I believe that was the point that he was trying to make.

This was sent to a Marine friend who served at the same time as myself except i was in the 101st Airborne

BTW i entered the service in oct 1967 spent 1968 and 1969 in Vietnam different path than i

A guy gets time to think over here and I was thinking about all the support we get from home. Sometimes it's overwhelming. We get care packages at times faster than we can use them. There are boxes and boxes of toiletries and snacks lining the center of every tent; the generosity has been amazing. So, I was pondering the question: "Why do we have so much support?"


In my opinion, it came down to one thing: Vietnam. I think we learned a lesson, as a nation, that no matter what, you have to support the troops who are on the line, who are risking everything. We treated them so poorly back then. When they returned was even worse. The stories are nightmarish of what our returning warriors were subjected to. It is a national scar, a blemish on our country, an embarrassment to all of us
.
After Vietnam, it had time to sink in. The guilt in our collective consciousness grew. It shamed us. However, we learned from our mistake.


Somewhere during the late 1970's and into the 80's, we realized that we can't treat our warriors that way. So, starting during the Gulf War, when the first real opportunity arose to stand up and support the troops, we did. We did it to support our friends and family going off to war. But we also did it to right the wrongs from the Vietnam era. We treated our troops like the heroes they were, acknowledged and celebrated their sacrifice, and rejoiced at their homecoming instead of spitting on them.


And that support continues today for those of us in Iraq. Our country knows that it must support us and it does. The lesson was learned in Vietnam and we are better because of it.


Everyone who has gone before is a hero. They are celebrated in my heart. I think admirably of all those who have gone before me. From those who fought to establish this country in the late 1770's to those I serve with here in Iraq. They have all sacrificed to ensure our freedom.


But when I get back, I'm going to make it a personal mission to specifically thank every Vietnam Vet I encounter for their sacrifice. Because if nothing else good came from that terrible war, one thing did. It was the lesson learned on how we treat our warriors. We as a country learned from our mistake and now treat our warriors as heroes, as we should.


I am the beneficiary of their sacrifice. Not only for the freedom they, like veterans from other wars, ensured, but for how well our country now treats my fellow Marines and I. We are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice.


Semper Fidelis,
Major Brian P. Bresnahan
United States Marine Corps

Thank you very much. I was one of those soldiers spat upon in the Detroit airport when I came back home....

I truly wish that there was a draft again if only to get those people to show common courtesy. I am amazed how the mainstream media can slander the military, but man when the enemy is at the gates, do they change their tune.

The people in Kuwait who hated Americans learned that real fast when they were invaded by Saddam, but liberated by VII Corps. After that they became real nice to us poor dogfaces...

I see two generals twice a week on my job and they spend much more effort at doing the right thing than any corporate officer ever did, with the exception of Bob Lutz.

Talk about ethics...why don't the commentators trash the corporate execs? Answer: because they are afraid it will cut their income stream....

End of rant

I was still on HS during vietnam, but it was clear that it was an error.

The college draft exemption definitely made it a different kind of war, with an element of "class discrimination" that did not exist in previous wars. Anyone with the ability and means to go to college could basically buy themselves out of the conflict. I suspect that it would have ended sooner if everyone would have been eligible for the draft.

On a similar note, I'm not sure that recent conflicts would have been politically acceptable if there was a draft in place. It appears that the last several administrations have been willing to deploy troops with "questionable" justifications. I'm not sure they would have acted the same without a "volunteer" military at their disposal. I'm not suggesting a draft, but maybe we should think in those terms before committing troops.

ah, the mighty VII Corps. I proudly wore that patch on my right shoudler. the tactical and logistical achievements of VII Corps during the Gulf War are legendary and could not be duplicated by today's Army. VII Corps ruled the desert/

Phillip Caputo, right? great book. Another great book by a Marine from the war is "For Self & Country" by Rick Eleirt. His tale is a trip through recovery of horrible wounds and the naval medical system.

Of course I was aware of the anti-war protests. I was never around a big one - sat in on a couple of small ones at Wa. State U. in 1971.

