Regardless if one disgree's with the cause for war...one should also never ridicule and harass those that went to fight (especially under draft conditions). That treatment of Vietnam vet's. is very disturbing in my mind.
I am adamant against Canada's involvement in Afganistan, yet I would never ridicule or harass a member of the military that is currently serving over there.
How were the soldiers treated by the anti war folk after they returned home?
BTW, if you ever get a chance visit the Vietnam Memorial in DC. It's completely overwhelming, even for someone like me that was not involved in any way.
I live in Ireland. Might check it out sometime. Always feel that most people coming back from war are traumatised
I believe they are permenatly scarred mentally.....I cannot wait (not literally of course) to see how the men and women from Iraq adjust on their return (whenever that will be) back home....they will make the scarred Vietnam vet's look normal....
I believe they are permenatly scarred mentally.....I cannot wait (not literally of course) to see how the men and women from Iraq adjust on their return (whenever that will be) back home....they will make the scarred Vietnam vet's look normal....
This conflict in no way compares to Vietnam, particularly for the average grunt. Go talk to someone who fought in the bush of Vietnam.
Not that I think this war is "easy" or won't result in mental scars for the troops. But you're comparing apples and oranges here.
This conflict in no way compares to Vietnam, particularly for the average grunt. Go talk to someone who fought in the bush of Vietnam.
Not that I think this war is "easy" or won't result in mental scars for the troops. But you're comparing apples and oranges here.
I tend to view the matter like this...from my opinon I think violent and traumatic memories re-occur more highly when the person is in an environment that is similar to the one they were in when the event occured....therefore because Vietnam was fought primarily in the bush most of the hardcore memories would be linked to that type of environment...where on the otherhand Iraq is fought in urban populated areas.....meaning lots of noises/sounds commonly found in America may spurn old repressed memories of past warfare due to the vast urbanization of America......
I tend to view the matter like this...from my opinon I think violent and traumatic memories re-occur more highly when the person is in an environment that is similar to the one they were in when the event occured....therefore because Vietnam was fought primarily in the bush most of the hardcore memories would be linked to that type of environment...where on the otherhand Iraq is fought in urban populated areas.....meaning lots of noises/sounds commonly found in America may spurn old repressed memories of past warfare due to the vast urbanization of America......
This point has some merit but the underlying assumption is that the troops are experiencing "warfare". Relative to Vietnam, they are not.
Many troops have returned and they are not necessarily "seriously messed up". A conflict with 1,500 casualties in 3 years does not compare to Vietnam.
It's like suggesting that the aftermath of Vietnam was the same as World War I or the Civil War. It makes no sense.
First the Iraq war is far from over and that there are many effects beyond fatalites....its not the dead you need to worry about being scarred its the thousands upon thousands of injured that will return to a country where they are basically shat on in terms of help for fighting for their country.....there will be a lot of issues upon their return......
This point has some merit but the underlying assumption is that the troops are experiencing "warfare". Relative to Vietnam, they are not.
So you are saying this is a lesser war than Vietnam...maybe for scale...but the same realities still exist.....and once again this war is still not over....
So you are saying this is a lesser war than Vietnam...maybe for scale...but the same realities still exist.....and once again this war is still not over....
Sure. Again, I'm not saying there won't be fallout for those fighting. But it won't be on the scale of the fallout from Vietnam.
The "realities" of Vietnam are far different than the "realities" or Iraq. You have a volunteer, well-trained army in Iraq that is much better prepared mentally and physically. In Vietnam you had active aggression throughout whereas Iraq is now largely a defensive battle for most of the troops.
Sure. Again, I'm not saying there won't be fallout for those fighting. But it won't be on the scale of the fallout from Vietnam.
The "realities" of Vietnam are far different than the "realities" or Iraq. You have a volunteer, well-trained army in Iraq that is much better prepared mentally and physically. In Vietnam you had active aggression throughout whereas Iraq is now largely a defensive battle for most of the troops.
Fair enough.....I was more trying to say that there will be a lot of issues(more than I think you were letting on)...off course, as of now, it cannot be as much as Vietnam (although the severity of those affected will be the same) for simply the reason of the scale of warfare......but I think there will be many....anyhow lets hope it ends quicker than it took for the boys to get home from Vietnam....
