| Author |
Message |
    
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7360
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 6:36 am: | 
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/05/rumsfeld.reut/index.html?section=cnn_late st
Warming relations is the key of course. However, I am especially pleased with Rumsfeld's push to locate remains, information, etc. on MIA'S..
Great job here by the Defense Secretary. Thank You, Mr. Secretary.
Proud to be an American.
(Of course, libs hated those who served in Vietnam) |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 793
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:03 am: |
|
Above post by a freedom hater. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4349
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:03 am: |
|
Of course, Rumsfeld never served in Vietnam. His active military service ended in 1957 at which time he began to operate a mean desk and soon proved that he could operate a meaner desk than many a Washington bureaucrat. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7361
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 8:01 am: |
|
Tjohn,
what's the point of your above post? Rumsfeld served his nation and his military record as opposed to Bush, Kerry etc. cannot be questioned.
"Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4351
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 8:24 am: |
|
Straw,
Your post implied that Rumsfeld served in Vietnam which he didn't.
As for his service, he will be remembered for Iraq and the dismantling of the U.S. Army. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 8:51 am: |
|
Strawberry is right to commend Rumsfeld for helping establish friendly relations with Vietnam, which is good for both of our countries. But it's pure myth to suggest that "libs" had negative views toward those who served in Vietnam.
The negative views of "libs" during the Vietnam War were not directed at the soldiers but at the policy-makers who sent them into a civil war which was none of our business. In my view, US soldiers by the late 1960s were more antiwar than any other segment of the US population.
The situation is similar today -- 29% of US troops in Iraq want us out immediately, while 72% of US troops in Iraq want us out by the end of 2006 (Zogby poll February 2006 www.BeAboutPeace.com). These figures are higher than any poll results for the general US population.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4352
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:00 am: |
|
Paul,
That is a somewhat revisionist view of how our soldiers were treated during the Vietnam War. They were reviled by a large number of Americans as the protests against the war became increasingly bitter.
As far as improving relations with Vietnam concerned, the Bush Administration is continuing a long process. The impressive thing is that they haven't made a hash of it. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7363
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:01 am: |
|
Tjohn,
My post in no way indicated that Rumsfeld served in Nam. He was there yesterday though. I guess this is where you got confused. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7364
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:04 am: |
|
Paul,
"baby killers"
John Kerry himself trashed the troops.
While I belive Americans did the right thing protesting that war, the left's anger was directed at the soldiers just as much as it was towards Johnson and Nixon.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2833
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:47 am: |
|
...and that's why even today, Viet Nam vets like being greated with "Welcome, home" and "Thank you for your service." Because what they got was absolutely the opposite. And, you didn't much want to note it on your resume. For a long time (haven't looked lately) one of the "discrimination" check boxes on employment applications related to "Viet Nam era military service."
I was anti-war but not anti-soldier then, but many were pretty awful to returning GIs. Even today, many assume all vets are crazy drug addicted fools with nightmares, or conservative apologists. Many are neither extreme; married to one now so appreciate the clarifications offerd by Strawberry and tjohn. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1812
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:01 am: |
|
Straw,
What exactly did Kerry say that trashed the troops? |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7365
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
4/22/71
"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
--John F. Kerry
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2834
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:19 am: |
|
And, yes, it still bugs the hell out of many of them -- though didn't necessarily stop many veterans from voting for Kerry (my husband being one). And Hanoi Jane is also still problematic. Both, to both Democratic and Republican vets.
That said, in my middle of the road household at least, today's Viet Nam era political hawks are more divisive (Cheney and co.). Many had something better to do. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4353
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:31 am: |
|
Unfortunately, what Kerry said was true although he omitted one vital piece of information which is the frequency with which these things happened. I personally knew an Army sergeant who told me they used shoot water buffalo sometimes just for kicks. I knew another Army sergeant who told me of a woman with her baby being machine-gunned for no good reason as she approached an Army base for medical assistance. And I remember being shocked at these stories. I had read about this stuff, of course, but it is different hearing about from an eyewitness.
But then, as now, the blame for these events rests with the political leadership which puts our soldiers in these situations. Geneva Convention or not, it is pretty clear that putting human beings in certain situations leads to atrocious behavior by some. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2835
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:38 am: |
|
Agree on frequency. I don't personally know of any vets who would deny that there were times/places where bad things happened (much as today, especially if soldiers are stressed and buddies were killed). Could say the same about WWII come to it.
The problem to me is that in many people's minds, some incidents mean all soldiers. I would also suggest that other groups of human beings in certain situations also do bad things. Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, overcrowded prisons. And, sometimes good things, too. Soldiers are people, often 19 year old male people. Inexperience can play a part, too. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1813
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
So he told the truth. Not sure how that is "trashing". |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4354
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
The truth about wartime attrocities without an assessment of the frequency tars all veterans. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 11:55 am: |
|
Most of the (maxium) 8 losers who shouted "baby killers" at returning soldiers during the Vietnam War were probably agents provocateurs hired to discredit the peace movement which always emphasized that soldiers who killed innocent civilians did so because they were fighting among a population that supported their enemies and became indistinguishable from their enemies.
Losers who shouted "baby killers" were about as numerous as flag burners -- virtually nonexistent.
It was important to inform Americans about killings of civilians -- as Kerry did -- because it made Americans aware of the reality that our soldiers were being forced to fight among civilians who supported the guerrillas. The soldiers were not protecting the population but were fighting the population. Kerry's testimony did much to explode The Big Lie that our soldiers were sent to Vietnam to defend the Vietnamese.
Eisenhower's statement many years prior that Ho Chi Minh was supported by 80% of the population had already exploded the lie, but not many Americans were aware of the statement.
Secretary Rumsfeld's initiative to improve relations with Vietnam, which Strawberry rightly praises, is being made with the successors of Ho Chi Minh.
Kerry's testimony -- like John Murtha's statements about Haditha -- was not a condemnation of the soldiers but a condemnation of the policy-makers who, under false pretenses, forced the soldiers to fight in the untenable situation that inevitably led to the tragedies that destroyed the lives of the soldiers as well as the civilian victims.
|
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7369
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
I disagree Paul,
Kerry with stars in his eyes crossed the line. He spent 2002-2004 attempting to explain what he meant and he was still unable to come up with an answer.
All this said, what Rumsfeld did yesterday should be appreciated even more. Relations with a nation like Vietnam today, after all these years is very important.
Families still need to know. Let's hope some find out. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2836
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Paul, you are wrong about the numbers of "losers" who shouted "baby killer" and similar. It was considerably more common that that, fueled in part by assumptions that the preponderance of soldiers engaged in such actions. At the same time, I would guess that some young soldiers under pressure did things in Viet Nam that they are not absolutely proud of. I think that's an unfortunate part of battle, and probably equally true of other prolonged, highly dangerous circustances. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
It was good of Straw to credit Clinton for normalizing relations in 1995, without which this diversion would not have been possible. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7370
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
The Clinton legacy. Normalizing relations with Vietnam and banging Monica..
What a guy.. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
I hadn't heard about that last part. Thanks. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Straw,
In the campaign, Kerry cravenly tried to run away from his role as an antiwar veteran, which was in fact his finest hour. Vietnam, like Iraq, was an unnecessary war that resulted in more than 50,000 American and more than 1 million Vietnamese deaths, not to mention hundreds of thousands of lives ruined by serious physical and psychological injuries. And a nation still suffering from widespread birth defects caused by massive attempts to defoliate Vietnam's jungles with Agent Orange.
We gained nothing and lost much.
We should only go to war only in self-defense, when under imminent threat, or as part of a United Nations Security Council action -- as required under the US Constitution.
Cynicalgirl -- I was active in the peace movement during the entire Vietnam war. For part of that time, I was in the US Army (1969-71). I traveled in uniform through perhaps a dozen cities while on leaves during that period. After I was discharged, I worked with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Queens and Long Island.
During all of this, I heard a lot of stupid stuff, but I NEVER heard anyone call soldiers "baby killers." It's a myth.
The only person I recall being called a baby-killer was Lyndon Johnson -- "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" This chant applied mostly to the policy of "free-fire zones" which included civilian areas. Most Vietnamese civilians who died in the war were killed by bombings either in the "free-fire zones" or as "collateral damage" in bombings in other areas.
|
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:56 pm: |
|
That's OK, Strawberry's medium of choice is myth. My favorite in this thread is "Proud to be an American". I think what he's saying is that he's glad to live in a country where he can slander Americans, critical thinkers, and the Constitution, and I'm guessing, get paid for it.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2837
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Paul, I'm not denying your experience -- just that others who served at a similar time seem to have had a different experience that still bothers them. My husband (who was in the army at the same time as you) and a number of his friends would suggest that more than 8 said that. I'm willing to believe them. So far as I know, none of them became active in the peace movement after their service, but neither were/are they avid defenders of the war. Just a bunch of former 19 year olds, most of whom were drafted away from whatever they were going to do next. And, if it matters, most not from urban areas/NY. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Cynicalgirl,
It's a travesty that your husband and their friends were called "baby killers." I never met anyone who said such a thing or would say such a thing, inside or outside the peace movement. What is certain, is that the phrase was not a mantra of liberals, as suggested in the first and ninth posts on this thread. That is a myth.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11737
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Paul, a friend of mine, an artilleryman, landed in San Francisco after his tour in Vietnam. This was even earlier than your tour, around 1966 or 1967. Now San Francisco is, and was, always San Francisco, but he and his friends were denied service in bars and insulted on the street. It affected them for years.
Back in the late 1980s there was a Vietnam Veterans march in NYC. I still remember after the march my friend and another friend (a genuine Silver Star wearing hero) sitting in his office with tears on their faces. This was the first time, I think, they had any closure on their Vietnam experiences.
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 563
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Gee, I heard and read the myth in the late 60's and beyond, uttered by more than eight individuals, in more than eight anti-war marches, in more than eight cities, incessantly, recorded and photographed and played on mass media, and printed in them, and quoted by the eminent TV talking heads of the times.
And let's give credit to JFK, who approved the assassination of President Diem in October 1963, coolly starting the war for us.
jd |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2839
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Heard that very kinda thing, Bob. What kind of hurts me is there's these kids, really, come home pleased with themselves with what they survived. I'm sure an element of machismo about it, too. Then, WHAM! Daren't wear your boonie hat or anything else associated for fear (even in more blue collar venues) that you'd be subject to harrassment.
That stinks. I didn't know my husband then, and I was more of a hippie (as he kind of became) but to be a pariah at 21... That's why he went to the Wall this Memorial Day, and a few others. To be with people who'd been through it, too, and shared a mix of pride, happiness that they were not a name on the Wall, sadness that some of their friends were, and just general fellowship. They sure don't want to be patronized for feeling the pride that they do -- which is not at all jingoistic sabre-rattling aint' war grand wasn't Nixon a peach stuff either. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7378
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 10:03 am: |
|
Your husband is a true American hero.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2842
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
Thanks (you made me cry). One of 2 times I'm seen my particular vet cry was when reading about sons and daughters who visit the Wall every year to wash it prior to a rose laying ceremony:
http://www.sdit.org/FathersDay05.htm
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page