Die For My Country?

[ThoughtCrimes]

If you wouldn't be willing to die for your country in Vietnam or Iraq or anywhere else it sends you I don't believe for a heartbeat you would have been willing to do so in WWII or any other conflict. And-because of that-I certainly don't consider it your country. WTF told you you were wise enough, or important enough, to decide what conflicts this country becomes involved in? Do you honestly believe others will cease attacking us if we don't want to fight? You are simply handing yourself and others some serious BS

Who in the Hell wants to die for their Country? I see in your avatar you have a VSM prominently displayed. Why TF didn't you die for your Country back in the Day? You Professional Veterans talk a lot...usually too much and it gets some of us thinking/wondering!

There is considerable difference between "want" and "willing". Look them up or find someone who reads English to do it for you. But it is nice to read that it is possible to get some of you thinking.

There's a nice semantic dodge, REMF. The whole Rambo persona you're trying to project is GARBAGE. Do you like the Ohhhs and Ahhhs you get performing your Professional Veteran routine, REMF?

PS: If you really are a Nam Vet...Welcome Home Brother!

I am who and what I am whether that meets with your approval or not. I am downright shocked that a Navy vet seems to know what a REMF is. Just to be clear:
I did NOT want to join the military.
I did NOT want to become an Army medic.
I did NOT want to go to Vietnam.
But I was willing to do my duty when my country insisted. "GARBAGE"? That would be the the POS that wants to enjoy the freedoms our citizens enjoy without being willing to risk their precious lilly-white ass to ensure our children and theirs can also do so. And since when do Vietnam vets get an excess of "Ohhhhs and Ahhhs"?
REMF?

Another example of the Professional Veteran. Why be surprised that I should know what a Rear Echelon Mother F....r is? I know them by their Rambo speak GARBAGE!

There are lots of examples of Stolen Valor, even among actual veterans...they're the ones that go on and on about duty, honor and their willingness die for their Country! If the shoe fucking fits, put it on REMF!

 

[9thIDdoc]

"If you fought in Vietnam to protect the freedoms we all enjoy and we lost that war, explain to me what freedoms we lost as a result of losing that war?"

First off, we didn't lose the war. We accomplished the mission we were given right up until the Country decided to forsake our ally. Don't blame us for other people's decisions. If they were going to wimp out they shouldn't have sent us in the first place. What we lost was an ally and the trust of other nations that were or might have been allies.

"So, we have fought Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Panama, Grenada, Cambodia, Vietnam and Korea in the last 70 years. We also engaged in military operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, the Dominican Republic. Which of those nations attacked us?"

This is not rocket science. Civilians especially seem to appreciate our fighting on our enemy's home ground rather than our own. Seizing and keeping the initiative makes excellent military sense as is helping endangered allies if we are to expect their help when we need it. It's pretty silly to think that repelling an invasion is the only circumstance that requires us to fight. I couldn't begin to count the countries we invaded during WWII that never attacked us (ie France etc.).

 

[9thIDdoc]

"...they're the ones that go on and on about duty, honor and their willingness die for their Country!"

Nope, just an indication of a patriotic American.

 

[paddymurphy]

"If you fought in Vietnam to protect the freedoms we all enjoy and we lost that war, explain to me what freedoms we lost as a result of losing that war?"

First off, we didn't lose the war. We accomplished the mission we were given right up until the Country decided to forsake our ally. Don't blame us for other people's decisions. If they were going to wimp out they shouldn't have sent us in the first place. What we lost was an ally and the trust of other nations that were or might have been allies.

"So, we have fought Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Panama, Grenada, Cambodia, Vietnam and Korea in the last 70 years. We also engaged in military operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, the Dominican Republic. Which of those nations attacked us?"

This is not rocket science. Civilians especially seem to appreciate our fighting on our enemy's home ground rather than our own. Seizing and keeping the initiative makes excellent military sense as is helping endangered allies if we are to expect their help when we need it. It's pretty silly to think that repelling an invasion is the only circumstance that requires us to fight. I couldn't begin to count the countries we invaded during WWII that never attacked us (ie France etc.).

