Generations of disrespect...

[Tgace]

Thats sad, but a tangent...Im not trying to dig up who was "right or wrong" during Vietnam. Im trying to illustrate the damage our own citizens did to soldiers who, for a large part were drafted into War. Are you suggesting that all of them were "baby killers" who got what they deserved? Were people to ignorant to be able to tell the difference between a draftee who went out of duty to his country (guess thats a bad thing now), and a "murderer". Or that they just didnt care?

Now we are starting to justify starting the same **** over again. What do you suggest, we ask troops deplaneing if they were Enlisted or stop lossed during the war and thats OK, but if you enlisted during the war its understandable to spit on them. Not that thats happening "yet". But you see where Im going.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If you bring up the, "Vietnam treatment," you really shouldn't be all that surprised or admonitory if somebody else brings up the minor detail that we fought an insane and pointless twelve-year war that killed about 60, 000 Americans and maybe two million Vietnamese in ways that led directly to the subsequent disasters in Cambodia and Laos.

But mainly I have a question. At what point, what point exactly, would you say that a returning soldier deserves a little criticism for what he's done?
Certainly, you wouldn't argue that whatever one does in military service, they deserve our respect and a salute of some sort. Are we supposed to praise and honor a William Calley, or an Oliver North, just because they wore the uniform?

Sure, Kipling. Absolutely, citizens in this country have an ugly habit of sending boys, "over there," to fight and die, without doing more themselves than a little tub-thumping. Agreed that our politicians--especially the likes of MacNamara, Nixon and Kissinger--can be even worse and certainly far more hypocritical. Nonetheless, this country has repeatedly asserted that soldiers bear moral responsibility for what they do, even in the very worst parts of the very worst wars.

Or, just to make the obvious comment--I'd thought that a part of what our military was defending was the right of college students to protest, however foolishly.

 

[Tgace]

Hell...anybody hear me suggest that any laws be passed or that students be gassed or shot? Just expressing my opinion and personal disgust.......having served myself, having gone to the wake of a comrade killed in Iraq and having a childhood friend over there right now....think I have as much right as they do to my opinion regarding harassment\abuse of Soldiers.

 

[Marginal]

Hell...anybody hear me suggest that any laws be passed or that students be gassed or shot? Just expressing my opinion and personal disgust.......having served myself, having gone to the wake of a comrade killed in Iraq and having a childhood friend over there right now....think I have as much right as they do to my opinion regarding harassment\abuse of Soldiers.

By the Grossman quote, any negative public sentiment about a war being currently waged is detrimental to the soldier's mental and physical health.

(Even if the war's unjustified, and the people are against the war as much in interest of getting those same troops home sooner rather than later...)

 

[Tgace]

Actually, Grossmans quote implies that negative sentiment about the war that was innapproiately expressed as abandonment, violence, disrespect and ill treatment towards the individual soldier was detrimental to the soldiers health.

Spitting on somebody as an expression of concern for our troops seems like an odd stretch....

Or are you implying that harassing a soldier is really "Good" for him and his comrades in the long run?

 

[academian]

I dont even want to get started on this topic so I will just leave it with this quote They dont make nails from good steel and they dont make soldier from good men - unknown

 

[Tgace]

I dont even want to get started on this topic so I will just leave it with this quote They dont make nails from good steel and they dont make soldier from good men - unknown

Oh yeah thats a real good way "not to get started"....:shrug:

I probably shouldnt feed the trolls.

 

[Marginal]

Actually, Grossmans quote implies that negative sentiment about the war that was innapproiately expressed as abandonment, violence, disrespect and ill treatment towards the individual soldier was detrimental to the soldiers health.

Spitting on somebody as an expression of concern for our troops seems like an odd stretch....

Or are you implying that harassing a soldier is really "Good" for him and his comrades in the long run?

If he was saying THAT, he wouldn't have been talking about dear john letters and the like. (Or is that simply an inappropriate expression of abandonment towards the soldier?) Most of his comments seemed aimed at soldiers still in the field, and not soldiers getting spit upon as they return home. In the quotes provided, he was saying any negative public sentiment damages the soldier as it pops up in countless ways. A horrible domino effect from saying anything negative about a war. (Especially if the war has the misfortune of being unpopular in the population at large.)

Which boils down to, "Without a sense of moral and/or social justification for a given distasteful task, one questions the need of performing that task. Don't rock the boat please. Men at work."

You're trying to put the cart before the horse. I'm saying negative public sentiment is not innately harmful to the soldier. Not, "Yay spitting!" Sometimes the negative views of the whole are expressed badly, but the ultimate aim of that negative public opinion is usually properly focused. Getting troops out of a pointless meat grinder is a positive result.

 

[Makalakumu]

I ran across a fairly broad cross section of the nation when I was "in". You would have to really look at the enlistment data to back up that assumption.

I'm sure I could find some data fairly easily...

Anecdotally, I've watched recruiters flock to my school which serves primarily the poor and lower middle class. They regularly fill rooms by saying things like "Feel directionless? Feel like you aren't going anywhere in your life?"

Many of the poorer, uneducated soldiers many not pass the ASVAB with a high enough score to get a technical or clerical job, agreed. But theres nothing wrong with getting a paying job with food, shelter and clothing included when your civillian prospects look dim. Better than living off welfare.

I haven't heard of too many people being turned away because of lower scores on the ASVAB. Also, there is nothing wrong with doing your best to better yourself. Think about this question...if there were more options to better oneself, would the military have as many "new recruits?"

Carefull, many of us who signed up out of a sense of duty may resent being called "poor" deadends.

The majority does not mean all. Nor does it mean that I am calling anyone names or labelling anyone in particular.

The aforementioned message, when offered on the East end of town at the high school that serves the upper crust, doesn't work too well. They'll be lucky to pull in one or two people. Smart recruiters change their message to one of "Duty and Honor."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Being fairly well-acquainted with the moral character of academiCIANS, I find it hard to believe that the average college professor is inherently more moral than the average soldier.

Unless, of course, one feels that being in a privileged position where about the worst that can happen if you exercise moral choice is not getting tenured is somehow inherently morally superior to having to exercise your moral sense while you're actually getting shot at.

 

[Tgace]

Interesting article about recruiting practices. Not having been a recruiter I cant vouch based on personal experience...but it has a fairly balanced and rational approach on the subject.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1129-24.htm

Rangel's critique also has a strong sense of racial grievance, but data suggest that the military is not putting its energy into high schools attended by poor minority students. Instead of race, the clearest indicator of how hard a sell a student will receive is class. Generally, recruiters focus on the lower middle class in places with little economic opportunity.

The Defense Department does not track the socioeconomic background of its recruits, although Rangel has commissioned a Government Accountability Office study of the matter. The military also does not collect data for how many recruits it gets from which high schools; that information gets no higher than local recruiting commands.

But in 1999, the RAND Corp. conducted a study seeking patterns among qualified high school seniors.

"It turned out that kids who were of upper income were more likely to go to college, but it also turned out that kids from lower incomes had better chances of getting need-based financial aid to college," said Beth Asch, a RAND military personnel analyst. "So when you look at who goes to the military, you tend to get those in the middle."

Local recruiters use a computer system that combines socioeconomic data from the census, high school recruiting data for all four services, ZIP codes with high numbers of young adults, and other information to identify the likeliest candidates.

The obvious school districts that get screened out are those affluent enough that most of their students are probably college-bound. But recruiters also put less energy into underclass high schools, because they do not want prospects who might be ineligible because they drop out of school, have criminal records, or do not score high enough on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.

Every three months, each service hands recruiting station commanders a quota to meet. The Army pegs its signing bonuses to the specific jobs with the greatest openings. Highly qualified recruits are much more coveted than low-scoring prospects, who can do only basic tasks.

But this year, the Army is relaxing its rules to help fill its quotas. The number of high school dropouts allowed to enlist will rise 25 percent -- accounting for 10 percent of recruits this year, compared with 8 percent last year. The percentage allowed to enlist despite borderline scores on a service aptitude test will rise by 33 percent -- from 1.5 percent last year to 2 percent this year.

For recruiters on the ground such as Bidwell, it will be a tough year. So focusing on schools and ZIP codes that have had the highest rates of enlistment is good business sense.

"They have a higher propensity to enlist, so why not concentrate your efforts there?" Bidwell said.

 

[Makalakumu]

Tgace

Good find... :asian:

www.commondreams.org is fairly liberal by the way.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

Well, while I seem to get "pushed" to the extreme right around here for some reason, I really am more "right of center".

BTW I dont really see anything in the Army's approach as "immoral". The recruiters job is to find recruits. They go "where the fish are" so to speak. Kids with little other opportunity are given an opportunity for a job, training, money, some prestige amongst their peers. Granted recruiters can be lying ******** when it comes to getting you to sign (got screwed out of pay and rank when I signed up), but they arent up to any "evil designs".

 

[PeachMonkey]

BTW I dont really see anything in the Army's approach as "immoral". The recruiters job is to find recruits.

I don't think the problem lies with the recruiters themselves or even the Army, but society as a whole.