Vietnam was certainly a bad conflict/war for America and it's reputation. But I somehow believe that our involvemenet in Vietnam contributed to the eventual fall of communism and helped deter other countries from falling to communism (in conjunction with the Korean War, post WWII efforts, alienation of Cuba, etc.).
It would be interesting to know what would of happened if we never got involved in Vietnam, and what historians think of this theory.
"This guy back here is giving me the ole one more....one more back to you buddy."
Vietnam was certainly a bad conflict/war for America and it's reputation. But I somehow believe that our involvemenet in Vietnam contributed to the eventual fall of communism and helped deter other countries from falling to communism (in conjunction with the Korean War, post WWII efforts, alienation of Cuba, etc.).
It would be interesting to know what would of happened if we never got involved in Vietnam, and what historians think of this theory.
Vietnam did little to contribute to the "fall of communism". We lost. Communism reigned in Vietnam and is only now falling apart. The Russian defeat in Afghanistan did more to end communism than 100 Vietnams would have.
Communism is like the tides. You can't push them back. You just wait.
Do returning soldiers get paid like I'll say a pension on return from war?
How are the vets treated now
Career military gets a pension.........one termer not much really. I will say that when "In Country (war zone)," they got paid extra. I know a former Marine who told me that volunteered for repeated duty in 'Nam simply because he got paid better.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Vietnam did little to contribute to the "fall of communism". We lost. Communism reigned in Vietnam and is only now falling apart. The Russian defeat in Afghanistan did more to end communism than 100 Vietnams would have.
Communism is like the tides. You can't push them back. You just wait.
I dont believe we lost...the objective was not accomplished but i wouldnt call it a complete and utter failure. The Russian defeat is afghanistan was pretty much because of the United States supplying arms to the mujhadeen (ironic yes).
I dont believe we lost...the objective was not accomplished but i wouldnt call it a complete and utter failure. The Russian defeat is afghanistan was pretty much because of the United States supplying arms to the mujhadeen (ironic yes).
...
No. We lost.
It's like saying, "We didn't lose the ball game... we just failed to score more points than the other team".
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
No. We lost.
It's like saying, "We didn't lose the ball game... we just failed to score more points than the other team".
That's correct.......not only did we lose the game, we had a shitty gameplan and it showed.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Vietnam was never about communism, just like Iraq was never about terrorism. Both wars were about the same thing: U.S. business interests in these regions. The U.S. didn't want to be cut off from trade in Southeast Asia (where most of the world's rubber and tin come from). It had nothing to do with the "oppressive nature of communism", it had to do with the way communism doesn't fit well with capitalist business practices. Just like Iraq has nothing to do with the "evils of terrorism", it has to do with oil exports.
I dont believe we lost...the objective was not accomplished but i wouldnt call it a complete and utter failure.
What would you call it then?
The Russian defeat is afghanistan was pretty much because of the United States supplying arms to the mujhadeen (ironic yes).
Ironic, yes. Factual, no. The Russians lost in Afghanistan for the same reasons we lost in Vietnam. Both the Mujahideen and the Viet Cong could sustain incredible losses while neither the Russian population nor the American population would tolerate the smaller losses on their respective sides. Neither the Americans in Vietnam nor the Russians in Afghanistan were prepared to fight in the respective terrains they'd ventured into and they underestimated the strengths and tactics of their enemy.
Look, in Vietnam the US lost 60,000 men. That's a lot, but no where near the millions killed on the other side. Afghanistan was the same story. 20,000 Russian dead, one million Afghans dead. America didn't lose the Vietnam war because of the Chinese and the Russians didn't lose the Afghan war because of the Americans (though certainly those parties played a part). Both the Americans and Russians lost because of their own mistakes.
I understand it's very fashionable since 9/11 to revel in the concept that the Afghan conflict was a full-on American proxy war. Unfortunately that discounts the events in Afghanistan and Russia that led up to the conflict.
Vietnam was never about communism, just like Iraq was never about terrorism. Both wars were about the same thing: U.S. business interests in these regions. The U.S. didn't want to be cut off from trade in Southeast Asia (where most of the world's rubber and tin come from). It had nothing to do with the "oppressive nature of communism", it had to do with the way communism doesn't fit well with capitalist business practices. Just like Iraq has nothing to do with the "evils of terrorism", it has to do with oil exports.
