Are the soldiers of Nam remembered in the same way as their counterparts in World War Two( as in like the normandy landing etc..)?
Now they are. Back in the day, they were villified by the american public for being "baby killers" and so on.
Vietnam was the first "televised" war. And I think it may have marked the first time most americans were really exposed to the harsh realities of war. Not knowing how to react, people began blaming the soldiers. My guess is that they didn't understand that the same stuff probably happened in previous wars, but just wasn't exposed as a result of limitations on the media.
But, I think Lee Iacocca said it best in his opening remarks in the film "Platoon" when said in regards to Vietnam veterans, "They were called, and they went."
Of course, what he was saying was that regardless of who may have won or lost, or what objective may or may not have been achieved, Vietnam veterans share a common ground with veterans of say, WWII, in that they answered their "call to duty", so to speak.
this thread has just reminded me, I met a guy today who's running a petition calling for Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange to receive compensation from the US.
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
Well, I'm under the impression that the draft was making it possible for war to be waged in Vietnam without recalling troops who had already served.
That is true. It prevented this "backdoor" draft. It also kept the reserves at home.
As for the later post about "they were called, etc.", back then you did not need to be a high school grad to join and many guys who were facing jail time weree given the option of joining the military or going to prison.
I don't think there were too many who willingly went.
I remember the feeling was that if someone joined willingly, they were a bit crazy.
I don't feel most answered the call to duty. Most were forced.
The problem with calling Vietnam a loss is that doing so would distort the very definition of what a loss truly is. The original objective was to stem the spread of communism into S. Vietnam and, by doing so, wage a "proxy war" against the USSR and China.
Now, there are many people out there who see a much different objective on the part of the US - an objective that entails a deliberate effort to spur the US economy through weapons and supply contracts. In which case, the US certainly did achieve its objective in Vietnam.
But, if we base our assessment of US achievements in Vietnam in regards to the first objective, then obviously there was an enormous failure. And, with that in mind, it's safe to say that every american who lost his her life, or who suffered in any way shape or form as a result of the war, did so in vain.
And it's that wasteful use of human life by our government that makes people feel inclined to call that war a loss. By calling it a loss, people hope to enforce the notion that our government should think twice before sending troops into battle w/o realistic and well-defined objectives. That is, by highlighting the failure of the US to reach its objectives, it is hoped that future politicians understand the severity of the potential consequences.
But, you have to ask yourself why the US didn't achieve its objective in Vietnam. And the answer is simple: Nixon couldn't handle the political pressures of the war.
Had Nixon been able to keep the war going w/o interference of public opinion, who knows how long US military presence in Vietnam would have lasted, in which case it's not entirely unreasonable to assume that the N. would have eventually given up. After all, Operation Linebacker II brought the N. to the negotating table in a big, big hurry.
So, what if the US had stayed in Vietnam for a few more years, resulting in the surrender of the north as well as thousands of additional US casualties? Would you call that a win? Would you then say "objective achieved"? Would your relative's wounds all of the sudden seem like justification for the US' achievements rather than its failures?
By your defition, the answer is yes. And that's why it's really more of an insult to call Vietnam a loss rather than to call it an abandoned and poorly planned US military objective. By calling the Vietnam war a loss, you are disproportionately focusing on the military's track record, rather than on the political debacle that it really was.
As I said before, the kill ratio was 17:1. For every US combatant that was killed, 17 N. combatants were killed. Had the war gone on longer, especially with the involvement of B-52 strikes, the US certainly would have achieved its objective.
In fact, even after US troops left, the US had agreed to lend heavy financial and military air support to the south vietnamese army, but later retracted as a result of the watergate scandal.
So, from a military standpoint, Vietnam was a victory. US troops in Vietnam did an outstanding job of taking on the enemy in its own environment. From a political standpoint, it was a failure. And that's why calling that war a loss is to insult the men and women who served there - it is to ignore the fact that while the US military was there, it was achieving its objectives in spite of being up against overwhelming odds.
...
Come up with all the excuses you want and try to warp factual events through the distortion of time... but, anyway you slice it... it was a loss. Deal with it.
It doesn't lessen the ideals and principles of America... and it doesn't tarnish the uniforms of our soldiers. All it says is, 'We fucked up. Let's take this lesson and learn from it so we do not repeat it.' America is not perfect and trying to cover up her blemishes, diminishes and nulifies the truth about her. We make mistakes, we're human. We need to get over this God complex of perfection and admit it... we are a nation of humans. And humans make mistakes.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Come up with all the excuses you want and try to warp factual events through the distortion of time... but, anyway you slice it... it was a loss. Deal with it.
It doesn't lessen the ideals and principles of America... and it doesn't tarnish the uniforms of our soldiers. All it says is, 'We fucked up. Let's take this lesson and learn from it so we do not repeat it.' America is not perfect and trying to cover up her blemishes, diminishes and nulifies the truth about her. We make mistakes, we're human. We need to get over this God complex of perfection and admit it... we are a nation of humans. And humans make mistakes.
No one is trying to cover up anything. If you think you have a point to make, try using supporting details.
No one is trying to cover up anything. If you think you have a point to make, try using supporting details.
...
You are lost in symantics... a loss is 'this'... not 'that'. Face the facts... we won every battle in Viet Nam, yet lost the War.
Point 1. Viet Nam is united, not divided (as we wanted it). South Viet Nam and saigon no longer exist.
Point 2. Viet Nam is a socialist nation, as Ho Chi Mihn wanted.
Point 3. Our military is not there. The Army we stood up in south Viet Nam is gone.
...
Pretending we didn't lose is a dis-service to the lives sacrificed in this political experiment. We lost, we need to learn from the lesson and we need to avoid making the same mistake.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Pretending we didn't lose is a dis-service to the lives sacrificed in this political experiment. We lost, we need to learn from the lesson and we need to avoid making the same mistake.
If you really want to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future, you have to focus on why Vietnam was abandoned, not lost. By using the term lost, you make it sound as though the US was really trying to win, which it wasn't.
You see, there's an even bigger sacrifice that Vietnam vets made than fighting in a war that was "lost". That bigger sacrifice was fighting in a war that their own government wasn't fully committed to winning. That is what makes Vietnam Vets the victims that you want them to be perceived as.
So, again, by calling the war a loss, you ignore the shameful fact that the US wasn't really trying to win. And by doing that, you are in fact ignoring the circumstances that made Vietnam the waste of military personnel and resources that it was. And by ignoring those circumstances, the most likely outcome will be a repetition of what happened. And that is a true insult to those who served there.
You can't learn from a mistake unless it is understood and remembered why that mistake happened. By referring to Vietnam as a loss simply because the original objective wasn't met, the how and why of the mistake is ignored, and therefore is not learned from. By referring to Vietnam was an abandoned objective, the misleading causation of "we tried, but we couldn't.." is immediately discounted, leading to the how and the why that serve as a reminder of the unnecessary wasteful sacrifices made by those who fought in Vietnam.
I agree with Sponger, we could of won Vietnam, but it would of took another 5 years at least, double the casualties unless we dropped the bomb again. It just wasn't worth it - which was the case from the start of the conflict. We just tried to achieve the objective by slowly escalating our involvement and resources. Intention and objective was somewhat correct - actions and results were not.
"This guy back here is giving me the ole one more....one more back to you buddy."
Comments
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Now they are. Back in the day, they were villified by the american public for being "baby killers" and so on.
Vietnam was the first "televised" war. And I think it may have marked the first time most americans were really exposed to the harsh realities of war. Not knowing how to react, people began blaming the soldiers. My guess is that they didn't understand that the same stuff probably happened in previous wars, but just wasn't exposed as a result of limitations on the media.
But, I think Lee Iacocca said it best in his opening remarks in the film "Platoon" when said in regards to Vietnam veterans, "They were called, and they went."
Of course, what he was saying was that regardless of who may have won or lost, or what objective may or may not have been achieved, Vietnam veterans share a common ground with veterans of say, WWII, in that they answered their "call to duty", so to speak.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Sign it here: http://www.petitiononline.com/AOVN/
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
As for the later post about "they were called, etc.", back then you did not need to be a high school grad to join and many guys who were facing jail time weree given the option of joining the military or going to prison.
I don't think there were too many who willingly went.
I remember the feeling was that if someone joined willingly, they were a bit crazy.
I don't feel most answered the call to duty. Most were forced.
Come up with all the excuses you want and try to warp factual events through the distortion of time... but, anyway you slice it... it was a loss. Deal with it.
It doesn't lessen the ideals and principles of America... and it doesn't tarnish the uniforms of our soldiers. All it says is, 'We fucked up. Let's take this lesson and learn from it so we do not repeat it.' America is not perfect and trying to cover up her blemishes, diminishes and nulifies the truth about her. We make mistakes, we're human. We need to get over this God complex of perfection and admit it... we are a nation of humans. And humans make mistakes.
Hail, Hail!!!
No one is trying to cover up anything. If you think you have a point to make, try using supporting details.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You are lost in symantics... a loss is 'this'... not 'that'. Face the facts... we won every battle in Viet Nam, yet lost the War.
Point 1. Viet Nam is united, not divided (as we wanted it). South Viet Nam and saigon no longer exist.
Point 2. Viet Nam is a socialist nation, as Ho Chi Mihn wanted.
Point 3. Our military is not there. The Army we stood up in south Viet Nam is gone.
...
Pretending we didn't lose is a dis-service to the lives sacrificed in this political experiment. We lost, we need to learn from the lesson and we need to avoid making the same mistake.
Hail, Hail!!!
If you really want to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future, you have to focus on why Vietnam was abandoned, not lost. By using the term lost, you make it sound as though the US was really trying to win, which it wasn't.
You see, there's an even bigger sacrifice that Vietnam vets made than fighting in a war that was "lost". That bigger sacrifice was fighting in a war that their own government wasn't fully committed to winning. That is what makes Vietnam Vets the victims that you want them to be perceived as.
So, again, by calling the war a loss, you ignore the shameful fact that the US wasn't really trying to win. And by doing that, you are in fact ignoring the circumstances that made Vietnam the waste of military personnel and resources that it was. And by ignoring those circumstances, the most likely outcome will be a repetition of what happened. And that is a true insult to those who served there.
You can't learn from a mistake unless it is understood and remembered why that mistake happened. By referring to Vietnam as a loss simply because the original objective wasn't met, the how and why of the mistake is ignored, and therefore is not learned from. By referring to Vietnam was an abandoned objective, the misleading causation of "we tried, but we couldn't.." is immediately discounted, leading to the how and the why that serve as a reminder of the unnecessary wasteful sacrifices made by those who fought in Vietnam.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
- Mr. Edward Vedder 7/11/03