Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

[bodie54]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

And which democrat party lost that war? And created a refugee crisis. the more things change ...

There was plenty of blame to go around to both parties in that regard. We first got involved and suffered our first combat deaths under Ike, who's administration spawned the "Domino Theory" both parties became slaves to. It also ended under a republican, but one who's mind was at cross purposes; having promised peace while being obsessed with not being the first American president to lose a war, and the consequences of that dichotomy.

 

[BoboBrowne]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

As the son of a Vietnam veteran, you and your revisionist history can go fuck yourselves.

If I am going to choose the liar, I choose you, not actual people who lived it.

http://m.startribune.com/disrespect-for-vietnam-vets-is-fact-not-fiction/160444095/
.

You can get as angry at me as you like, but I think you're missing the point. The spitting incidents are exaggerated. That doesn't mean that no soldier was ever spat on, but it's become popular folklore that it was a routine happening when in fact it was very isolated. FAR MORE soldiers came home to a country that was "war fatigued" and treated them with apathy. They didn't receive the flag waving welcome home ceremonies and parades that veterans of previous wars had.

Is that their fault? Of course not. They were just following orders, protecting their country as they were drafted to do, and probably deserved a better reaction. But it's important not to embellish history.

 

[sean miguel]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

There was plenty of blame to go around to both parties in that regard. We first got involved and suffered our first combat deaths under Ike, who's administration spawned the "Domino Theory" both parties became slaves to. It also ended under a republican, but one who's mind was at cross purposes; having promised peace while being obsessed with not being the first American president to lose a war, and the consequences of that dichotomy.

In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions."2 By April, however, his administration revisited the question of direct intervention in the war. Though he sent no U.S. troops to the region, he authorized military aid to the French. After France surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower's administration aided anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon.

http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/dwight-d-eisenhower.html

Wasn't Vietnam Kennedy's war?

 

[BoboBrowne]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/dwight-d-eisenhower.html

Wasn't Vietnam Kennedy's war?

Did you really just use an online bookstore as a source? Try a little harder.

It's incredible that you're not aware of the "domino theory" and one of the most famous speeches of all-time.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-gives-famous-domino-theory-speech

The beginning of American involvement in Vietnam was November 1, 1955, under Eisenhower.

 

[sean miguel]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

Did you really just use an online bookstore as a source? Try a little harder.

It's incredible that you're not aware of the "domino theory" and one of the most famous speeches of all-time.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-gives-famous-domino-theory-speech

The beginning of American involvement in Vietnam was November 1, 1955, under Eisenhower.

I didn't notice it was an online bookstore. Regardless, was anything in that excerpt non-factual?

And U.S. involvement in Vietnam actually began under Truman. And where Eisenhower sent hundreds of American soldiers in an advisory role, Kennedy had 16000 in country by the time he was assassinated. LBJ ramped it up further.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

You can get as angry at me as you like, but I think you're missing the point. The spitting incidents are exaggerated. That doesn't mean that no soldier was ever spat on, but it's become popular folklore that it was a routine happening when in fact it was very isolated. FAR MORE soldiers came home to a country that was "war fatigued" and treated them with apathy. They didn't receive the flag waving welcome home ceremonies and parades that veterans of previous wars had.

Is that their fault? Of course not. They were just following orders, protecting their country as they were drafted to do, and probably deserved a better reaction. But it's important not to embellish history.

At least we embellish after 50 years has past.

It only takes the kids now about 3 weeks.

See, 450 million-Iran

 

[Supafly]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

For being a force for a just cause, or heroic, the conflict must be based on such a thing:

A justifiable, just cause.


As we are speaking mainly about the Vietnam War and the Iraq War(-s), both were started over lies.

Many members of the armed forces did great things and many did heroic things, yet all of it is overshadowed by those lies.

A basic issue is that soddirs, in order to function, must follow orders, even if they do not fully know the cause or if they do not get told anything. If it were otherwise, an army would fall apart.

The dilemma begins when soldiers come home, or family members lose their loved ones, and then learn their service and losses were unjust or even a crime. And if civilians react angrily, that is hard to bear. That is one of the risks you take when you join the army.

