2
   

The Truth about Vietnam vets!!!

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 09:04 am
So we can agree on the diverse group thing it looks like.

Sorry Baldimo.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 10:21 am
timberlandko wrote:
I doubt any of 'em did enjoy it, or would enjoy it again. I think you'd be amazed, revel, by how many would answer the call if it came as duty. Honor, responsibility, and sacrifice are powerful stuff.

For some folks.


So you honestly think that people would answer the call of duty as you phrase it to do the vietnam war thing voluntairly knowing what we know now about what an unjust it was? What is so honorable about going on your free will to an unjust war to kill people for an unjust cause?

i am not talking people who in the military and a war breaks out and they just do their duty. i am talking about making a conscience decision to go to vietnam to fight that war for those same reasons in the same circumstances because you believe in that particular cause. i know that won't happen, but i am just saying what if that were to happen, do you think very many veitnam vets would willingly go back there and do it all again knowing what they now know having lived through it all once before first hand?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 11:06 am
Considering most of them didn't go their voluntarily they wouldn't have gone the first time!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 11:17 am
revel, military enlistment is meeting the quoatas set by the military. If people were not answering the call, wouldn't you think the numbers would be down?
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 11:22 am
I live in the Bay Area and have both seen and met thousands of unemployed homeless Viet Nam vets.

The problem is a larger problem of unemployment that effects both veterans and non veterans alike. But when the economy is doing poorly the vietnam vets are conspicuously neglected.

The military is a glyph of the rest of society. You have the rank and file at the bottom who are at the mercy of the officers and generals. And in society as a whole you have a ruling class and struggling classes below them who will either kiss the bosses ass or feel that the boss is an oppressor.

When the Viet Nam Vets against the war became a force during that undeclared war it became clear that Nixon then like Bush today was lying to the public and donning his own rose colored glasses.

If Bush can succeed to win an election and I hope he can't, we will have four more years of lying, obfuscations, like an impeachment trial or two - and more of the same foul atmosphere in a divided nation that we have now. If Kerry wins you will find a comfortable relaxing of the forces of evil we know as the Republican agenda.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 11:26 am
McGentrix wrote:
revel, military enlistment is meeting the quoatas set by the military. If people were not answering the call, wouldn't you think the numbers would be down?


and apparently the quota they're meeting is not sufficient to maintain the bush war plan......

Gosh, when you can't recruit enough miltary to keep up the war to the level you wish.....you'd think that would be a pretty clear statement of the populations REAL feelngs on the war......in WW2 people volunteered in droves.......
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 12:30 pm
McGentrix wrote:
revel, military enlistment is meeting the quoatas set by the military. If people were not answering the call, wouldn't you think the numbers would be down?


My point in that maybe not very good question was that all the stories about veitnam that has been told since it ended are not just made up by "liberals" to slant a view against the military. It was an unjust war, terrible things did happen and a lot of vietnam vets have been affected by it in one way or another.
0 Replies
 
GoodKnood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 12:58 pm
I remember that undeclared police action very well and how they continued to tell us about the plans to win well after they knew better.

It sounds like the rhetoric they use right now.
0 Replies
 
GoodKnood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 01:02 pm
There were more than 40,000 American dead in Viet Nam. And there were far more wounded. We'll never know the number of enemy we killed.

Sure, some people thrive during wartime. Some people can be right on the front lines and be reasonably certain of their own safety.

When was the last time we got a report of a Colonel getting killed or a General getting wounded?

WWII that's when.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 03:46 pm
The author of this thread specifically asked that the candidates names not be used so this wouldn't become another Bush/kerry bashing thread. I wonder if the larger population of A2K is unable to discuss an issue without personal attacks against some national figure (or each other)? Some here are doing a good job though. Way to go.l
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 04:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The author of this thread specifically asked that the candidates names not be used so this wouldn't become another Bush/kerry bashing thread. I wonder if the larger population of A2K is unable to discuss an issue without personal attacks against some national figure (or each other)? Some here are doing a good job though. Way to go.l


I don't see where anyone has done as you suggested. Where? Sometimes I miss things obvious to others.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 04:33 pm
Foxfyre mentioned both of them. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 04:57 pm
Yeah, okay, so most of you are doing a good job. Smile

Well all right then. Carry on.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 06:04 pm
McGentrix states:

Quote:
revel, military enlistment is meeting the quoatas set by the military. If people were not answering the call, wouldn't you think the numbers would be down?


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2003/09/19/News/Army-Enlistment.Down-470697.shtml

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html

Living in San Francisco, there are quite a few homeless Vietnam vets who have literally lost their minds. There are dwindling services for them to rely on, and the trauma of the war has gone untreated for years and years. They do not have the capacity to make their own decisions in caring for themselves, and can't even socially bring themselves to walk into a place of shelter. It is truly very sad.

