Proud To Be a Vietnam Vet?

Email Print


"It is such twisted thinking that leads those who refuse
to examine the content of their minds to bleat about the soldiers
who “fight for our freedom.” What nonsense. Shall we next be told
that Sunset Boulevard hookers are peddling virtue?"

~ Butler Shaffer

Why would someone be "proud" to be a Vietnam veteran? 
Certainly, one shouldn't necessarily be ashamed, particularly if
they were conscripted.  But what is there to be proud of? 
The US government lost the war.  It was a war that, by all
historical perspective, should not have involved the intervention
of the US government and its military.  In other words, the
operation was misguided and a failure.  What is there to be
proud of?

Why is a soldier who is killed or captured in war considered a
hero?  It would seem to me that the first objective, when striving
to be a successful soldier, is not to be killed or captured. 
It is impossible to achieve your goal of destroying your enemy when
you are dead or locked up under his control.  Instead of a
"hero," shouldn't you be considered a failure?

Why does a US soldier say he is fighting for freedom when he, as
an enlisted individual, is not free?

Why is it that military failure is never blamed on the military,
itself, i.e., the individuals who make up the military?  When
confronted with the question of why the military lost the Vietnam
War, or why the military did not protect the country (or even make
an effort) on 9/11, or why was the military on that same date unable
to even protect its own building — the answer is always,
"it was someone else's fault."  Members of the military
can never seem to find fault in their own actions as reasons for
their collective failures but always seem to find someone (or thing)
else to blame – be it politicians, war protestors, insufficient
financial and asset support, etc.

Why do militarists proudly point out soldier's benevolent acts
toward civilians suffering the effects of war when it is the
soldiers that caused the suffering in the first place?

Why do soldiers claim to be fighting for democracy (majority rule)
in Iraq when the American democratic majority, for whom they claim
to fight for, clearly has said they do not want the American military
in Iraq?

Why do soldiers, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution
of the United States, violate that oath when partaking in illegally
executed wars?

Why are soldiers who refuse to fight in violation of that oath
considered "deserters" or "traitors?"

Why are soldiers considered the "best and the brightest"
when they fail to understand the clear language of the US Constitution,
heed to authority without question, and are unable to grasp the
clear evidence that the leaders that command them are ignorant,
corrupt, and deceiving?  Shouldn't they be referred to as the
"clueless and easily deceived?"

Why do soldiers claim "they fight for you" when "you"
never requested the soldiers or anyone else do such a thing? 
Isn't that a rather arrogant claim to make?  I certainly don't
recall making such a request.  "Excuse me, sir; do you
have a signed contract that quotes me agreeing to your services?" 
And if soldiers do "fight for me" why am I not allowed
any input on how they go about doing that?  Instead they receive
and accept orders from elsewhere.

do soldiers claim they "answered their country's call?" 
How do millions of people "call" you?  In reality,
the only parties that called were the draft board and/or the recruiter.

Why do soldiers claim they defend "the country" when
the largest threat to "the country" (the permanent regime
located in Washington D.C.) is not only ignored but protected? 
If "the country" truly is "the people" and the
role of the military is to protect "the people," why does
the military not protect "the people" from its government?

Attempts to answer these questions without the use of expletives,
slogans, revisionist history, clichés, or slander are welcome.

24, 2008

Young [send him mail]
is a
freelance photographer
in Texas and has a

Email Print