I don’t think most wars of aggression are fought “for the fun of it,” but and my opposition to them isn’t based on the impression that they are. And I don’t think a sincere concern for the welfare of the Vietnamese people was high on the list of motivations for America’s involvement in that conflict.

Well, that’s where our difference lies. I don’t think that’s the military’s job. If I had to provide a similarly terse definition, I’d say the military’s job was to stay at home and protect people.

If you’ll note my comment was in reply to Boyd’s comments. I don’t see what the point of killing Vietnamese has to do with, that is the militariy’s job–go to interesing places and kill people. It isn’t the Salvation Army.

Since, as PersonfromPorlock pointed out, “the military doesn’t set policy in America,” suggesting that service in Vietnam was not really a service “to the country” doesn’t constitute a judgment against those troops individually.

I don’t follow your reasoning here. I look at the fact that the military is subordinate to the civilian governmnt as implying precisely the opposite. The civilian government ordered these men there and they went, thus it is service for one’s country. The fact that years later with the benefit of hindsight that says it was a mistake or wrong or whatever does not change that.

They obeyed their government, and if you believe service to a government right or wrong should be honored, then it makes sense to praise them for a service to their country. I don’t believe that such obedience is necessarily honorable, and that is the point of my comment.

This isn’t a buffet. I’ll take some of this, but I want none of that. You get the whole deal when it comes to how our government works. You can take the anarcho-capitalist view of Cynical in CA if you prefer, but then you’d be hard pressed to even give praise to a soldier fighting on the border repelling invaders, IMO. That doesn’t strike me as your position. The voters had years to change the policy of our government in regards to Vietnam and they didn’t. In a way, those soldiers were representatives of the voters. We may regret it now, but that doesn’t change what actually happened.

Steve Verdon, it’s ironic that your point out that American troops weren’t standing by the U.S. border repelling invaders but fail to note that the Vietnamese were defending their homeland, and American soldiers were killing them for doing so.

I was careful to explain that I did think the veteran was entitled to treatment for any injuries he suffered during military service, and that I wasn’t in any position to pass judgment on his character, being both ignorant of his reason for serving (he may have been drafted, as you point out) and fortunately spared the burden of having to decide whether to serve in that conflict myself. Since, as PersonfromPorlock pointed out, “the military doesn’t set policy in America,” suggesting that service in Vietnam was not really a service “to the country” doesn’t constitute a judgment against those troops individually. They obeyed their government, and if you believe service to a government right or wrong should be honored, then it makes sense to praise them for a service to their country. I don’t believe that such obedience is necessarily honorable, and that is the point of my comment.

I think you can make such a point with respect and compassion for the victims on both sides of the war, and I tried to do so. If I failed, I apologize for remarks that might be taken to personally disparage Sheri’s husband or suggest that he doesn’t deserve medical treatment.

I believe Parse is pointing out that there is (or should be) room to debate the difference between actually defending a country and being sent on assinine and murderous tasks.

Are you really implying that Sheri’s husband was engaging in a murderous task–i.e. was a murder? Really?

Yes, it isn’t the same as standing along the U.S. border and repelling invaders there, but still he was (most likely) forced into a situation he didn’t want by his country and suffered for it. We may look back at those events and regret them, but we should still help out the men who went (were forced to go?) and sacrificed.

Handsome sentiments or not, the opportunity for debate should exist.

Yes, I agree. By the same token you don’t have to be a dick about it either. I’m sure many of the men who are now suffering the after effects of having fought in Vietnam, at the time, would have rather been back home doing what most 18, 19 and 20 year olds did then.

Was the task really for the country or for politics? The two are not the same.

Two points:

Are you sure defending out country is not political? I’m not talking about Vietnam, Iraq, etc. but an actual war where the military was on the border repelling an enemy. Why is that not political. Seems like preserving not only our country in terms of our homes, streets, and the people inside, but also our institutions, some of which are political is, in the end political.

Second point: You seem to be implying that people in the military should judge which missions to follow. What if they decide to start setting their own missions and one of them is to put the military in charge. The military in the U.S. is subordinate to the civilian political government. As such, it makes the use of the military inherently political and possibly subject to abuse. It might very well be an evil we have to live with to keep the military subordinate to civilians vs. having the military deciding to take charge.

Handsome sentiments or not, the opportunity for debate should exist. Was the task really for the country or for politics? The two are not the same.

I am the only person I know that actually failed DARE. It was because I refused to write some stupid-ass essay on why drugs were bad. I didn’t have a political agenda in primary school, but I knew there wasn’t a real grade involved, and I was lazy.

If the cops teaching DARE can’t even convince (scare) me to write an essay, how the hell are they going to convice (scare) me to not use drugs?

It would end the debate for anyone who has one iota of knowledge or had any dealings with the VA.

The military is the ONLY place that doesn’t make me wince when I think my taxes are going to pay for it.

With respect for your husband’s courage and sacrifice, I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize fighting in Vietnam as doing something “for our country.” If he was disabled on the job, I think he deserves compensation, as would anyone who was injured on the job. I didn’t face the draft during the Vietnam conflict, so I’m not in a position to judge those who had to make a choice whether to serve or resist, but the fact that your husband was fighting in the U.S. forces doesn’t change the fact that he was fighting a war of aggression that killed thousands of Vietnamese fighting to defend their home against foreign invaders.