Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Which decade was the most fun for you personally?
superboyac:
The 90s were a lot of fun because I was doing mostly university work research. But for sheer fun, it was the 60s as a kid. The music was great, college was a special experience, most everything was cheap, and I didn't grow up being told everything from riding a bike to shooting a gun was insanely dangerous. The older I got, the less fun I had and the more I saw life as a need to avoid the easy but often life-changing mistakes that would cripple my chances in certain professions. Thus I'd choose the 60s every time.
-zridling (March 19, 2012, 01:32 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sounds pretty freaking good to me. What about all the draft stuff we hear about in history? How did that feel? I don't know how I would feel...there was a time when I actually wanted to join the military, but not anymore (obviously).
40hz:
What about all the draft stuff we hear about in history? How did that feel?
-superboyac (March 19, 2012, 02:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
It sucked royally. And it was scary. You could watch the war on the news and get updated casualty figures twice (6pm and 11pm) almost every night. (That was before the era of embedding news reporters and sanitizing the news stories.)
And you could also talk to the people that made it back.
I never met anybody, including my conservative pro-American relatives who served over there, who ever had anything much good to say about that war. Or their own involvement in it. My cousin (USMC) summed it up in a letter to his folks by saying, "It's going to be ok. We don't kid ourselves over here. We aren't fighting for Uncle Sam, or Van Thieu. We're fighting for each other. At least until the big guys back home figure out what they want us to do. When they do, it gets pretty busy for us. But most days, we just do what we can to keep each other alive long enough for them to send us back home."
I kept a copy of that letter in my wallet and used to read it to people when they said that "at least the people brave enough to serve" believed in what we were doing over there. (I still have it too!)
Somewhere around 58,000 didn't make it back. And well over 300,000 came home wounded. Many never got the medical or other benefits they had been promised. That's because superpower America had effectively lost its war against an army composed of farmers and other rural types. And we were embarrassed by it. So when it was over, the country mostly wanted to forget as quickly as possible that there ever was a place called Viet Nam.
And it never seemed a noble or inspirational war either. The news footage that came back was gritty and disturbing. Nothing like the glorious and grand thing we had been brought up to see war as when we were kids. In fact, it all looked rather ugly. Especially when the footage showed uprooted villagers and wounded civilians. This sickening photo was one of the most famous taken during the war. WARNING: it's still a very upsetting image. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.) There's plenty more like it you can find by Googling assuming you have the stomach for that sort of thing.
Adding to our overall disgust was also the little problem of explaining exactly what we were doing there. None of us (including half the people in government) seemed to have any idea why we were fighting. There were the usual "fighting communism" and "protecting freedom" arguments. But they had an oddly hollow ring to them compared to WWII, where it was painfully clear to everyone why we not only had to fight, but also win that war. (It took the Pentagon Papers leak to get to the real story behind our involvement.)
I was lucky. I was young enough to get a draft card (1A status) very shortly before they finally suspended the draft. Two years later, almost to the day, President Gerald Ford announced the US was officially out of Viet Nam. My cousin's outfit was among the last Marine units to leave in late April 1975. We didn't find out that he made it out alive and unhurt until almost a week later...
Those are my main memories of Viet Nam and the draft.
-------------
Note: some years after the war, the government Viet Nam acknowledged an estimated 4 million civilian casualties (dead/wounded) and approximately 1 million military dead and 600,000 wounded for both sides between 1955 and 1975.
Note 2: The United States first became involved in Viet Nam in 1950 when it began sending military and intelligence "advisers" to the French colonial government. The US did not send obviously military personnel (still classed as advisers) to Viet Nam until 1961-62. Actual U.S. military combat units were first deployed in 1965, which marked what most consider the official beginning of what came to be called the Viet Nam War. So although the US government liked to claim it's troops were only in Viet Nam for about 10 years, in truth they were there in some capacity for nearly 20 - and were involved in direct military combat operations for most of them.
superboyac:
What about all the draft stuff we hear about in history? How did that feel?
-superboyac (March 19, 2012, 02:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
It sucked royally. And it was scary. You could watch the war on the news and get updated casualty figures twice (6pm and 11pm) almost every night. (That was before the era of embedding news reporters and sanitizing the news stories.)
And you could also talk to the people that made it back.
I never met anybody, including my conservative pro-American relatives who served over there, who ever had anything much good to say about that war. Or their own involvement in it. My cousin (USMC) summed it up in a letter to his folks by saying, "It's going to be ok. We don't kid ourselves over here. We aren't fighting for Uncle Sam, or Van Thieu. We're fighting for each other. At least until the big guys back home figure out what they want us to do. When they do, it gets pretty busy for us. But most days, we just do what we can to keep each other alive long enough for them to send us back home."
I kept a copy of that letter in my wallet and used to read it to people when they said that "at least the people brave enough to serve" believed in what we were doing over there. (I still have it too!)
Somewhere around 58,000 didn't make it back. And well over 300,000 came home wounded. Many never got the medical or other benefits they had been promised. That's because superpower America had effectively lost its war against an army composed of farmers and other rural types. And we were embarrassed by it. So when it was over, the country mostly wanted to forget as quickly as possible that there ever was a place called Viet Nam.
And it never seemed a noble or inspirational war either. The news footage that came back was gritty and disturbing. Nothing like the glorious and grand thing we had been brought up to see war as when we were kids. In fact, it all looked rather ugly. Especially when the footage showed uprooted villagers and wounded civilians.
Then there was that problem of exactly what we were doing there. None of us (including half the people in government) seemed to have any idea why we were fighting. There were the usual "fighting communism" and "protecting freedom" arguments. But they had an oddly hollow ring to them compared to WWII, where it was painfully clear to everyone why we not only had to fight, but also win that war. (It took the Pentagon Papers leak to get to the real story behind our involvement.)
I was lucky. I was young enough to get a draft card (1A status) very shortly before they finally suspended the draft. Two years later, almost to the day, President Gerald Ford announced the US was officially out of Viet Nam. My cousin's outfit was among the last Marine units to leave in late April 975. We didn't find out that he made it out alive and unhurt until almost a week later...
That's my memory of Viet Nam and the draft.
-40hz (March 19, 2012, 03:57 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, I'm glad we don't have to go through that. Although...minus the draft bit, it doesn't seem too different from our wars right now.
I wonder what citizens of the world would have felt about all those past wars had they had access to video and information the way we do now. It's easy to stir up feelings of pride and patriotism when you can't see or know what's actually happening.
40hz:
I wonder what citizens of the world would have felt about all those past wars had they had access to video and information the way we do now. It's easy to stir up feelings of pride and patriotism when you can't see or know what's actually happening.
-superboyac (March 19, 2012, 04:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
The pentagon has acknowledged that following Viet Nam, there has been a direct commitment on the part of the military and our government to manage what news gets out to the public - and how the story gets told.
Reporters are no longer allowed free access to combat areas. This is officially the policy for reasons of their own safety and to preserve "operational security" during a combat operation. But it's an open secret its primary function is to control access.
Reporters who were in the last three US conflicts all reported (at least initially) they were obviously being "handled" and "managed" and "steered" by military liaisons.
And many news watchdogs have expressed concerns over the process of "embedding" reporters in combat units due to the natural tendency of humans to bond in crisis situations. Something that can have impact on a reporter's objectivity when reporting on the actions of "his" military unit. (Many observers have noted a distinct tendency on the part of embedded newspeople to become advocates for the units they're with rather than the critical neutral observers they're supposed to be the longer they remain with the units. Which is perfectly understandable.)
The government has also adopted a policy of not reporting casualty figures (military or civilian) on anything resembling a regular basis. And also blocking press access to members of the families of wounded or dead military personnel. (News photography is routinely not permitted at military funerals.)
So suffice to say there isn't much in the way of completely independent news coverage of US wars any more. Largely because the United States is no longer willing to allow someone other than official sources tell the official story. A practice the major news networks now seem to be willing to go along with.
There's good arguments for and against about doing it the way it's currently being done.
But please let's not have that discussion here. It will only start one of those no-win never-ending arguments. :tellme:
superboyac:
But please let's not have that discussion here. It will only start one of those no-win never-ending arguments. :tellme:
-40hz (March 19, 2012, 04:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
ok ok ;D
Who was saying over the weekend about how topics were spinning out of control? :stars:
Anyone dizzy yet?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version