Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
What is meant by "support"? Lip service? Rob and redistribution schemes? Worship of all things the military and its wars of aggression?
Ill pass.
The government doesn't owe vets, particularly draftees, support for robbing those young men of years of their lives and redistributing their labor for causes all too often having no thought behind them?
What is meant by "support"? Lip service? Rob and redistribution schemes? Worship of all things the military and its wars of aggression?
Ill pass.
This is where you are wrong. Support does not mean worship.
I support my brother's decision of joining the Marine Corps, doesn't mean I worship HIM or the Corps.
Support to me means treating others with basic human decency, never judge a person based on their career choices. You can support the veterans, but you don't have to support the war.
Some interesting responses here. But some of them typify exactly what I was talking about and ignorance aided them in their conclusions.
Like what happened to vets returning from Nam, some here laid the entire blame for failing to be a success at the feet of the vets. They gave no consideration to the possibility many vets could not get work because no one would hire them. They gave no consideration that the horrors of war damaged some vets to the point they were unable to function as they did before going over there. They gave no consideration to the fact America treated the vets like crap.
Please don't give me your high and mighty analysis when you obviously are clueless. Strap on those boots, step into the jungle, watch your buddies get blown to pieces and take note of how long it is before you realize how much you have to learn.
But the point I was trying to make is there will always be self-appointed leaders who will vilify a small group and use them to get ahead. After I returned from Nam I saw that clear as a bell. That's what happens when YOU become the vilified, your eyes open.
Today we see the same thing happening and the people who used this age old tactic are now sitting in powerful positions. And yes, Trump is one of them. They tear at the foundation of free society by selecting a group, painting them as the bad guys and rallying their gullible followers when in fact they are simply gathering votes.
They don't care about making America safe. They only care about convincing voters they do. And once in office, they screw those very same voters by failing to work for them.
Our politicians today are Pied Pipers without a soul, the worst I have ever seen. And they are selling the idea that if you don't like the American they created, you need to pull yourself up by your boot straps and get to work and stop blaming them for failing to work for you. And if you just follow their advice, they can focus on big money donors without getting thrown out of office. It's smoke and mirrors and Americans are buying their BS big time.
The people who need to get to work are the politicians and they need to work for ALL of America and not just the fat cats. But until we realize we are being duped and vote the lazy, fat-cat-loving politicians out of office, America will continue to work only for corporations and the rich.
And you are basically doing the same thing with the "strap on your boots and step into the jungle" comment. I can not go to war mainly because"active military operations" ended in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also had grand parents and great relatives who were in wars. One died from mustard gas complications. The fact is I know what war can do, dead vets isn't something new but the unfiltered news accesses of Nam (which lead to other mainstream anti-war views with talks of massacres of the innocent.)
As I said in my original post, I'm not in disagreement with you in theory but the premise of using Nam and claiming that it was because people saw the war as evil is only part of the issue. There were self-inflicted wounds from those who were thieves and became drug dependent. I'm not saying vets intended to use street drugs either, it was a symptom of the war itself.
EDIT: i'm not anti-troop, I think it is horrible that we don't treat PTSD that much. It is a shame that we have all the VA and issues of getting care. I also don't like how we often discard vets once they come home besides say Veterans Day. That said, the problem with vets, especially Nam vets is not as cut and dry.
And you are basically doing the same thing with the "strap on your boots and step into the jungle" comment. I can not go to war mainly because"active military operations" ended in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also had grand parents and great relatives who were in wars. One died from mustard gas complications. The fact is I know what war can do, dead vets isn't something new but the unfiltered news accesses of Nam (which lead to other mainstream anti-war views with talks of massacres of the innocent.)
As I said in my original post, I'm not in disagreement with you in theory but the premise of using Nam and claiming that it was because people saw the war as evil is only part of the issue. There were self-inflicted wounds from those who were thieves and became drug dependent. I'm not saying vets intended to use street drugs either, it was a symptom of the war itself.
What I learned over the years is when we let our so-called leaders pick and choose who the winners and losers
We need to stand up for everyone in our country. Anyone who believes otherwise, is NOT an American. Stand united or fall, one by one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimChi2PG
But the point I was trying to make is there will always be self-appointed leaders who will vilify a small group and use them to get ahead. After I returned from Nam I saw that clear as a bell. That's what happens when YOU become the vilified, your eyes open.
Today we see the same thing happening and the people who used this age old tactic are now sitting in powerful positions.
The people who need to get to work are the politicians and they need to work for ALL of America and not just the fat cats. But until we realize we are being duped and vote the lazy, fat-cat-loving politicians out of office, America will continue to work only for corporations and the rich
bold is the point OP was making. He didn't mention one word of PTSD or play victim here. Why do some of you READ before throwing in your two cents? NOT every Vietnam vet thread is about PTSD, sheesh
I guess I should support Charles Manson since he is an American.
This is the sort of response that makes it clear that we need to be a little more critical on what we mean by 'support.'
Agree with uncritically is not the answer. Many do seem to expect this of others. It's a cheap shot, but it's the most obvious one: Trump voters. I can't tell you how many Facebook posts I've seen that have read something along the lines of: "you lost; so support the president." Again, what is 'support?' I recognize the reality that Donald Trump is the president. As far as being an American, that's literally as far as I need to go in terms of support. I disagree with him on most things, and it's my right to do so vocally. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the sort of support I should have.
In this same realm, yeah, you should support Charles Manson. In the same way that I support Donald Trump. Imagine a scenario in which someone decided Manson was too evil to deserve a trial. Well, turns out, that's not how it works and to think it is makes you unAmerican. And hell, even without the somewhat editorialized "unAmerican" angle, we can just say allowing the government to not give trials to some citizens opens up a door to do the same to others as well, meaning it's in your best interest to give all people a trial, for better or worse. Just an example.
