Baby bombers should be considered jerks no matter what decade they're from.
What are you....like twelve? Nice generalization of everyone born between 1946 and 1964. You seem to have the troll thing down pat. Nothing jerkish about that.....
But soldiers were viewed as heroes in WWII. Even in movies.
Just seems to me like the 70s was a dark period and the government and everyone threw the soldiers under the bus.
Personally I would be more inclined to describe it as an era of unusual freedom of speech and opinion, resulting in largely justified atmosphere of general criticism and distrust of public powers.
The wave of cynicism involved did catch a lot of soldiers in a crossfire that was in many ways unfair, but then again a notable amount of those soldiers agreed that they indeed should be ashamed of what they had taken part in, despite the perceived lack of options.
I'm going to go with what happened with 9/11 and propaganda. That's why soldiers are loved now (they were back in WW1 and 2 as well).
It's all propaganda. It's the same reason why some people think all Muslims/Arabs are bad, but don't understand that Muslim's aren't just Arabic. Indonesia has 200 million Muslims, but who knows that?
The Following User Says Thank You to 3 Justin 3 For This Useful Post:
Soldiers are loved now because the public understands that they are sacrificing their lives and in some ways their own personal freedom to answer the call when our nation needs protecting.
The fact that they are involved in wars like Iraq has nothing to do with the soldier, and everything to do with policy set forth by the leaders WE elect as civilians. So if anyone should be ashamed of what they've done, it should be us. So get the hell off your pedestal and quit saying we only appreciate the sacrifice these days because we've been brainwashed by the government.
Some of us actually truly, honestly with incredible gratitude appreciate what people like CaptainCrunch and millions of others have done to ensure that ignorance can be spewed across the internet about propaganda and government bullcrap. I appreciate my freedom. I appreciate the people that protect it with their lives.
The only reason we can sit here and call wars in Iraq unjustified is because there are people better than us that gave their lives for a cause most of us will never understand.
The peace movement was full of a bunch of hippies who smoked too much pot and did way too many drugs. The majority of them didn't even realize what they were protesting against. Vietnam sucked. We all know that. But that wasn't the soldiers fault.
I would love to send some of you into the jungle when you're 19 years old, and while your buddies are dying around you(50,000 of them) I would tell you to keep focused and not loose your mind, and then see how you respond.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I think it was easier for americans to see themselves as having something in common with the Vietnamese than with the various Arabs they have been fighting, the Vietnamese were obviously no threat to the US, even the most shallow of investigations made it pretty obvious it was little more than a US attempt to maintain western control of a country that really didn't want us. US military technology was so much less sophisticated therefore they did kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to prop up an undemocratic puppet regime.
The arabs, on the other hand, have less in common with the average american, they have proved to be a threat to the US and US technology has kept civilian deaths directly caused by them to a much lower amount.
Soldiers are loved now because the public understands that they are sacrificing their lives and in some ways their own personal freedom to answer the call when our nation needs protecting.
The fact that they are involved in wars like Iraq has nothing to do with the soldier, and everything to do with policy set forth by the leaders WE elect as civilians. So if anyone should be ashamed of what they've done, it should be us. So get the hell off your pedestal and quit saying we only appreciate the sacrifice these days because we've been brainwashed by the government.
Some of us actually truly, honestly with incredible gratitude appreciate what people like CaptainCrunch and millions of others have done to ensure that ignorance can be spewed across the internet about propaganda and government bullcrap. I appreciate my freedom. I appreciate the people that protect it with their lives.
The only reason we can sit here and call wars in Iraq unjustified is because there are people better than us that gave their lives for a cause most of us will never understand.
The peace movement was full of a bunch of hippies who smoked too much pot and did way too many drugs. The majority of them didn't even realize what they were protesting against. Vietnam sucked. We all know that. But that wasn't the soldiers fault.
I would love to send some of you into the jungle when you're 19 years old, and while your buddies are dying around you(50,000 of them) I would tell you to keep focused and not loose your mind, and then see how you respond.