I don't know how others here see the need of armed forcrs, I see them as a necessary thing in a wirld that still struggles with keeping the peace. I have a hiogh respect for people who make the decision and join the armed forces, if they believe those get used for the right causes. But since lots of armies get sent to conflicts overseas, things get shadier. What kind of peace do they actually try to keep? How do they behave concerning the local civilians? Much damage can be done by people who believe they do the right thing, but cause additional harm

 

[Jagger69]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/dwight-d-eisenhower.html

Wasn't Vietnam Kennedy's war?

US involvement in Vietnam was about as bi-partisan as one can get if you look at the entire cluster-fuck from start to finish. There is a great deal of conjecture that JFK was about to pull the plug on U.S. involvement in 1963....a decision according to his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, that preceded his assassination by about a month and a half. From McNamara's memoir, In Retrospect, published in 1995:

A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam’s president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedy’s decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later.

http://www.bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam

After Kennedy was killed, LBJ certainly escalated the war considerably, with the backing of congress and the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 that was based on an alleged warship encounter with the North Vietnamese that, in all probabliity, never actually took place. The resulting backlash over the next 3 years of escalation forced LBJ to withdraw from contention as POTUS (His famous "If I've lost (CBS news anchor Walter) Cronkite, I've lost middle-America" quote). Nixon ran on a plank of having a "secret plan" to get us out of Vietnam during the 1968 campaign for president which he won. His "Vietnamization" program was a failure....the ARVN troops simply couldn't stand up to the forces that were against them without US support. The war dragged on and, in fact, was seriously escalated by Nixon via a major bombing campaign (we dropped 3.5 times as much tonnage on North Vietnam than we did in all of WW2) and a "secret" invasion of Cambodia in 1970. The Paris Accords were finally signed after what seemed like endless negotiations in January, 1973 (just a bit too late for my buddy who lost his leg).

There has been armed conflict in French-Indochina (including what was later called Vietnam) on an almost ongoing basis all the way back to 1883. The real beginning of what we Americans would typically refer to as the Vietnam War is generally considered to be marked by the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu by communist forces under Ho Chi Minh in 1954 and the ensuing containment efforts by the US and its allies as has previously been mentioned that were initiated during the Eisenhower administration.

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

Henry Kissinger - "Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy"

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

Christopher Hitchens - Discussing the crimes of Henry Kissinger

 

[meesterperfect]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

This all depends on when and where you were a soldier.
Were you fighting to defend something or preserve a peoples way of life that was being threatened?
Or were you on the side of an aggressive force who's intent was to take or destroy, pillage and exploit other people and their land?

Almost all soldiers are brainwashed into thinking they are on the side of Right whether they are or not, and for obvious reasons.
That's an enormous topic that could go on forever.

But as for the US soldier in 2016. Like all of us most have been conditioned to think they are on the side of Right since they were old enough to think.
But in reality they are just being used. And many soldiers have found this out too late.
Being used by the richest of the rich. The ones who control the money supply in almost every country in the world today.
And the politicians around the world who have all sold their souls to these masters as well as all the others who get wealth and power off of war.
They believe in 3 things- Money, power and control. Human lives mean nothing to these psychopaths.
They want something- They tell their minions and they get it for them regardless of how many have to suffer or die.
That is planet Earth 2016 and we all know it.

Anybody thinking about joining the military in this day and age should really think very hard as to just who and what they may be sent to kill or die for.
If all American boys and girls did this instead of just following the propaganda that has corrupted their thought process the barracks would be almost empty today.

 

[Johan]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

History is written by the victors. If LMexico had defeated the US in 1848, Texans would learn how brave mexican soldiers defeated barbaric US aggressors.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

History is written by the victors. If LMexico had defeated the US in 1848, Texans would learn how brave mexican soldiers defeated barbaric US aggressors.

That statement could be made about any situation in life where there is a winner and a loser.

 

[Supafly]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

History is written by the victors. If LMexico had defeated the US in 1848, Texans would learn how brave mexican soldiers defeated barbaric US aggressors.

That statement could be made about any situation in life where there is a winner and a loser.

Watch out, hombres, you start agreeing on stuff

Shaloooooom :coolthumb:

(Ze Fly says Hello)

 

[meesterperfect]

Re: Google "beiing a soldier is stupid" Is that sentiment coming from the right or the left?

History is written by the victors. If LMexico had defeated the US in 1848, Texans would learn how brave mexican soldiers defeated barbaric US aggressors.

So maybe Richard III didn't murder his nephews? Maybe Napolean wasn't that short? Maybe Nero wasn't insane? And maybe all that stuff about Germans in WWII was not true?