Did you not understand the question? What FREEDOM did we lose as a result of losing the Vietnam war? You claimed to be there fighting for our freedoms here at home. What freedom did you fail to preserve? Seems pretty clear that, since the Vietnam era, our freedoms here have expanded greatly. And what, exactly, was your mission? To preserve control over the south by the US imposed dictator? Or to prevent the Dictator in the North (you know, the one that the people overwhelmingly would have chosen had the US allowed the elections to take place in 1956, Ho Chi Minh) from taking over? Which allies did we lose? I guess we lost Cambodia, though that was because we brought the war, illegally, into that nation which destabilized it and allowed the Khmer Rouge to take over. Australia? Canada? We lost them as allies? The fact is that we did far more damage to our standing around the world by fighting one of the last colonial wars on the side of the Colonizing power. Had we simply kept our promises to Ho to not support the French attempt to recolonize Vietnam, it would have been, at worst, an unaligned power. We forced Ho to turn to the Chinese and Russians for help and assured their influence in that nation.

What threat did Grenada pose? Panama? Vietnam? None. You claimed we only fought nations that attacked us. That is a lie. Iraq did not attack us. Hell, Afghanistan did not attack us though it harbored the terrorists who did.
So, you get one more chance to try to answer the questions. Give it a shot.

 

[paddymurphy]

"...they're the ones that go on and on about duty, honor and their willingness die for their Country!"

Nope, just an indication of a patriotic American.

Does it matter if your Country is asking you to die for no reason or the wrong reason? Is it patriotic to simply support your country, even if the decisions made by the politicians running it are completely wrong?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"...they're the ones that go on and on about duty, honor and their willingness die for their Country!"

Nope, just an indication of a patriotic American.

Does it matter if your Country is asking you to die for no reason or the wrong reason? Is it patriotic to simply support your country, even if the decisions made by the politicians running it are completely wrong?

Absolutely. A soldier's duty is to obey lawful orders. It is the country's duty to decide when a fight is necessary. It is the people's duty to assure wise political leaders.

 

[BlueGin]

It is very sad that so many Americans are duped by the political parties into becoming foolish partisans of one or the other, when both are fleecing us of our rights and wealth, while enriching and empowering themselves. If only we Americans could come together and get rid of these stinking lying bastards that make up our political class.

People who vote GOP vote status quo. People who vote democratic party vote for change.

People who vote Democratic Party. Vote partisan party line. Period.

So, if you vote for a Democrat you are a partisan but if you vote for a Republican you are not? Brilliant observation.

Too bad you can't read and follow a discussion.

Oh well.

Followed it just fine. Too bad you do not recognize the utter stupidity of your post where you equated "voting democrat" with being partisan. Of course it is, you moron. So is "voting Republican."

Where did I say I was a Republican?
I was countering the comment I was quoting.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"What FREEDOM did we lose as a result of losing the Vietnam war?"

Keep up. We didn't lose the war and I didn't claim we lost any freedom.

"And what, exactly, was your mission?"

To defend South Vietnam.

" I guess we lost Cambodia, though that was because we brought the war..."

The war was taken to Cambodia by the North Vietnamese when they invaded an occupied large portions of it.
We attacked the North Vietnamese who were the oppressors there; not the country as such. The idea that good ole Uncle Ho would have won in a fair election is pure speculation. There were an awful lot of North Vietnamese civilian refugees who left everything to flee to South Vietnam and avoid the Communists. There were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who fought to the
death trying to preserve their nation. And there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese civilians deliberately slaughtered by the VC and NVA; not really a great way to win friends and influence people.

"The fact is that we did far more damage to our standing around the world by fighting one of the last colonial wars on the side of the Colonizing power."

Bullshit.

"You claimed we only fought nations that attacked us."

I did no such thing in fact I specifically pointed out otherwise. You are the one who claims that is the only reason to fight.

 

[paddymurphy]

"What FREEDOM did we lose as a result of losing the Vietnam war?"

Keep up. We didn't lose the war and I didn't claim we lost any freedom.

"And what, exactly, was your mission?"

To defend South Vietnam.

" I guess we lost Cambodia, though that was because we brought the war..."

The war was taken to Cambodia by the North Vietnamese when they invaded an occupied large portions of it.
We attacked the North Vietnamese who were the oppressors there; not the country as such. The idea that good ole Uncle Ho would have won in a fair election is pure speculation. There were an awful lot of North Vietnamese civilian refugees who left everything to flee to South Vietnam and avoid the Communists. There were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who fought to the
death trying to preserve their nation. And there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese civilians deliberately slaughtered by the VC and NVA; not really a great way to win friends and influence people.

"The fact is that we did far more damage to our standing around the world by fighting one of the last colonial wars on the side of the Colonizing power."

Bullshit.

"You claimed we only fought nations that attacked us."

I did no such thing in fact I specifically pointed out otherwise. You are the one who claims that is the only reason to fight.

You posted that you served so that other Americans could "...to enjoy the freedoms our citizens enjoy without being willing to risk their precious lilly-white ass to ensure our children and theirs can also do so." I asked you what freedoms you were protecting and, since the mission failed, what freedom was lost. The fact is you were not fighting for freedom; you were not fighting to protect this nation and you were not fighting a nation that attacked us, despite your delusions to the contrary. South Vietnam did not exist until 1956. There was one country, Vietnam, that we cleaved in two for no reason. We promised Ho that if he fought the Japanese, we would support Vietnamese independence. After all, we were fighting for democracy and the right of self determination We broke that promise. You were fighting to preserve western control over a part of Vietnam. You were on the wrong side; the side of the invader. Most of the world opposed our involvement there. We did not abandon an ally; we stopped trying to dictate to Vietnam who should govern. That nation is better off because you failed in your mission.

You wrote:"Do you honestly believe others will cease attacking us if we don't want to fight?" So, yes you did say that we fight to those who attack us. Iraq did not attack us. Vietnam did not.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I asked you what freedoms you were protecting and, since the mission failed, what freedom was lost.

The mission wasn't a failure and no freedoms were lost. This is-I think-the third time I've answered that question. Read think comprehend. You apparently got your notion of "history" straight off communist propaganda sheets. There would most certainly be no America or American freedom if men had not been willing to stand up and fight for them at great risk to their lives. Whenever men and women are no longer willing to risk their lives to preserve that nation those freedoms and the physical well-being of their loved ones they will cease to exist. That's not a complicated concept.
We were in South Vietnam helping them in their fight to maintain their independence from aggressors from the North (as we were required by treaty and alliance to do) along with several other countries. We did not control South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were serious ass-holes and I am pleased and proud of my small contribution to their fight remain free of communist oppression.

You wrote:"Do you honestly believe others will cease attacking us if we don't want to fight?" So, yes you did say that we fight to those who attack us. Iraq did not attack us. Vietnam did not.

And again: we do not fight just for our own freedoms or just because we are attacked or any other singular reason. It is up to the American people to decide through their elected representatives when where and why we fight. Don't blame that on the soldier.

 

[paddymurphy]

I asked you what freedoms you were protecting and, since the mission failed, what freedom was lost.

The mission wasn't a failure and no freedoms were lost. This is-I think-the third time I've answered that question. Read think comprehend. You apparently got your notion of "history" straight off communist propaganda sheets. There would most certainly be no America or American freedom if men had not been willing to stand up and fight for them at great risk to their lives. Whenever men and women are no longer willing to risk their lives to preserve that nation those freedoms and the physical well-being of their loved ones they will cease to exist. That's not a complicated concept.
We were in South Vietnam helping them in their fight to maintain their independence from aggressors from the North (as we were required by treaty and alliance to do) along with several other countries. We did not control South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were serious ass-holes and I am pleased and proud of my small contribution to their fight remain free of communist oppression.

You wrote:"Do you honestly believe others will cease attacking us if we don't want to fight?" So, yes you did say that we fight to those who attack us. Iraq did not attack us. Vietnam did not.

And again: we do not fight just for our own freedoms or just because we are attacked or any other singular reason. It is up to the American people to decide through their elected representatives when where and why we fight. Don't blame that on the soldier.

