Subject:
|
Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:36:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
576 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > >
> > > > Even regardless of the innocent people who get killed, who have nothing to
> > > > do with nothing? Goals, shmoals, the bottom line is there used to be such a
> > > > thing as chivalry. The movie "The Patriot" pointed that out and it is as
> > > > true then as it is now. The "anything goes in war" mentality applies to
> > > > terrorists and cowards. It is very easy to kill defenseless women and
> > > > children, there's no bravery, heroism, patriotism or honor in that. If
> > > > anyone thinks there is, I suggest they talk to a Vietnam vet sometime.
> > >
> > > I have spoken to a Vietnam Vet; last night in fact; I have a special word for
> > > him; I call him Dad. And you know what? Dad *never* killed defenseless women
> > > and children in Vietnam. I take extreme umbrage with your statement. That was
> > > a horrible war, but fought honorably and bravely by the vast majority of
> > > Americans (and others - my dad has never been an American citizen, but fought
> > > for the U.S. Army) who went to Hell out of no choice of their own. I find it
> > > insulting to the hundreds of thousands of honorable Vietnam servicemen still
> > > with us. Perhaps *you* should talk to some Vietnam Vets and/or the families of
> > > the killed, maimed or missing before you dishonor their sacrifices.
> >
> > I agree, Dan's tarring everyone with a big sticky brush. His general
> > comments are interesting though. <snipped>
>
> I think James is reading something into Dan's comment that
> I don't think is there. Dan stated that there's no chivalry
> in killing the defenceless, and to ask a Vietnam vet if you
> doubted that statement. I also know a number of Vietnam vets--
> my parents know their parents (I was born quite late). They
> all definitely agree that non-com casualties were horrific and
> the antithesis of their actual mission; indeed, the antithesis
> of everything these young men believed in. I think that's what
> Dan was getting at; nowhere in there did he state that US
> forces in Vietnam were cowardly or made a policy of killing
> non-combatants. However, that was such a fluid war that
> "collateral damage" (shudder) was impossible, and for a lot
> of the guys I've met who did full tours in the field, *those*
> were the things that still give them nightmares.
>
> I agree with you, James, but I'm not sure you've read Dan
> correctly re: Vietnam vets. Just my impression, anyways.
>
> Oh, and "The Patriot" is pseudo-historical presentist tripe.
> I trust it about as much as I trust "Gladiator" for Roman
> history. The names and places may be the same, but the rest
> is pure fiction.
>
> best
>
> LFB
If I've misread Dan, then I sincerely offer him an apology for implying that he
believes Vietnam Vets to have acted cowardly. Dan, if you don't mind, please
clarify what you meant.
james
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