Its funny, I joined when I was 18, I didn't have any high ideal motives like saving the world, I needed a job and a place to live because my parents were determined to throw me out. Chicks dig uniforms and it was certainly a cooler job description then working at a fast food restaurant.
It wasn't until I really got into basic training, and got a heaping dose of history and perspective and learned on the job about how important it is for soldiers to do what they do.
I don't think anyone gains appreciation for the whole concept of duty, honor and valor until they've been exposed to it for a period of time.
To be honest, the one thing that soldiers have had to face from the first time that they were actually segmented from society is that what we have to do is important, and a lot of ways sacred, we also learned that the general population would never gain an appreciation for those in uniforms until the worst possible scenarios came to life. And there will always be a segment of society that resented and hated us because they didn't have a clear understanding of the sacrifices that you have to endure even when your working and training in peacetime.
There was a great line in Heartbreak Ridge where Clint Eastwood was getting dressed down by the commanding officer of his division.
Quote:
I don't know what strings you pulled to get back into this division but I can assure you that I don't like it. This is the new Marine Corps. The new breed. Characters like you are an anachronism. You should be sealed in a case that reads break glass only in the event of war. Got no tolerance for you old timers who think that you know it better and can have it all your own way. Understand?
I think that the bolded is how a lot of people saw soldiers and the military after Vietnam drew to a close and America went through the great restructuring.
But at 18 did I have high minded ideas of defending democracy from the evils of communism, and defending the rights of a shrill woman accusing me of killing babies? Absolutely not, I had a more basic understanding of things. Defend the country, defend the weak and honestly get laid as much as I could.
That sense of enlightenment didn't pop into my mind until my last year, and on reflection after I returned from wearing the blue beret.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
So, Itse, the American government controls all films produced about war? Really? You really believe that?
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The difference between the way soldiers were treated during Vietnam and Gulf War I was definitely the result of a sense of collective guilt, one might say the Boomer Generation growing up and wanting a do-over. That was very much the sense and source of discussion in 1991.
The 16 year gap between the two conflicts was punctuated by the landmark "Platoon" film of roughly 1980, somewhat controversial - some said it was too painful and too early - but deeply impactful to the American psyche at the time. There was lots of discussion and editorializing leading into Gulf War I about the topic . . . . . generally, in Gulf War I, the average American had decided, whether he or she agreed or disagreed with policy, the soldier on the ground would not be drawn into the political discussion and would instead be respected for their sacrifice.
Contrast that with the brilliantly politically neutral "Taking Chance" or the documentary "Restrepo" which also declined to take sides.
Vietnam, economically, also touched most Americans, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. World War II spending was 25% of American GDP and included widespread rationing, Eisenhower's famous warning of a "military industrial complex" came at a time when defence spending was 15% of GDP, Vietnam accounted for nine percent of American GDP while Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were in the six per cent area. American defence spending bottomed at about 3.2% of GDP in GW Bush II's first year, the year of 9/11, the lowest percentage in the history of the Republic, and is now in the roughly 4.5% of GDP range. The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan has been about 1% of GDP through the last eight and ten years. Unlike most significant conflicts, American's were never asked to sacrifice as individuals economically - rationing for example - for Iraq and Afghanistan. Life went on at the homefront as though nothing much was happening unless you were watching the news.
As others have noted, Vietnam came with its own distortions . . . .
In truth, two-thirds of USA enlisted men who fought in Vietnam were volunteers and about 70% of American deaths in Vietnam were volunteers . . . . . belying the reputation that the USA military was conscripted.
In contrast, two-thirds of USA military in WWII were conscripts.
Virtually 100% of those enlisted in Iraq and Afghanistan were volunteers.
Eighty-eight percent of American servicemen who served in Vietnam were caucasian and 86% killed were caucasian. Blacks suffered 12.5% of deaths in Vietnam at a time when blacks were 13.6% of the American population.
Seventy-nine percent of Americans who served in Vietnam had a high school diploma compared to 63% of Korean War veterans and 45% of WWII veterans. Virtually all American veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq would have had a high school diploma or equivalency.
In Vietnam, there were about 30 American deaths every day in an American population of less than 200 million versus about two or three per day in Iraq at the height of the conflict in 2006-07 in an overall population of more than 300 million.
About 47,000 Americans died in combat in Vietnam and another 10,000 perished by other causes versus, I think, about 6,230 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every loss is 100% tragic for the deceased and their family, but the weight on the national psyche between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan is significantly different not for lack of compassion but simply by sheer numbers.
One key pyschological tipping point for the American public pertaining to Vietnam came in mid-1969 when LIFE Magazine picked one week at random, "no different than any other" and printed mug service shots and brief profiles of 242 American servicemen who had been killed in that seven day stretch. "The Faces Of American Dead." http://www.ichiban1.org/html/news_pages/news_41.htm
During the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, both the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN have, among others, also ran a running mug shot list and brief profile of each of the fallen in those conflicts. http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/
Same thing, less impactful perhaps.
Time comes and goes but I doubt American's, as a group, will ever treat their soldiers as badly as they did through Vietnam and, if nothing else, that was the one lesson the American public will pass from generation to generation.
My two cents.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
So, Itse, the American government controls all films produced about war? Really? You really believe that?
Americans control all films produced about war and as such think they have won every war single-handedly. The government doesn't need to control it, American film-makers do it themselves.
This is my opinion of course. Even Band of Brothers (which is one of my favorite things put on film) is overly pretentious in my opinion, although I understand why.
If not for Russia, WWII may not have been won by the Allies.
So, Itse, the American government controls all films produced about war? Really? You really believe that?
No. But they try, and seem to succeed at an increasing rate. This is not really something they try to hide even.
As to Azure, would you explain to me how, exactly, have the US troops protected your freedom in your lifetime? What is the scenario that would have cut down on your liberties had the US troops not been involved?
There are valid arguments to be made for war. I have no problems with people choosing to be soldiers as such. But I have a huge problem with people shouting out empty slogans that have no connection to reality.
If you want to honour people protecting your freedom and safety, you should honour politicians, the police and the press.
EDIT: Not to forget civil rights activists. Those people get way too little credit for keeping for trying to protect our personal freedom.
Americans control all films produced about war and as such think they have won every war single-handedly. The government doesn't need to control it, American film-makers do it themselves
War films have been produced by every nation with a film industry, not just America.
This is my opinion of course. Even Band of Brothers (which is one of my favorite things put on film) is overly pretentious in my opinion, although I understand why.
If not for Russia, WWII may not have been won by the Allies.
And I say the Soviet Union would have been defeated were it not for second fronts opened in Noth Africa by the Western Allies, not to mention the defacto second front that was the Allied bombing campaign as well as massive material support for the Soviets from the West. It was that close. If the Battle of Stalingrad goes the other way, the Soviets lose the war. WWII was a group effort that required the participation of the US, due to their massive industrial infrastructure.
Last edited by Red Ice Player; 10-23-2011 at 07:52 PM.
I think it was easier for americans to see themselves as having something in common with the Vietnamese than with the various Arabs they have been fighting, the Vietnamese were obviously no threat to the US, even the most shallow of investigations made it pretty obvious it was little more than a US attempt to maintain western control of a country that really didn't want us. US military technology was so much less sophisticated therefore they did kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to prop up an undemocratic puppet regime.
The arabs, on the other hand, have less in common with the average american, they have proved to be a threat to the US and US technology has kept civilian deaths directly caused by them to a much lower amount.
Remember Vietnam was divided in two. The South was very grateful the Americans were helping to fight the Communists and felt abandoned when the US left (even with some of the atrocities).
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Remember Vietnam was divided in two. The South was very grateful the Americans were helping to fight the Communists and felt abandoned when the US left (even with some of the atrocities).
Partly inspired by this thread, I finally took the time to watch Fog of War, a documentary in which Robert McNamara talks about war (mostly).
I can not recommend it strongly enough, fantastic.
As to McNamara's comments about war, they are I think spot on in many things that are seen in overly simplified ways. (For example "war crimes".)