The mission did not fail? So, South Vietnam is still an independent nation? Mood, but you are dense. My history is what really happened, not the bullshit propaganda that you still believe to convince yourself you did not waste your time there. The Vietnamese had been fighting foreign invaders for hundreds of years and were finally able to secure their independence when you lost. What you seem too dull to understand is that you did nothing to preserve my freedom or the freedom of any other America, or defend this nation through your service in Vietnam. Finally, I don't blame the soldier at all. But you seem to think that our leaders are infallible when it comes to war. Our history, particularly our recent history, proves that to be asinine. A true Patriot, when his nation does wrong, does not just go along. A true Patriot protests; tries to stop that wrong and refuses to participate in it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Vietnam was legal, if not right. Iraq was illegal and wrong on every point that mattered. Soldiers should resist illegal orders. In some cases, such as Iraq, a simple service person might not realize at the time that what is being ordered is a crime, so we need to excuse her/him in the context. Any citizen, however, can and must decide what action is best and not simply 'follow orders', as the Nazis claimed for an excuse.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Vietnam was legal, if not right. Iraq was illegal and wrong on every point that mattered. Soldiers should resist illegal orders. In some cases, such as Iraq, a simple service person might not realize at the time that what is being ordered is a crime, so we need to excuse her/him in the context. Any citizen, however, can and must decide what action is best and not simply 'follow orders', as the Nazis claimed for an excuse.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every baseball player could decide where on the field they wanted to play and every football player could decide want play to run next? Might be interesting but those teams wouldn't be winning many games. The same is true of warfare and the conduct of a nation. Individual citizens don't determine what a nation or an army will do. Nor do they get to decide what wars are legal/illegal or right/wrong except as a personal opinion. This seems like a fine thing to me because (for example) I think you're full of shit when it comes to Iraq. Mostly I think that complaints of the "illegality" of a war by troops are simply an excuse to try to avoid duty they aren't fond of or are scared to do.

 

[there4eyeM]

Automatons do as they are programed.
Real people, and especially real men, do as their conscience, morals and scruples know is best.
Anyone is free to give away her or his freedom, of course.

 

[paddymurphy]

Vietnam was legal, if not right. Iraq was illegal and wrong on every point that mattered. Soldiers should resist illegal orders. In some cases, such as Iraq, a simple service person might not realize at the time that what is being ordered is a crime, so we need to excuse her/him in the context. Any citizen, however, can and must decide what action is best and not simply 'follow orders', as the Nazis claimed for an excuse.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every baseball player could decide where on the field they wanted to play and every football player could decide want play to run next? Might be interesting but those teams wouldn't be winning many games. The same is true of warfare and the conduct of a nation. Individual citizens don't determine what a nation or an army will do. Nor do they get to decide what wars are legal/illegal or right/wrong except as a personal opinion. This seems like a fine thing to me because (for example) I think you're full of shit when it comes to Iraq. Mostly I think that complaints of the "illegality" of a war by troops are simply an excuse to try to avoid duty they aren't fond of or are scared to do.

What a wonderfully appropriate analogy. A game and the death and destruction that happens in war. What a fucking tool you are turning out to be. The Iraq war did not have a basis in international law. The use of force resolution passed by Congress said that the President could use force to enforce the UN resolutions. The UN did not seek enforcement of any resolution. It was a violation of international law.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What a wonderfully appropriate analogy. A game and the death and destruction that happens in war. What a fucking tool you are turning out to be. The Iraq war did not have a basis in international law. The use of force resolution passed by Congress said that the President could use force to enforce the UN resolutions. The UN did not seek enforcement of any resolution. It was a violation of international law.

Bullshit piled higher and deeper. We became involved in Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait (in violation of international law) and it was necessary to go back because-after multiple warnings and ultimatums-Iraq refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire (also in violation of international law) and, again it was a mutinational force. Had we not been far too concerned about international law and impressions we should have finished off Saddam himself and Iraq's ability to wage war when we were there the first time we were there. Piss on the UN. It's become an organisation with the primary purpose of sleezing money from the US and a few other civilized nations. International law played a large role in our becoming involved in Vietnam but it seems you are in favor of international law only when agrees with your opinion.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Automatons do as they are programed.
Real people, and especially real men, do as their conscience, morals and scruples know is best.
Anyone is free to give away her or his freedom, of course."

And real cowards will use any excuse to avoid doing their duty.

 

[paddymurphy]

What a wonderfully appropriate analogy. A game and the death and destruction that happens in war. What a fucking tool you are turning out to be. The Iraq war did not have a basis in international law. The use of force resolution passed by Congress said that the President could use force to enforce the UN resolutions. The UN did not seek enforcement of any resolution. It was a violation of international law.

Bullshit piled higher and deeper. We became involved in Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait (in violation of international law) and it was necessary to go back because-after multiple warnings and ultimatums-Iraq refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire (also in violation of international law) and, again it was a mutinational force. Had we not been far too concerned about international law and impressions we should have finished off Saddam himself and Iraq's ability to wage war when we were there the first time we were there. Piss on the UN. It's become an organisation with the primary purpose of sleezing money from the US and a few other civilized nations. International law played a large role in our becoming involved in Vietnam but it seems you are in favor of international law only when agrees with your opinion.

History not your strong suit? Confusing one Iraq war with the other? A little early alzheimers? Piss on the UN? And yet, the false claim that the UN resolutions from the first war provided authority to use force to enforce them was offered as the legal basis for the second war. How can you claim that the UN is not relevant and still claim that the UN resolutions provided the legal justification for the use of force? And international law played no role in our involvement in Vietnam.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Automatons do as they are programed.
Real people, and especially real men, do as their conscience, morals and scruples know is best.
Anyone is free to give away her or his freedom, of course.

What a wonderfully appropriate analogy. A game and the death and destruction that happens in war. What a fucking tool you are turning out to be. The Iraq war did not have a basis in international law. The use of force resolution passed by Congress said that the President could use force to enforce the UN resolutions. The UN did not seek enforcement of any resolution. It was a violation of international law.

Bullshit piled higher and deeper. We became involved in Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait (in violation of international law) and it was necessary to go back because-after multiple warnings and ultimatums-Iraq refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire (also in violation of international law) and, again it was a mutinational force. Had we not been far too concerned about international law and impressions we should have finished off Saddam himself and Iraq's ability to wage war when we were there the first time we were there. Piss on the UN. It's become an organisation with the primary purpose of sleezing money from the US and a few other civilized nations. International law played a large role in our becoming involved in Vietnam but it seems you are in favor of international law only when agrees with your opinion.

History not your strong suit? Confusing one Iraq war with the other? A little early alzheimers? Piss on the UN? And yet, the false claim that the UN resolutions from the first war provided authority to use force to enforce them was offered as the legal basis for the second war. How can you claim that the UN is not relevant and still claim that the UN resolutions provided the legal justification for the use of force? And international law played no role in our involvement in Vietnam.

That would be because they were in fact the same war and we had continued exchanging bombs for ground fire for nearly a decade.
I did not claim that "international law" was the only justification for the use of force.
There would have been no North or South Vietnam or election issues or DMZ except for "international law".

 

[paddymurphy]

Automatons do as they are programed.
Real people, and especially real men, do as their conscience, morals and scruples know is best.
Anyone is free to give away her or his freedom, of course.

What a wonderfully appropriate analogy. A game and the death and destruction that happens in war. What a fucking tool you are turning out to be. The Iraq war did not have a basis in international law. The use of force resolution passed by Congress said that the President could use force to enforce the UN resolutions. The UN did not seek enforcement of any resolution. It was a violation of international law.

Bullshit piled higher and deeper. We became involved in Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait (in violation of international law) and it was necessary to go back because-after multiple warnings and ultimatums-Iraq refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire (also in violation of international law) and, again it was a mutinational force. Had we not been far too concerned about international law and impressions we should have finished off Saddam himself and Iraq's ability to wage war when we were there the first time we were there. Piss on the UN. It's become an organisation with the primary purpose of sleezing money from the US and a few other civilized nations. International law played a large role in our becoming involved in Vietnam but it seems you are in favor of international law only when agrees with your opinion.

History not your strong suit? Confusing one Iraq war with the other? A little early alzheimers? Piss on the UN? And yet, the false claim that the UN resolutions from the first war provided authority to use force to enforce them was offered as the legal basis for the second war. How can you claim that the UN is not relevant and still claim that the UN resolutions provided the legal justification for the use of force? And international law played no role in our involvement in Vietnam.

That would be because they were in fact the same war and we had continued exchanging bombs for ground fire for nearly a decade.
I did not claim that "international law" was the only justification for the use of force.
There would have been no North or South Vietnam or election issues or DMZ except for "international law".

They were not the same war and tell us when, exactly, the UN authorized the use of force to enforce its resolutions or the terms of the armistice signed on its behalf at the end of the first Gulf War.