I think the OP would be better off making this point: don't be an *******. He references veterans and the poor, and a vague reference to winners and losers (which I'm assuming is a reference to the POTUS being an *******). Consider that point. If you disagree with the war, maybe don't have the veterans. If you disagree with food stamps, maybe you shouldn't just mindless hate the recipients. If you won a (presidential) election, maybe you should respect the fact that not everyone agrees with the winners, as is their right.
Or we can all carry on being *******s and our little republic will crumble. Up to the you guys...
No I was replying to a specific phrase the op used in the post that I always hate. He divided what he tried to unite in the first paragraph or two in response.
Quote:
Please don't give me your high and mighty analysis when you obviously are clueless. Strap on those boots, step into the jungle, watch your buddies get blown to pieces and take note of how long it is before you realize how much you have to learn.
This is the sort of response that makes it clear that we need to be a little more critical on what we mean by 'support.'
Agree with uncritically is not the answer. Many do seem to expect this of others. It's a cheap shot, but it's the most obvious one: Trump voters. I can't tell you how many Facebook posts I've seen that have read something along the lines of: "you lost; so support the president." Again, what is 'support?' I recognize the reality that Donald Trump is the president. As far as being an American, that's literally as far as I need to go in terms of support. I disagree with him on most things, and it's my right to do so vocally. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the sort of support I should have.
In this same realm, yeah, you should support Charles Manson. In the same way that I support Donald Trump. Imagine a scenario in which someone decided Manson was too evil to deserve a trial. Well, turns out, that's not how it works and to think it is makes you unAmerican. And hell, even without the somewhat editorialized "unAmerican" angle, we can just say allowing the government to not give trials to some citizens opens up a door to do the same to others as well, meaning it's in your best interest to give all people a trial, for better or worse. Just an example.
I think the OP would be better off making this point: don't be an *******. He references veterans and the poor, and a vague reference to winners and losers (which I'm assuming is a reference to the POTUS being an *******). Consider that point. If you disagree with the war, maybe don't have the veterans. If you disagree with food stamps, maybe you shouldn't just mindless hate the recipients. If you won a (presidential) election, maybe you should respect the fact that not everyone agrees with the winners, as is their right.
Or we can all carry on being *******s and our little republic will crumble. Up to the you guys...
What is being *****es and *****ing is in the eye of the beholder. Take Trump for example, Manny of those saying we need to support him didn't support Obama and *****ed about him, yet defend Trump.
That said, I do think the problem is we are not active enough on government. Too many sat on the side lined back in November. Voter turn out was horrendous. People actually got mad when I tweeted hashtag vote or die in response to people complaining they didn't vote because they saw no use.
And you are basically doing the same thing with the "strap on your boots and step into the jungle" comment. I can not go to war mainly because"active military operations" ended in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also had grand parents and great relatives who were in wars. One died from mustard gas complications. The fact is I know what war can do, dead vets isn't something new but the unfiltered news accesses of Nam (which lead to other mainstream anti-war views with talks of massacres of the innocent.)
As I said in my original post, I'm not in disagreement with you in theory but the premise of using Nam and claiming that it was because people saw the war as evil is only part of the issue. There were self-inflicted wounds from those who were thieves and became drug dependent. I'm not saying vets intended to use street drugs either, it was a symptom of the war itself.
I spoke of what it was like returning from Viet Nam to show how Americans can turn on one another when they follow self serving leaders. Rather than admit the war was senseless and that we should have never been there in the first place (and tell their defense contractor donors the party is over) they picked out the few vets who were struggling and called them druggies, losers and blights on society. In doing so they tainted every returning vet with an undeserved stigma but, more importantly, were able to keep their jobs and keep the money flowing into their donor's pockets.
That's how politicians get to have their cake and eat it too. And if America suffers, who cares? At least the politicians are fat and happy and as long as they keep BSing Americans, they get to remain in office where they can feed the fat cats, who are more than happy to return the favor.
It's been that way forever.
But today these new politicians have taken greed to a new level. They no longer give us some table scraps to keep us happy. They want it all. And they have created a fanatical group of followers who have cast aside loyalty to country in the hopes the party will make their lives better.
These party loyalists are quick to parrot the party mantra - If you want a better life, work! - but they themselves don't want to do the work necessary to make their life better. They want their party to do it for them. And so they blindly follow.
Our country is terribly fractured and the politicians couldn't be happier. A divided country is easier to conquer. Party loyalty trumps loyalty to country when a country is divided. And they know if the party loyalty is blind, they can rob us blind.
No I was replying to a specific phrase the op used in the post that I always hate. He divided what he tried to unite in the first paragraph or two in response.
well, I don't believe he divided what he tried to unite.
Most people don't know what it is like to be in the war zone, especially when that war is so unpopular.
Just because one's parents, grandparents were in the war zones, doesn't mean ONE him or herself understand what it is like to be a combat soldier or Marine or sailor, or airman.
I volunteer at a VA hospital and my experience is that MOST combat veterans kept it to themselves. They hate the question of "how many people you have killed." matter of fact, it is a taboo for almost all of them. They also don't want to share war stories. They just want to heal their wounds and carry on. NONE really considers himself as a "victim".
It is true that a lot of people like to judge them. I even saw several protesters in front of VA hospital.
I bet such people will never protest in front of the Marine Corps base. Cowards, that is what they are.
All these said, my post is not directed at you personally. You are a reasonable poster. I think maybe you misunderstood the point OP was making.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do some of you READ before throwing in your two cents? NOT every Vietnam vet thread is about PTSD, sheesh
