Veitnam Quiz

by Yerusalyim 72 Replies latest jw friends

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Realist,

    You are correct, it's all one vast conspiracy, just like WWII. Can you tell me exactly why the US was in Kosovo then, or Bosnia, or Somolia, or Grenada, or Panama, or Lebenon? Which economic conglmerates were behind these actions, I keep forgetting.

    I explained to you why soldiers join the military, not what the politicians utilize us for. I see even that part different than you do.

    I'd like to re-emphasize something Dakota said, there a slews of people out there claiming to be Vietnam vets that aren't. Many are Vietnam era veterans that didn't actually have time in "Nam", and some were never in the military at all.

    There have been Chapter presidents of the VVA and VFW who claimed service in Vietnam who were later shown to be liars. Some even presented thier DD 214's which later were shown to be altered. No, the fire in St Louis didn't get Nam era records, so if they say that, YA KNOW they're lying.

    One of you said "every vietnam vet I know does drugs. First, are ya sure their really vets, second, might be the company you're keeping. Every veteran I know is oppossed to the use of illicit drugs. That's the kind of company I keep. The facts present the whole picture though, drug use among Vietnam Veterans is no higher than that of their peers who weren't vets.

    Edited by - Yerusalyim on 31 January 2003 13:17:12

  • mike047
    mike047

    Yeru; You are absolutely correct about the frauds. The SEALS/ Special Forces, Etc. are usually the ones that some one trys to emulate. There are several sites dedicated to exposing these people, rightfully so. There are many list with picture etc. of these people. Carefull questioning and a little research can uncover all but the most crafty.

    mike

  • Realist
    Realist

    this has nothing to do with a conspiracy. this is just logical and explains pretty much most of whats going on. do you think these people got to where they are because they worry about human rights and helping people? politicians, cooperate managers and bankers of that magnitude give a flying sh*t about others (with some exceptions of course...nothing is 100%). if they wouldn't be super tough cookies they wouldn't be where they are...they would at most be sales manager in a local mac donalds.

    logically these people care about a) money and b) power = elections (in case of a politician)...hence they have to worry about selling their actions to the public...and keeping the public on their side.

    now this is NOT limited to the US...this is how it works everywhere on this planet.

    the US has however established a system where monitary interests are particularly influencial. this together with the power of the US military makes the US government particulary dangerous compared to most other elected governments.

    about the campaings you mentioned....first i want to mention that these cases where low risk low cost interventions.

    the grenada invasion was to remove communist influence in the region and to hurt cuba.

    the bosnia/kosovo conflict was a huge embarassment to mainly the europeans but also the US. since the europeans are never able to find to an common position (either the french or the british always have a problem) the US (thank god) took the lead. i agree this was mainly a humanitary campaign.

    somalia was also thought to be a low risk operation. that it turned out so badly especially with the media coverage and the damage to the image of the US gov. was not anticipated. somalia also has large oil reservoirs and the oil industry is still interested in the country. (between 7,000 and 10,000 somalies were killed the CIA estimated and 10,000 to 25,000 saved from starving according to the U.S. Refugee Policy Group).

    what about panama? first the US government supported Noriega...then they wanted to get rid of him...the airforce killed about 2000 civilians by bombing the panama city.

    the lebanon conflict was once again because of israel...so i am not going into it!

    PS: i agree with you on why people become soldiers. one of my grandfathers also joined the army to fight the bad bad serbs back in 1914. he fell for the same BS as do so many today.

    Edited by - realist on 31 January 2003 14:5:0

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim
    the lebanon conflict was once again because of israel.

    Actually, it was a civil war between the Muslims, the Druze, and the Christians.

  • Realist
    Realist

    yeru,

    this is the first link that came up on a google search...its from a jewish website:

    http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/lebanon.asp

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Posting this for Ashitaka, who was eatten by the "20 posts" worm.

    I make about $31,000 a year after 14 years of service.

    That's not a lot. I myself make that, and I have a hard time making ends meet. It's an expensive world out there.

    Quote:

    We do it because of a commitment to our country.

    Damn strait. I'm no patriot, but I have many memers of my family in the marines, and I'm damn proud of them. One uncle just retired after 30 years of service. One cousin was in, until he got brain cancer. (Yes, realist, unrelated to his service.)

    Why can't anti-war activists understand that those who serve love peace as much as they do, but those who serve understand that sometimes, there are people or nations that are roadblocks to peace, who trounce on the freedom of others, whose people could never have differing opinions as we do. Sometimes the way to peace is fraught with war. It's a paradox, but one that is understandable, if you take into consideration all of the maniacs in the world.

    ash

  • Realist
    Realist

    Ash,

    the motives of the soldiers are not the question...

    but many of the wars they got involved with had nothing to do with defending their country or bringing freedom and peace to others. they got killed for financial interests of a few.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    The SEALS/ Special Forces, Etc. are usually the ones that some one trys to emulate

    I suspected this. As a matter of fact, the guys that I mentioned that I had doubts about claimed to be special forces. In my gut, I knew that they had to be liars. It didn't make any sense.