But it's fair to say that there are many different kinds of Vietnam vets from many different backgrounds, and many who found it hard to be successful after the war, due to lack of a college education, poor family upbringing, and/or drug abuse, which was widely condoned during the war. Why? Because the trauma of watching your friends die and knowing you might be next would be enough to make just about anyone an addict.

And many of those commanding officers condoned these actions as well.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 06:43 pm
Dookie, I challenge you, admittedly without having myself researched the matter, to provide any forensically valid evidence that any sort of substance abuse ever has been condoned by the US Military Establishment. BTW - the use of amphetimines as ordered pursuant to mission accomplishment emphatically and by definition does not qualify. We're looking here for ABUSE, not mission-critical prescribed use. I'll note that contrary to the practice of most contemporary navies, for instance, the 19th Century US Navy specifically proscribed the "Tot of Rum", holding that onboard consumption of alcohol by personnel serving aboard actively deployed naval vessels was contrary to regulation.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 06:52 pm
this blond fella from Yale looked around and said
"I may be crazy but I think not, I'd swear to god that I smell pot, but who'd have pot here in Vietnam" so I says to the blond fella, "what do you think you've been sitting on, all those tiny little plants" he turns to me as and says "good god almighty, pastures of plenty"
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 07:12 pm
dys, I ain't sayin' there wasn't drug use, and I sure as hell ain't saying I didn't play the game from time to time myself. What I am sayin' is that it was not only rare but roundly frowned upon while on-operation in Indian Country, and that substance abuse of any sort was officially proscribed to the point of being a courts-martial offense. Sure, some off-duty, rear-area pot smokin' wasn't vigorously prosecuted .. hell, it was broadly "overlooked", so long as it remained reasonably discrete and did not impair overall individual or unit readiness, but substance abuse of any kind never was in any way officially condoned.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 07:22 pm
timberlandko wrote:
dys, I ain't sayin' there wasn't drug use, and I sure as hell ain't saying I didn't play the game from time to time myself. What I am sayin' is that it was not only rare but roundly frowned upon while on-operation in Indian Country, and that substance abuse of any sort was officially proscribed to the point of being a courts-martial offense. Sure, some off-duty, rear-area pot smokin' wasn't vigorously prosecuted .. hell, it was broadly "overlooked", so long as it remained reasonably discrete and did not impair overall individual or unit readiness, but substance abuse of any kind never was in any way officially condoned.


I would hope not. I want the military to only be shooting at real targets, not imagined ones. What you write is what I've heard from vets hereabouts. However, there were some clandestine experiments done with lsd, but that was back before it became illegal... However, back to the pot... it was a popular drug for recreational use, has proven to have medicinal value (much as willow bark and awa has also) and was widely used during the Vietnam War era. However, pot, nor its use, is a significant issue of this election season. What does it have to do with the political clout of veterans? Nothing. Why? Because veterans, as a group don't bear political clout. They do through their union affiliations, their church affiliations, their club affiliations, but not as a group of veterans. Am I right?

I'm still trying to figure out what the agenda of this thread is beyond agreement among us that veterans are a diverse group. Confused
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 07:25 pm
well Timber, perhaps I was just there in the early days, but 'in-country smokin' was NOT discouraged to any extent. I do agree that very few became "druggies" while in Vietnam (none that I knew personally)
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 07:36 pm
Quote:
hell, it was broadly "overlooked", so long as it remained reasonably discrete and did not impair overall individual or unit readiness, but substance abuse of any kind never was in any way officially condoned.


It is just part of the coping mechanism that Vietnam vets utilized in dealing with an unjust war. I never mentioned substance abuse as being officially "condoned." Of course it wouldn't be. It would've been horrible p.r. for the war. But I would question the extent of the "impairment" of ANY of these drugs, as you seem to be convinced there was no impairment and that these drugs were used descretely.

It's safe to assume that the bottom rung of the Vietnam vets bore the cost of the war, and were the one's most likely to be addicted (or use) drugs during the war. The reason why I say it was widely condoned was because we were living in a culture of drug experimentation at the time, and the stigma of drug use just wasn't as profound as it is today. But it was reflected in the music we listened to, in the art that we saw, and in the movies that we watched.

Commanding officers looking the other way is, IMO, condoning such a practice. But it also was not an official policy either. If the services existed that could have helped the vets without letting them get strung out and homeless, then this would be a different subject. But as we all know, social services were cut drastically in the 80's, and that's when homelessness basically became part of the norm in this country.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:23:48