We continue to choose to engage in wars over specious causes that benefit only a limited segment of society, but the real anguish and burden of those wars is carried largely by people without any other options. As long as we, as people, accept this as the status quo, our military will be forced to function in this way.

Another example of capitalism at its finest.

 

[Tgace]

Those Commies have a track record of peace?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, no. Not like Chivington and Custer, Johnson and Nixon, Rusty Calley and G. Gordon Liddy and, say, Edward Teller.

It may also be worth noting that--as long as we're speaking of earning respect--however ugly he turned out later, Mao and the Route Army were fighting their country's invaders, behaving decently, and trying to help the Chinese people while the likes of Chiang Kai-Shek were throwing their people alive into railroad engine furnaces, looting everything they could get their sticky little hands on, and running from the Japanese.

Plenty enough blame to go around, I think.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Thats sad, but a tangent...Im not trying to dig up who was "right or wrong" during Vietnam. Im trying to illustrate the damage our own citizens did to soldiers who, for a large part were drafted into War. Are you suggesting that all of them were "baby killers" who got what they deserved? Were people to ignorant to be able to tell the difference between a draftee who went out of duty to his country (guess thats a bad thing now), and a "murderer". Or that they just didnt care?

Hardly a tangent. As was brought up by Robert, you started this thread talking about the "Vietnam Treatment."

And for saying I am suggesting "that all of them were 'baby killers'" is out of line. I've said nothing of the kind and prefaced my response to you with acknowledgement of the tragedy of such treatment. Further, I stated earlier that I served with Vietnam vets who were of the highest caliber, and served with other Marines who would not have ever deserved such treatment.

You're pointing out the mistreatment of soldiers by protesters. I'm pointing out--and have been clearly pointing out--that it goes both ways and protesters have been mistreated by soldiers. How can you possibly misconstrue that to suggest I think they're "baby killers?"

Vietnam was, as Iraq is now, a war in question. It was predicated on lies, cost millions of lives and huge amounts of national treasure. We supported a corrupt regime, broke treaties that would have provided the Vietnamese with free elections and autonomy, and mistreated prisoners of war...and all of it made the news. My generation watched it. I clearly recall watching the film footage of the mayor of Saigon blowing the brains out of a suspected insurgent during the Tet offensive...and I will never forget it.

No, I'm not saying the protesters had a right to call these soldiers "baby killers." They had a right to be angry, but not to misplace their vitriol...just as that cretin had no right to bruatalize Bill Schroeder's parents by sending them hate mail after their son had been killed.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Tgace]

I know of no recent protests, current students or anti-war proponents who have been mistreated by soldiers. Doubt any of those students have been shot at by Soldiers or even have any "personal" contact with riot control of either military or civillian derivation (Id wager a good chunck of them dont even know what happened at Kent State). My "Vietnam Treatment" aside alludes to the "path" we will start to go down if we allow (and before you attack that statement: by allow I mean in each of our own hearts, not by quashing civil rights) dissatisfaction with policy to come down on the wrong heads, and in the wrong manner....And as I havent expressed any intent or desire to stop protests, or infringe on 1st amendment rights, I dont even see what we are debating here. Just that protest and harassment are two different things.

As to the Kent letter...as ugly and mis-placed that sentiment was. Imagine how it would feel to get a letter from some protester saying they were "glad their son was killed in the illegal war in Vietnam"..Im pretty sure that the families of the soldiers "over there" didnt appreciate the attacks on thier loved ones alive or dead, and sprouted these types of letters. BTW I believe civillian law enforcement inflicted more violence on 60's protesters than the military (Kent aside:which, tell me if Im wrong was a State, not federal action. Could as easily been state troopers)...and I propose that events like the one that started this thread wont gian much sympathy with the families and friends of people who are serving "over there". I note there was no "bring our boys home" sentiment expressed by these protesters.....

 

[Tgace]

Well, no. Not like Chivington and Custer, Johnson and Nixon, Rusty Calley and G. Gordon Liddy and, say, Edward Teller.

It may also be worth noting that--as long as we're speaking of earning respect--however ugly he turned out later, Mao and the Route Army were fighting their country's invaders, behaving decently, and trying to help the Chinese people while the likes of Chiang Kai-Shek were throwing their people alive into railroad engine furnaces, looting everything they could get their sticky little hands on, and running from the Japanese.

Plenty enough blame to go around, I think.

In retrospect I suppose the Commies had a better "kill ratio" against their own people. What with revolutions, purges, secret police, labor camps and all....

 

[Tgace]

Would fit right in with the "Im glad your Son died..." letter writing crowd from was past IMO.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3719681/detail.html


This guy was a little more confrontational in his approach but still....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181422_robert09.html