    I appreciate you guys clearing this up for me. Believe it or not, I still feel a little guilt for laughing at one of them 15 years ago. Laughing at a veteran and telling him he is full o crap is not something that I normally do.

    Robyn

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    Robyn, I too have seen claims of being Special Forces, Green Beret. Funny thing, when I would query them about JFKCMA (John Fitzgerald Kennedy Center for Military Assistance), they never heard of it. Oh, that's the official military designation for the Green Beret. It can even be seen in the background in the opening scenes of the movie, The Green Beret.

    It simply amazes me that some know that I actually was there, and they still try to BS me. No wonder it seems there were no cooks or company clerks in Vietnam, all want to claim to be big heroes. Of course, had they actually gone, maybe they would have been.

    I grew up hearing what a big hero my Dad was in WW2. When he died, I went through all of his stuff and ran across his DD-214. He was in the Navy for 11 months and received a medical discharge. He never left Pensecola. My daughters want to elevate me to a hero at times, but the truth is, I was scared to death too often to count, but hid it, as did others.

    Clarification on the LSD. I would imagine it was available to the Air Force, with their daily flights to and from the states, but I was in the Army and it wasn't readily available to us. In fact, the December 2002 issue of Vietnam magazine did a writeup on drug abuse in Vietnam and it wasn't even mentioned. But, like I said, I would guess the guys in the Air Force had more accessibility to it than we did. Like I previously said, drug abuse was very prevelant throughout society during the sixties, not just amongst people that served in Vietnam.

    For Realist, you can dissect our motives, read whatever any anti-war lobbyist prints or do whatever you wish. Your claims about us are meaningless. Even the so called "noble wars" can be interpreted as being about something they weren't. Revisionist Historians would like us all to think that the US Civil War was fought solely over slavery. A big problem for them, though, was all the Black Confederates that joined the Confederate Army. The debates of the whys over Vietnam are endless and probably always will be. Also true is that the Democratic led government of the time wasn't totally honest about their motives, but we will never know for sure what motivated Johnson. But, I ask you to remember that after Saigon fell in 1975, two years after the US troops left, many millions fled the country seeking asylum in democratic nations, mostly the US. Boat People, we called them in the 70's. Apparently, the benevelot North Vietnamese Communists weren't as popular or loving as the likes of Hanoi Jane would have us all think. There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia, which the Vietnamese invaded after they took over the country) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 than there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. ([1996 Information Please Almanac] 1995 Information Please Almanac Atlas & Yearbook 49th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston & New York 1996, pages 117, 161 and 292.

    You are welcome to think anything you wish, but that doesn't make you right.

    Myth: Draft Dodgers Protested Against The War

    The fact is they protested because they did not want to be inducted into the military. It is worth noting that when the draft was ended by Congress in 1972, anti-war protests almost ceased entirely. Protests after this period were conducted mostly by the hard-core anti-war movement that had close ties to the North Vietnamese Communist Party. For these people, protesting was a job. They derived their income from donations to the movement so despite the fact that the average American male no longer cared about the war (because he was no longer in danger of having to serve), the anti-war cadre continued to protest.

    While protesting against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam made some sense for those who were desperately trying to avoid military service, it is not clear why they displayed Viet Cong flags at their rallies and protest marches. People who today claim they were only expressing their conscience cannot explain why they needed to display the flag of the enemy, and burn the American Flag.

    The anti-war movement has been often and erroneously referred to as the "Peace" movement. This is a non-sequitar since despite their rhetoric to the contrary, they never actually called for "peace" per se, only an end to American involvement in the war. They actually did not seem to care very much about the poor Vietnamese peasant that they accused American soldiers of killing. Especially if the North Vietnamese and the VC did the killing. And when Pol Pot went on a killing spree, they uttered not a sound. When the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, they said not a word. When the Soviets invaded Afganistan the did not protest. Why? Ask them.

    The Vietnam War lasted for over 10 years. During that period 58,202 Americans lost their lives in an attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the Republic of Vietnam. To put this number in perspective, approximately 56,000 Americans are killed every year by drunk drivers. Yet Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda do not lead violent demonstrations outside the Seagrams building.

    http://www.rjsmith.com/cowards

    Lew W

  • mike047
    mike047

    Dakota; The link at the end of your post is excellent, THANKS

    mike

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit