Simple question

[AVG-JOE]

No, they take the job. Does Johnny 'volunteer to serve' at the local hardware store?

As opposed to what?

As opposed to volunteering, which implies a deed done out of good will and not in return for compensation. You know, like working with Food Not Bombs.

According to that logic, doing anything for reasons other than a warm fuzzy is prostituting yourself.

I disagree. It's all about the attitude behind the deed, that's what divides the percentage the heart is split between lover and whore.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't think you can quantify it, but in all likelyhood he is correct... Do you disagree?

Dunno. Haven't spoken to most soldiers. I don't doubt less are Über-patriots than was the case during WWII.

I don't know about that, JB. I do know, that two-thirds of the combat troops in WWII were draftees; and two-thirds of the combat troops in Vietnam were volunteers. That might seem counter-intuitive, but is true.

That's an apples to oranges comparison. WWII took a much larger percentage of the overall population to prosecute than anything since.

 

[JBeukema]

As opposed to what?

As opposed to volunteering, which implies a deed done out of good will and not in return for compensation. You know, like working with Food Not Bombs.

According to that logic, doing anything for reasons other than a warm fuzzy is prostituting yourself.

It has been said that the proletarian is much like the whore in that he sells himself and his liberty to the bourgeoisie.

I disagree. It's all about the attitude behind the deed, that's what divides the percentage the heart is split between lover and whore.

I don't think it's an either/or thing. Is it not possible for mercenary to sell his services and also agree with the purpose to which he has been hired?

Warm fuzzies + profit = win, right?

 

[The Gadfly]

[QUOTE ..............most of us really were rather idealistic,........................

Were you as idealistic at the end as at the beginning?[/QUOTE]

That's a fair question. In some ways, yes. In terms of what I believed we were trying to do (halt the spread of communism, try to give the Vietnamese a chance at eventually having enough security and stability to have meaningful elections), I believe that was a good objective; unfortunately a lot of things got in the way of it. We never had a government in the RVN that was truly legitimate; our own civilian leadership never appeared to be entirely clear as to exactly what it wanted us to do. It certainly made for a less than ideal place to make a stand. In spite of that, militarily, we actually were quite successful, albeit at a very high cost, in our own casualties, and the damage done to the local population, who were the very people we were trying to help. A lot of the latter was not necessary, and I found that very disheartening, personally (especially given the eventual outcome)

I think it's very easy to look at the end result, and conclude that the war did more harm than good, for Vietnamese and Americans alike; there was a lot of carnage for little to no discernible result. It's easy to draw the wrong lessons from the failures that occurred. Personally, I don't think our ideals were bad, nor do I feel our patriotism was intentionally ill-used by our superiors. I don't think the lesson is "America can never defeat an insurgency"; we came very close to doing so, in spite of not having known how to fight one, and how not to fight one. In this case, the better question might be whether Vietnam would have been "worth it" if we had won. That would certainly have changed the repercussions for America over the next fifty years; perhaps it might have altered the thinking of those who have since used Vietnam as a model and inspiration for fighting America. We can't know.

You know, though, if I had it to do over again, I'd still go; not because I liked the experience (I hated it), not because I'd want anyone else to go through it (I don't), and certainly not for what happened when we came home (I still feel that, and it still hurts), but because we were trying to do the right thing, however badly it turned out.

 

[AVG-JOE]

As opposed to volunteering, which implies a deed done out of good will and not in return for compensation. You know, like working with Food Not Bombs.

According to that logic, doing anything for reasons other than a warm fuzzy is prostituting yourself.

It has been said that the proletarian is much like the whore in that he sells himself and his liberty to the bourgeoisie.

I disagree. It's all about the attitude behind the deed, that's what divides the percentage the heart is split between lover and whore.

I don't think it's an either/or thing. Is it not possible for mercenary to sell his services and also agree with the purpose to which he has been hired?

Warm fuzzies + profit = win, right?

Is that not what I just said?

 

[onecut39]

[QUOTE ..............most of us really were rather idealistic,........................

Were you as idealistic at the end as at the beginning?

That's a fair question. In some ways, yes. In terms of what I believed we were trying to do (halt the spread of communism, try to give the Vietnamese a chance at eventually having enough security and stability to have meaningful elections), I believe that was a good objective; unfortunately a lot of things got in the way of it. We never had a government in the RVN that was truly legitimate; our own civilian leadership never appeared to be entirely clear as to exactly what it wanted us to do. It certainly made for a less than ideal place to make a stand. In spite of that, militarily, we actually were quite successful, albeit at a very high cost, in our own casualties, and the damage done to the local population, who were the very people we were trying to help. A lot of the latter was not necessary, and I found that very disheartening, personally (especially given the eventual outcome)

I think it's very easy to look at the end result, and conclude that the war did more harm than good, for Vietnamese and Americans alike; there was a lot of carnage for little to no discernible result. It's easy to draw the wrong lessons from the failures that occurred. Personally, I don't think our ideals were bad, nor do I feel our patriotism was intentionally ill-used by our superiors. I don't think the lesson is "America can never defeat an insurgency"; we came very close to doing so, in spite of not having known how to fight one, and how not to fight one. In this case, the better question might be whether Vietnam would have been "worth it" if we had won. That would certainly have changed the repercussions for America over the next fifty years; perhaps it might have altered the thinking of those who have since used Vietnam as a model and inspiration for fighting America. We can't know.

You know, though, if I had it to do over again, I'd still go; not because I liked the experience (I hated it), not because I'd want anyone else to go through it (I don't), and certainly not for what happened when we came home (I still feel that, and it still hurts), but because we were trying to do the right thing, however badly it turned out.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for that answer. It is well thought out and honest. Such rarely happens on a board like this.

I was not there. I volunteered from 1957 - 1960. By the time things began to heat up I was inactive reserve and by '64 I was overage. Surely there was no way in hell I was going to volunteer for that war.

I watched, from my protected spot on the sidelines, and cheered you on. Until Tet. Now I realize that we damn near won that and that it cost the Viet Cong terribly but that was not the point. For years I had been told we were defeating the enemy, the end was near and there was light at the end of the tunnel. There was no way the enemy was supposed to be able to mount such an effort.

We were lied to, plain and simple, and the lying would continue. The problem was the leadership, both military and civilian, although primarily civilian. In what I have studied and learned over the years I find that leadership close to criminal.

It is hard to separate the warrior from the war. Some say it cannot be done, I think it can. The war may have sucked but that was not the fault of you and your fellow soldiers in the field. You did as well as you could but you were dealt an impossible hand.

Thanks again.