Rumsfeld and flying

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:22:16 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I've got nothing to be humble about in that regard.

Of course not.

George Z. Bush wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Yes, there is a point in pursuing it. I am demeaned by every dirty,
bearded, fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled wannabe who claims to be a
Vietnam vet and has become the stereotype of what happens to men who
experience war.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Every one of those dirty, bearded,
fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled Vietnam vets left this country as clean-cut
American kids. Many of them may well have been volunteers as well. We as a
society are responsible for failing to adequately equip them to cope with the
conditions we were going to throw them into. If they were weak-willed to start
with, they should have been weeded out and not sent there to be destroyed by the
experiences they were exposed to. You can't blame the victims for having become
victims. Who in his right mind would consciously choose to come back so badly
damaged if they could have handled it or otherwise avoided it?

I know some of the type being refered to here and I assure
you, they were pretty much screwed up *before* heading off to
Vietnam. Have no idea what the percentage were and certainly
the war messed up good people.

It's been said military service in general can either straighten
you out or really screw you up!

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
compared to previous American wars; something like 20 or so for
the Army, as opposed to 24 or so during WWII and perhaps 26-28
for Civil War.

I'm probably off in absolute age values here but my point
is that the American Vietnam war soldier was youngish, and
that might contribute towards combat experience being a more
mind scrambling experience, if indeed Vietnam vets have minds
more scrambled than vets from other wars Americans have fought.

I might add that the treatment of at least some of these Vietnam
vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
not always as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote

It's been said military service in general can either straighten
you out or really screw you up!

Mostly it screws you up so the "new" liberals in Congress can't
deal with you any more...

Stephen Harding wrote:

Korean vets were largely forgotten about, but Vietnam vets
were "baby killers", to be shunned.

Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
"civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

Mike Marron wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Korean vets were largely forgotten about, but Vietnam vets
were "baby killers", to be shunned.

Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
"civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

Not crap at all. Here's the context of what I wrote with some
emphasis aids to help you properly understand.

I might add that the treatment of _at least some_ of these Vietnam
vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
_not always_ as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.

I personally know some people who were rudely treated by females
at dances and parties when their Vietnam vet status was learned.
In the area I live, just having a military style haircut during
the late 60's - early 70's could provoke wry smiles of quiet
ridicule from ones young aged peers.

The stories of returning vets being spit on by fellow 20 year olds
in the airport are probably over blown, but unless you lived in a
small town in midwest during that period, or at least not in a well
entrenched liberal area, a Vietnam vet could have it socially rough,
and might want to just keep his mouth shut about the experience.

Glad your Dad had no problems.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Mike Marron wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Korean vets were largely forgotten about, but Vietnam vets
were "baby killers", to be shunned.

Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
"civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

Not crap at all. Here's the context of what I wrote with some
emphasis aids to help you properly understand.

I might add that the treatment of _at least some_ of these Vietnam
vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
_not always_ as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.

I personally know some people who were rudely treated by females
at dances and parties when their Vietnam vet status was learned.
In the area I live, just having a military style haircut during
the late 60's - early 70's could provoke wry smiles of quiet
ridicule from ones young aged peers.

The stories of returning vets being spit on by fellow 20 year olds
in the airport are probably over blown, but unless you lived in a
small town in midwest during that period, or at least not in a well
entrenched liberal area, a Vietnam vet could have it socially rough,
and might want to just keep his mouth shut about the experience.

While he was not spit at, my brother always recalled his return to the
states. He had flown into one of the West coast airports and went into one
of the airport bars to grab a drink. Sat down at a table, and the couple
(youngish) sitting at the next table took in his khaki uniform, gave him a
nasty look, and got up and relocated to a table further away while muttering
insults. Kind of surprised him. But the bartender saw what had happened,
came out and walked over to his table and asked him if he had just gotten
back from Vietnam. Larry said yeah, he had, wondering what *this guy* was
going to have to say about it. The bartender told him (in a loud enough
voice for the couple to hear), "Welcome back, your drinks are on the house,
and don't pay any attention to how *some* people act around here", or words
to that effect. So in one short period of time he experienced both extremes
of treatment.

Brooks


Glad your Dad had no problems.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
"civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

Not crap at all. Here's the context of what I wrote with some
emphasis aids to help you properly understand.

This response is not only condescending, but it also shows how little
you know about how the VAST MAJORITY of 'Nam era vets were treated
when they returned to the States.

I might add that the treatment of _at least some_ of these Vietnam
vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
_not always_ as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.

Yeah yeah yeah. Spare us your whining, sniveling, poor,
poor, downtrodden Vietnam vet don't-get-no-respect crapola.

I personally know some people who were rudely treated by females
at dances and parties when their Vietnam vet status was learned.
In the area I live, just having a military style haircut during
the late 60's - early 70's could provoke wry smiles of quiet
ridicule from ones young aged peers.

We resided in both on and off-base housing in some of the larger
metropolitan areas out west (like Denver) and I can tell ya that with
nary a doubt that wherever my ol' man went he was treated with
nothing but respect by civilians from all walks of life. Hell, even
the local longhaired hoods, the dope smoking neighborhood "bad
boys," respected him cos' deep down they knew he was even
BADDER than they (thought) they were -- regardless if he was
strapped into a supersonic jet fighter or pushing the lawnmower
around the yard on a peaceful Saturday morning.

The stories of returning vets being spit on by fellow 20 year olds
in the airport are probably over blown,

Understatement of the decade. Guess ya just had to know my Dad
to know that any 20-year old unfortunate twerp who dared spit on him
would've promptly ended up either A) flat on his back in the back of
an ambulance, or B) DEAD.

but unless you lived in a small town in midwest during that period,
or at least not in a well entrenched liberal area, a Vietnam vet could
have it socially rough, and might want to just keep his mouth shut
about the experience.

Actually, those "well entrenched liberal areas" you speak of were in
the minority and the overwhelming majority of self-respecting Vietnam
vets could go anywhere and say anything he damn pleased be it
Berkley Calif on the left coast or up there in that liberal no-man's
land of New England where you're apparently from.

Glad your Dad had no problems.

Sheeeeiit.

Glad your Dad had no problems.

To judge by what you quoted from the gent's post, Dad did indeed have
a problem, in the form of his son.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

Of the Americans who died in Vietnam, 18.3 percent were 17-19 years
old, 38.5% were 21-22 years, 18.9 percent were 23-24 years, 14.3
percent were 25-29 years, and 10.0 percent were 30 years or older.

So the median was about 21 and a half.

There are no average age figures for those who served; the closest you
can come is to take deaths as a proxy.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam