'Stop saying "Support the troops"'

[Boom_70]

With the benefit of 45 to 50 years of hindsight, I'm not willing to judge any young man who stepped forward when called, under pain of imprisonment, to that fight. It seems awfully smug to hold Vietnam era draftees to a standard that no one here would live up to.

We are all called to do all sorts of things that, in our heart of hearts, we're not sure are correct. There has to be some leeway for the bounded rationality with which we all are burdened. Put simply, to criticize those young men for not responding then in the way we now think they should have responded is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, this is ultimately the answer, I think, considering their age and maturity level.

But they had a choice. They chose to go there. Others chose not to. Their choice is open to scrutiny, as well. But they all had a choice.

Verses a choice of breaking the law. Few would open that choice to scrutiny.

 

[nmmetsfan]

If they'd just worked harder and not been poor, they would have had more options besides joining the military. Duh.

 

[nmmetsfan]

Also, there is a world of difference between leaving them be and "supporting" them. Too often, "support the troops" really means "support the war." Particularly nowadays, it's a distinction without much of a difference.

Simply not true.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Also, there is a world of difference between leaving them be and "supporting" them. Too often, "support the troops" really means "support the war." Particularly nowadays, it's a distinction without much of a difference.

Simply not true.

How is it different?

 

[nmmetsfan]

The troops don't get to decide when the country is at war and with whom. Big difference.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The troops don't get to decide when the country is at war and with whom. Big difference.

At this point, the vast majority of them may not have decided when the country is at war and with whom, but they damned sure knew that the country was at war and whom it was with.

 

[nmmetsfan]

And who signs up for volunteer military service, war or not? It's the economically disadvantaged. They sign up for military service because it's that or a dead end minimum wage job or living off government assistance. I'm guessing the fact that we are at war or who we are at war with has very little impact on the decision to join.

 

[User 11148]

And who signs up for volunteer military service, war or not? It's the economically disadvantaged. They sign up for military service because it's that or a dead end minimum wage job or living off government assistance.

That's really not true. That's the stereotype, and there may be a bit of truth in it ... but today's military is not a last resort. Not by a long shot.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And who signs up for volunteer military service, war or not? It's the economically disadvantaged. They sign up for military service because it's that or a dead end minimum wage job or living off government assistance. I'm guessing the fact that we are at war or who we are at war with has very little impact on the decision to join.

And that's a fair counterpoint. But my point isn't that we should universally condemn the members of the armed forces. It is that we should not universally praise them. Or, even worse, universally decouple our analysis of their decision to enlist from current geopolitics. It's patronizing.

 

[Starman]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

Most definitely they were. The loser Lembke who wrote the book saying they weren't was inundated -- upon the release of his book -- with numerous veterans who told him first-hand how they were spat upon. He dismisses their claims, apparently because they didn't immediately call a newspaper when it happened. He makes his claim because he couldn't find media reports from the time period. Then, when people who actually had it happen to them come forward he dismisses them.

In other words, no evidence other than the sympathy-seekers themselves.

A teabagger spit on me in the elevator the other day. Take my word for it.

Obtuse really doesn't suit you, Starman.

I don't have a very positive worldview of teabaggers. I have no doubt given the right opportunity, many would spit on me, and it would also make an awesome victim story for me if one of them did. Given the REALLY right opportunity, I would be happy to spit on plenty of them.

For the opportunity to become a big-time member of the Butthurt Brigade and get quoted in books and on teevee, it would be well worth it to make up a story.

I hung out with some antiwar hippie freaks in the 1970s. I was too young to get into most of the big tear-gas riots, but I did get a few whiffs of a few of the sizable dust-ups.

The vast vast majority of antiwar hippie freaks considered Vietnam vets coming home as most likely unwilling, or more patronizingly unwitting, participants in a war they had no control over for better or worse.

Most Vietnam vets I came in contact (even those who were still crewcut-military) with were quite willing to volunteer the opinion the war was a complete cluster****, which put them in complete agreement with the antiwar hippie freaks.

Plus the even vaster majority of antiwar hippie freaks were frisbee-throwing flower children, while Vietnam vets coming home were for the most part pretty toughened up by army life (whether they had seen combat or not) and spitting on any of them would likely have been an express ticket to a major ass kicking. As frequently observed by Vietnam vets and just about everybody else, antiwar hippie freaks were never noted for a fearless willingness to charge headlong into danger, so it fails the bull**** test on that level too.

The problem is there is just no independent corroboration of the alleged fact this supposed spitting ever took place. Not necessarily news stories -- any evidence at all. Just unverifiable first-hand accounts from people all with a pretty stong incentive to paint themselves as victims, because it makes a great story. Mitch Albom territory.

 

[User 11148]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

Most definitely they were. The loser Lembke who wrote the book saying they weren't was inundated -- upon the release of his book -- with numerous veterans who told him first-hand how they were spat upon. He dismisses their claims, apparently because they didn't immediately call a newspaper when it happened. He makes his claim because he couldn't find media reports from the time period. Then, when people who actually had it happen to them come forward he dismisses them.

In other words, no evidence other than the sympathy-seekers themselves.

A teabagger spit on me in the elevator the other day. Take my word for it.

Obtuse really doesn't suit you, Starman.

I don't have a very positive worldview of teabaggers. I have no doubt given the right opportunity, many would spit on me, and it would also make an awesome victim story for me if one of them did. Given the REALLY right opportunity, I would be happy to spit on plenty of them.

For the opportunity to become a big-time member of the Butthurt Brigade and get quoted in books and on teevee, it would be well worth it to make up a story.

I hung out with some antiwar hippie freaks in the 1970s. I was too young to get into most of the big tear-gas riots, but I did get a few whiffs of a few of the sizable dust-ups.

The vast vast majority of antiwar hippie freaks considered Vietnam vets coming home as most likely unwilling, or more patronizingly unwitting, participants in a war they had no control over for better or worse.

Most Vietnam vets I came in contact (even those who were still crewcut-military) with were quite willing to volunteer the opinion the war was a complete cluster****, which put them in complete agreement with the antiwar hippie freaks.

Plus the even vaster majority of antiwar hippie freaks were frisbee-throwing flower children, while Vietnam vets coming home were for the most part pretty toughened up by army life (whether they had seen combat or not) and spitting on any of them would likely have been an express ticket to a major ass kicking. As frequently observed by Vietnam vets and just about everybody else, antiwar hippie freaks were never noted for a fearless willingness to charge headlong into danger, so it fails the bull**** test on that level too.

The problem is there is just no independent corroboration of the alleged fact this supposed spitting ever took place. Not necessarily news stories -- any evidence at all. Just unverifiable first-hand accounts from people all with a pretty stong incentive to paint themselves as victims, because it makes a great story. Mitch Albom territory.

My friend who told the story of being accosted coming out of a Georgetown restaurant had absolutely no incentive to paint himself as a victim. Indeed, he kind of laughs about it (kind of ...), because he now considers those who accosted him to be just so pathetic. But, since the story is convenient, as you say, and since it didn't make the Washington Post, I guess you're right. He must be a liar. Can't quite figure out what he stands to gain by it. But I'm sure you'll come up with something.

Oh, and congrats by the way. You've entered into Tea Party territory yourself. No one actually has any evidence of John Lewis being spit on (in/after one of those Obamacare hearings). And the story is very convenient. So, by your standards, he's a liar and a proud applicant to/member of the Butthurt Brigade. Nice work.

Honestly Starman, I disagree with you politically on just about everything. But you're better than this.

 

[Starman]

He stands to gain the same thing as anybody who makes up a story about being set upon by some loathsome individual -- victim status.

And also retroactively discrediting the group beliefs of his assailant -- the main motivation for the Reaganauts, who wanted to promote the idea the antiwar hippie freaks of the 60s/70s were unpatriotic idiots (and the nation would have been far far better off never listening to them for even a minute).


Right about the same time the spitting-on-soldiers stories started gaining steam was when the prevailing opinion of "we would have kicked ass in about 6 weeks in Vietnam if that pansy ass LBJ hadn't been afraid of antiwar hippie freaks and wouldn't allow us to win," did as well.