The Vietnam War and the Iraq War did have similar motives. You've incorrectly identified that motive as greed. Unfortunately that motive is deeper than greed -- it's stupidity. Both the Iraq and Vietnam were wars fought because of an illogical fear of an undefined, vague entity that we refuse to understand.
The Vietnam War and the Iraq War did have similar motives. You've incorrectly identified that motive as greed. Unfortunately that motive is deeper than greed -- it's stupidity. Both the Iraq and Vietnam were wars fought because of an illogical fear of an undefined, vague entity that we refuse to understand.
I agree, there's stupidity involved (since the world's superpower couldn't easily invade and occupy a country devastated by years of war and sanctions), but I really don't think Iraq is being fought out of any kind of fear. This war on terror has nothing to do with the fear of terrorism. It has to do with business interests with oil. The terrorism factor is the pretext that is used to satisfy those business interests.
What's your evidence that it's being fought out of fear?
So in other words you have none.
The primary manifestation of fear is aggression. The United States woke up on 9/11 to the fact that there are elements of distant societies unattached to nation-states that wish to do us harm. The events of that day struck fear into America that these elements could one day work with nation-states to acquire significant weaponry without the concomitant accountability that comes with the possession of such weaponry by vested interests such as traditional nation-states. Rather than logically question the viability of or the reasons behind such behavior, the United States chose simple aggression with the purpose of spreading "free society" throughout the Middle East in the hopes of lessening the influence of such elements and to increase the transparency of Arab regimes.
If this was a "war for oil", I'd be much happier. We'd have abandoned it by now. Unfortunately, the people driving this war actually believe what they're saying.
The primary manifestation of fear is aggression. The United States woke up on 9/11 to the fact that there are elements of distant societies unattached to nation-states that wish to do us harm. The events of that day struck fear into America that these elements could one day work with nation-states to acquire significant weaponry without the concomitant accountability that comes with the possession of such weaponry by vested interests such as traditional nation-states. Rather than logically question the viability of or the reasons behind such behavior, the United States chose simple aggression with the purpose of spreading "free society" throughout the Middle East in the hopes of lessening the influence of such elements and to increase the transparency of Arab regimes.
If this was a "war for oil", I'd be much happier. We'd have abandoned it by now. Unfortunately, the people driving this war actually believe what they're saying.
This is my point. Niether of us have hard evidence on this. We might in 30+ years when documents have been de-classified, but right now we both rely on assumptions. You rely on the assumption that agression is about fear. I rely on the assumption agression can be about other things. There's arguments that back each of these assumptions up, but there's no real evidence.
Comments
I am adamant against Canada's involvement in Afganistan, yet I would never ridicule or harass a member of the military that is currently serving over there.
Ick. That gives me the fucking creeps.
We really need to repeal SSI registration, even if it means I can no longer challenge overzealous feminists by asking to see their registration card
BTW, if you ever get a chance visit the Vietnam Memorial in DC. It's completely overwhelming, even for someone like me that was not involved in any way.
I believe they are permenatly scarred mentally.....I cannot wait (not literally of course) to see how the men and women from Iraq adjust on their return (whenever that will be) back home....they will make the scarred Vietnam vet's look normal....
This conflict in no way compares to Vietnam, particularly for the average grunt. Go talk to someone who fought in the bush of Vietnam.
Not that I think this war is "easy" or won't result in mental scars for the troops. But you're comparing apples and oranges here.
Are you kidding me?
I for one think this troop will be seriously messed up when they return.....
I tend to view the matter like this...from my opinon I think violent and traumatic memories re-occur more highly when the person is in an environment that is similar to the one they were in when the event occured....therefore because Vietnam was fought primarily in the bush most of the hardcore memories would be linked to that type of environment...where on the otherhand Iraq is fought in urban populated areas.....meaning lots of noises/sounds commonly found in America may spurn old repressed memories of past warfare due to the vast urbanization of America......
Many troops have returned and they are not necessarily "seriously messed up". A conflict with 1,500 casualties in 3 years does not compare to Vietnam.
It's like suggesting that the aftermath of Vietnam was the same as World War I or the Civil War. It makes no sense.
This point has some merit but the underlying assumption is that the troops are experiencing "warfare". Relative to Vietnam, they are not.
First the Iraq war is far from over and that there are many effects beyond fatalites....its not the dead you need to worry about being scarred its the thousands upon thousands of injured that will return to a country where they are basically shat on in terms of help for fighting for their country.....there will be a lot of issues upon their return......
