that was Vietnam, not the individual soldier, sailor, airman and marine.
Fred wrote: Germans, whose actions were no different than things US forces had done then and since, were considered war criminals. Different standards apply to winners and losers. Civilian targets in Germany were bombed to (Churchill's words) to promote "terror." Not much different than flying passenger planes in office buildings.
You are a first class idiot. American forces did not maintain concentration camps and the wholesale murder of civilians who belonged to a certain class of people. American troops did not massacre entire villages in retaliation for the activities of underground soldiers or civilian spies. American troops did not burn down entire towns as a means of terrorizing the locals into submission. American troops did not massacre captured enemy soldiers. And our enemies were treated for the most part in line with the Geneva Convention and given adequate food and shelter as captives. When German troops were on the verge of defeat and had a choice of whom to surrender it was always the armies of the West they would go to. Although there are always incidents in war that are outside the boundaries of the general rules of warfare it was not official policy in the Western armies as it was with the German Wehrmacht.
And, once again, if you care to educate yourself you will find that Churchill began his "terror bombing" of German cities only after Germany unleashed its own bombing of civilians in England.
I do not know how old you are nor your background but will estimate you are operating from hindsight in your knowledge and evaluation of the war in Vietnam. Much of what you spew sounds identical to that flushed out of ultra-liberal media. Unless you lived through those times you cannot possibly understand how it occurred.