It's is clearly not right that rank and file troops would be abused for the boneheaded orders they were sent out on.

It was an ugly war, a tumultuous time.

It's still huge in a lot of people's thinking. Look at the charged up brew ha-ha with the swift boaters in '04.

Many Americans think we win - every time, every thing. We are the best after all, the exceptional country.

That we could get mired in a war that had no victory available was not something hawks were prepared to accept.

We win, GD it (spits terbaccy juice).

Indeed. I remember shortly after 9/11, it was reported that there was a huge spike in phone calls to military recruitment centers by those of prime draft age. At first, a lot of people assumed this was the old "Pearl Harbor" mentality/patriotism showing itself, young people volunteering for service to strike back at the enemy.

Later on after they had time to analyze the content of all those calls, it turns out they weren't calling up to ask about joining the military - they were calling to ask how to legally avoid the draft they were sure was soon to follow. The numbers of those volunteering for military service barely changed.

At that, for a while at least, Shrub did man up the draft boards and have them ready to go in case recruitment totally dried up.

And those already in the military got nailed with a "stop loss" order - what they referred to as a "back door draft" - they weren't allowed to get out when their enlistments were up and basically told they would be kept on active duty until further notice.

Add to the above, these days only a literal handful of members in both the House and Senate have seen any type of military service or have family members in the military - without having any "skin" in the game, both figuratively and literally, they're much less hesitant to approve questionable calls to arms.

ONe of the things I admire about Switzerland is their universal service requirement.

Having one's own blood in the game would indeed make pols less likely to commit troops frivolously.

In the civil war a person could buy out for $50 and hire someone in their place.....so Viet Nam was not the first war to be unfair to less financally fortunate folks.

True, but $50 was a lot of money at the time. I believe you could also send someone else in your place. Apparently that didn't get my relatives out of the war.

There were also huge "draft riots" in NYC, with significant racial overtones.

Anyway, I was really talking about more recent history.

Always good to see people justifying the idiocy of past regimes.

Spanish-American War: faked up reasons spread by Hearst and others to justify land grab in Carrribean and Far East. End result: subjugation and destruction of cubans, domincans, haitians, and philipinos. Good stuff! :eek:

Vietnam. Stopping the spread of world communism. Please note: Domino Theory seems to... well, not fall into place, as.. Vietnam and China, two uh alleged dominoes, go to....yes war soon after the unification of vietnam.

(as for those who served in the military - thank you for serving, you stood up for your country, but the leaders at that time misused you. that does not take away from your sacrifice nor diminish or discount the pain that you suffered)

Vietnam Legacy
 

The "soft on defense" tag has haunted the Democratic Party ever since Vietnam. In fact, one Dem CNN comentator brought it up during the post speech dissection they had with 15 or so talking heads. It continues to this day.

I thought listening to Obama's speech, if one were to read it only on paper and it bore the name GW Bush as author, that it would have caused a firestorm from the left.

I give Obama a lot of credit for this speech and for his troop decision. It was a real pleasure to hear a US President reminding the world that the security they have enjoyed for the last 60 years has been provided by the US Armed Forces and to remind people that like to or not, we are the de facto world cop. Nothing of importance in global security gets accomplished without American leadership.

Hand salute to the Pres. on this one.

Chris Matthews is a cry baby. Is his leg still tingling from listening to Obama's speech? . You all know which historic speech I refer to, of course.;)

Good apology from Matthews: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/02/matthews-deeply-apologize/

I say he deserves a pass on this one. He had a legitimate point that meant no disrespect to the military or Obama. He just used the wrong words. He talks a lot, so it's not surprising that he would misstep every now and then.

Will you grant the same permission for the occasional misstep, or misspeak to everyone who speaks a lot on live TV/Radio?
Or do only the leftists get a pass?

Just asking?
There have been some really vitriolic threads about Rush where democrat supporters had purposefully misquoted and misconstrued his words for political purposes. ( And sometimes Rush says some stupid things, too.)