On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:16:57 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:17:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


While I can agree in hindsight that going into the military during
Vietnam was a foolish thing to do you are unnecessarily insulting the
millions of who served for altruistic and patriotic reasons.

No I'm not. The only ones who would be insulted are those who read what they
think they see, rather than what's written.

What you wrote was:

Any American who fought in Vietnam to "defend the freedom of the South
Vietnamese" is a fool.

Ah. Hardly anyone who fought in 'Nam did so to "defend the freedom of
the ...". You're right, about anyone who served will only see: "...
fought in Vietnam" ... "is a fool."

Trolling?









raw nerves so exposed that they can't read *anything* accurately. They
expect to see insult, so they do. Michael may be one of those.

If we can't be frank about what went on there, why people went, why they
*thought* they were there, and so on, then you're just sweeping some
important history under the rug. I was draft age then; many of my friends
and some relatives went; some of each died. We all re-examined the whole
thing a hundred times over, mostly after they returned -- those who did
return.

I don't know of anyone who went to "defend the freedom of the South
Vietnamese." Most had no idea how South Vietnam's profoundly corrupt and
oligarchic government worked, in the first place. They were told that
Vietnam was part of a proxy war between communist totalitarianism and
capitalist democracy. Very few had any idea whether that was true or not.


Leave out the bile toward good people and focus on those who created the
policies and wars. People might listen then.

How do you know which are "good people"? Plenty of them were not. And when
did you start absolving citizens of democratic states from responsibility
for carrying out the decisions made with their acquiescence?

You can't have it both ways.