So you are saying this is a lesser war than Vietnam...maybe for scale...but the same realities still exist.....and once again this war is still not over....
Sure. Again, I'm not saying there won't be fallout for those fighting. But it won't be on the scale of the fallout from Vietnam.
The "realities" of Vietnam are far different than the "realities" or Iraq. You have a volunteer, well-trained army in Iraq that is much better prepared mentally and physically. In Vietnam you had active aggression throughout whereas Iraq is now largely a defensive battle for most of the troops.
Fair enough.....I was more trying to say that there will be a lot of issues(more than I think you were letting on)...off course, as of now, it cannot be as much as Vietnam (although the severity of those affected will be the same) for simply the reason of the scale of warfare......but I think there will be many....anyhow lets hope it ends quicker than it took for the boys to get home from Vietnam....
It would be interesting to know what would of happened if we never got involved in Vietnam, and what historians think of this theory.
- Mr. Edward Vedder 7/11/03
Amen to that.
Vietnam did little to contribute to the "fall of communism". We lost. Communism reigned in Vietnam and is only now falling apart. The Russian defeat in Afghanistan did more to end communism than 100 Vietnams would have.
Communism is like the tides. You can't push them back. You just wait.
How are the vets treated now
I dont believe we lost...the objective was not accomplished but i wouldnt call it a complete and utter failure. The Russian defeat is afghanistan was pretty much because of the United States supplying arms to the mujhadeen (ironic yes).
No. We lost.
It's like saying, "We didn't lose the ball game... we just failed to score more points than the other team".
Hail, Hail!!!
What would you call it then?
Ironic, yes. Factual, no. The Russians lost in Afghanistan for the same reasons we lost in Vietnam. Both the Mujahideen and the Viet Cong could sustain incredible losses while neither the Russian population nor the American population would tolerate the smaller losses on their respective sides. Neither the Americans in Vietnam nor the Russians in Afghanistan were prepared to fight in the respective terrains they'd ventured into and they underestimated the strengths and tactics of their enemy.
Look, in Vietnam the US lost 60,000 men. That's a lot, but no where near the millions killed on the other side. Afghanistan was the same story. 20,000 Russian dead, one million Afghans dead. America didn't lose the Vietnam war because of the Chinese and the Russians didn't lose the Afghan war because of the Americans (though certainly those parties played a part). Both the Americans and Russians lost because of their own mistakes.
I understand it's very fashionable since 9/11 to revel in the concept that the Afghan conflict was a full-on American proxy war. Unfortunately that discounts the events in Afghanistan and Russia that led up to the conflict.
The Vietnam War and the Iraq War did have similar motives. You've incorrectly identified that motive as greed. Unfortunately that motive is deeper than greed -- it's stupidity. Both the Iraq and Vietnam were wars fought because of an illogical fear of an undefined, vague entity that we refuse to understand.
I agree, there's stupidity involved (since the world's superpower couldn't easily invade and occupy a country devastated by years of war and sanctions), but I really don't think Iraq is being fought out of any kind of fear. This war on terror has nothing to do with the fear of terrorism. It has to do with business interests with oil. The terrorism factor is the pretext that is used to satisfy those business interests.
And the evidence you have to support this conclusion is what?
What's your evidence that it's being fought out of fear?
So in other words you have none.
The primary manifestation of fear is aggression. The United States woke up on 9/11 to the fact that there are elements of distant societies unattached to nation-states that wish to do us harm. The events of that day struck fear into America that these elements could one day work with nation-states to acquire significant weaponry without the concomitant accountability that comes with the possession of such weaponry by vested interests such as traditional nation-states. Rather than logically question the viability of or the reasons behind such behavior, the United States chose simple aggression with the purpose of spreading "free society" throughout the Middle East in the hopes of lessening the influence of such elements and to increase the transparency of Arab regimes.
If this was a "war for oil", I'd be much happier. We'd have abandoned it by now. Unfortunately, the people driving this war actually believe what they're saying.
This is my point. Niether of us have hard evidence on this. We might in 30+ years when documents have been de-classified, but right now we both rely on assumptions. You rely on the assumption that agression is about fear. I rely on the assumption agression can be about other things. There's arguments that back each of these assumptions up, but there's no real evidence.