In relation to the quote, McNamara makes (I'm paraphrasing a little here) the claim that had the two sides (North Vietnamese and the US) understood each other, US involvement in the war could have mostly been avoided (or at least it would have been very different).
The Vietnamese believed, wrongly, that the US wanted to replace France as a colonial power, and the US didn't understand that the NV considered their fight to be a civil war and a war of independence, and that they weren't really the pawns of the Chinese or the Russians.
What are you....like twelve? Nice generalization of everyone born between 1946 and 1964. You seem to have the troll thing down pat. Nothing jerkish about that.....
I think he was making a joke about Girly using Baby BOMBERS instead of boomers.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamingLonghorn For This Useful Post:
Partly inspired by this thread, I finally took the time to watch Fog of War, a documentary in which Robert McNamara talks about war (mostly).
I can not recommend it strongly enough, fantastic.
As to McNamara's comments about war, they are I think spot on in many things that are seen in overly simplified ways. (For example "war crimes".)
In relation to the quote, McNamara makes (I'm paraphrasing a little here) the claim that had the two sides (North Vietnamese and the US) understood each other, US involvement in the war could have mostly been avoided (or at least it would have been very different).
The Vietnamese believed, wrongly, that the US wanted to replace France as a colonial power, and the US didn't understand that the NV considered their fight to be a civil war and a war of independence, and that they weren't really the pawns of the Chinese or the Russians.
Had the two sides understood each other in what way?
He is right in the 2nd part of your post. It was the North's propaganda that the US were absolutely raping the South and it was "our" job to go into the south and 'save our brothers' and reunified the country.
It worked. Except that the citizens of the South weren't saved. They suffered more.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
]Americans control all films produced about war and as such think they have won every war single-handedly. [/B] The government doesn't need to control it, American film-makers do it themselves.
This is my opinion of course. Even Band of Brothers (which is one of my favorite things put on film) is overly pretentious in my opinion, although I understand why.
If not for Russia, WWII may not have been won by the Allies.
That is a load of crap.
There have been a LOT of movies made that haven't cast a good light on the military at all.
Full Metal Jacket was brutally forthcoming and it freaked a lot of people out. Who won in the end? I'm not actually sure. Platoon? All about Americans winning? Seriously?
We all know Americans love to be overly brash and bold in their opinion of themselves on the world stage. I have many American friends that completely want to discount any role Canada ever played in the 2 big wars, but that has nothing to do with the public's opinion of the American soldier, and everything to do with your personal opinion of Americans.
They are the most superior nation by far in regards to the military the world has ever seen. I know a lot of people love to point to Iraq and all the apparently failures and struggles, when in fact Iraq is a perfect example of a highly trained military force being given the proper manpower and resources to accomplish a mission and following through with such command and authority that many people still don't even realize what happened. Talking about the surge, and the results afterwards.
Either way, you're completely wrong with it comes to the American film industry. If anything, Hollywood has to a degree portrayed the American soldier in a negative way, and yet remarkably, the public still appreciates what the soldier does.
I find that people like you and Itse are few and far between, which isn't surprising considering your ridiculous opinions of government propaganda and how the government controls the film industry and brainwashes the general public into thinking that the soldier shouldn't be spit upon.
I went to an airshow in Lethbridge last year, and the Golden Hawks did a jump that was actually quite remarkable. The applause and appreciation shown by the crowd afterwards was JUST as remarkable, and I found it heartening to see that the general population still appreciates what those men and women do.
I don't think that I can think of the last war movie made in America that was overwhelmingly positive.
I don't recall the last war movie that was really a jingoistic super positive portrayal of the American Military.
Most of the Hollywood film makers know that a rah rah movie ala anything in the thread of John Wayne or Audey Murphy would sell tickets.
The overwhelming sense I get is that war movies are all about war is hell, individual soldiers questioning what they're doing there or suffering from mental illnesses or grievous crippling injuries, while being commanded by oafish morons with officer ranks on their sleeves.
The last true propaganda type movie was the first Starship troopers movie and that movie was a back handed slap at militarist societies.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