 

[printit]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

Civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action against immoral actions. Do you believe it is a principled action against mistaken policies? Or are you arguing that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral?

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

Civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action against immoral actions. Do you believe it is a principled action against mistaken policies? Or are you arguing that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral?

I'm taking no such stance. I'm merely saying that if you accept the premise that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral, then the soldiers' culpability is at least in play for discussion. It at least gets balanced against other factors - their age, their alternatives, etc., etc. You can't just say they were following orders and end the inquiry there.

 

[User 11148]

He stands to gain the same thing as anybody who makes up a story about being set upon by some loathsome individual -- victim status.

And also retroactively discrediting the group beliefs of his assailant -- the main motivation for the Reaganauts, who wanted to promote the idea the antiwar hippie freaks of the 60s/70s were unpatriotic idiots (and the nation would have been far far better off never listening to them for even a minute).


Right about the same time the spitting-on-soldiers stories started gaining steam was when the prevailing opinion of "we would have kicked ass in about 6 weeks in Vietnam if that pansy ass LBJ hadn't been afraid of antiwar hippie freaks and wouldn't allow us to win," did as well.

Like swallows to Capistrano ... reductio ad Reaganium ... knew we'd be there soon enough.

 

[Starman]

He stands to gain the same thing as anybody who makes up a story about being set upon by some loathsome individual -- victim status.

And also retroactively discrediting the group beliefs of his assailant -- the main motivation for the Reaganauts, who wanted to promote the idea the antiwar hippie freaks of the 60s/70s were unpatriotic idiots (and the nation would have been far far better off never listening to them for even a minute).


Right about the same time the spitting-on-soldiers stories started gaining steam was when the prevailing opinion of "we would have kicked ass in about 6 weeks in Vietnam if that pansy ass LBJ hadn't been afraid of antiwar hippie freaks and wouldn't allow us to win," did as well.

Like swallows to Capistrano ... reductio ad Reaganium ... knew we'd be there soon enough.

Did Gerald Ford do it? No.


Of course, he probably figured 1976 was a little too early to jump up on the tabletop, put a star-spangled lampshade on his head, and go into a song and dance about how we would have kicked ass in Vietnam if it hadn't been for those dirty smelly hippies.

By the 1980s the coast was clear.

 

[joe]

I wonder what Three Bags Full thinks of this.

 

[Key]

I wonder what Three Bags Full thinks of this.

Three Bags deserves to have his life's decisions and motives analyzed and criticized by a bunch of people who have never met him. "Ask not what you can do for your country..." and all that.

 

[hondo]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

Civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action against immoral actions. Do you believe it is a principled action against mistaken policies? Or are you arguing that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral?

I'm taking no such stance. I'm merely saying that if you accept the premise that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral, then the soldiers' culpability is at least in play for discussion. It at least gets balanced against other factors - their age, their alternatives, etc., etc. You can't just say they were following orders and end the inquiry there.

You must have missed the part about soldiers not having the option to disobey orders.

 

[Armchair_QB]

He stands to gain the same thing as anybody who makes up a story about being set upon by some loathsome individual -- victim status.

And also retroactively discrediting the group beliefs of his assailant -- the main motivation for the Reaganauts, who wanted to promote the idea the antiwar hippie freaks of the 60s/70s were unpatriotic idiots (and the nation would have been far far better off never listening to them for even a minute).


Right about the same time the spitting-on-soldiers stories started gaining steam was when the prevailing opinion of "we would have kicked ass in about 6 weeks in Vietnam if that pansy ass LBJ hadn't been afraid of antiwar hippie freaks and wouldn't allow us to win," did as well.

Like swallows to Capistrano ... reductio ad Reaganium ... knew we'd be there soon enough.

Did Gerald Ford do it? No.


Of course, he probably figured 1976 was a little too early to jump up on the tabletop, put a star-spangled lampshade on his head, and go into a song and dance about how we would have kicked ass in Vietnam if it hadn't been for those dirty smelly hippies.

By the 1980s the coast was clear.