PDA

View Full Version : Vietnam's "Civil War"



Gayle in MD
09-08-2007, 10:27 AM
www.inforplease.com (http://www.inforplease.com)
Vietnam War
Vietnam War, conflict in Southeast Asia, primarily fought in South Vietnam between government forces aided by the United States and guerrilla forces aided by North Vietnam. The war began soon after the Geneva Conference provisionally divided (1954) Vietnam at 17 N lat. into the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). It escalated from a Vietnamese civil war into a limited international conflict in which the United States was deeply involved, and did not end, despite peace agreements in 1973, until North Vietnam's successful offensive in 1975 resulted in South Vietnam's collapse and the unification of Vietnam by the North.


Vietnam War, conflict in Southeast Asia, primarily fought in South Vietnam between government forces aided by the United States and guerrilla forces aided by North Vietnam. The war began soon after the Geneva Conference provisionally divided (1954) Vietnam at 17 N lat. into the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). It escalated from a Vietnamese civil war into a limited international conflict in which the United States was deeply involved, and did not end, despite peace agreements in 1973, until North Vietnam's successful offensive in 1975 resulted in South Vietnam's collapse and the unification of Vietnam by the North.
U.S. Withdrawal
Serious negotiations to end the war began after U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's decision not to seek reelection in 1968. Contacts between North Vietnam and the United States in Paris in 1968 were expanded in 1969 to include South Vietnam and the NLF. The United States, under the leadership of President Richard M. Nixon, altered its tactics to combine U.S. troop withdrawals with intensified bombing and the invasion of Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia (1970).

The length of the war, the high number of U.S. casualties, and the exposure of U.S. involvement in war crimes such as the massacre at My Lai (see My Lai incident) helped to turn many in the United States against the war. Politically, the movement was led by Senators James William Fulbright, Robert F. Kennedy, Eugene J. McCarthy, and George S. McGovern; there were also huge public demonstrations in Washington, D.C., as well as in many other cities in the United States and on college campuses.

Even as the war continued, peace talks in Paris progressed, with Henry Kissinger as U.S. negotiator. A break in negotiations followed by U.S. saturation bombing of North Vietnam did not derail the talks, and a peace agreement was reached, signed on Jan. 27, 1973, by the United States, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the NLF's provisional revolutionary government. The accord provided for the end of hostilities, the withdrawal of U.S. and allied troops (several Southeast Asia Treaty Organization countries had sent token forces), the return of prisoners of war, and the formation of a four-nation international control commission to ensure peace.


End of the War
Fighting between South Vietnamese and Communists continued despite the peace agreement until North Vietnam launched an offensive in early 1975. South Vietnam's requests for aid were denied by the U.S. Congress, and after Thieu abandoned the northern half of the country to the advancing Communists, a panic ensued. South Vietnamese resistance collapsed, and North Vietnamese troops marched into Saigon Apr. 30, 1975. Vietnam was formally reunified in July, 1976, and Saigon was renamed Ho Chi Minh City. U.S. casualties in Vietnam during the era of direct U.S. involvement (196172) were more than 50,000 dead; South Vietnamese dead were estimated at more than 400,000, and Viet Cong and North Vietnamese at over 900,000.


<font color="red">I trust this will suffice to end the denial over the fact that the Vietnam War was actually a civil war, unless, of course, the right prefers to adhere to their personal version, to the encyclopedia,... wouldn't surprise me much.

Also, it was Ho Chi Minh who told McNamara years later that they would have fought until the last man dropped, and that the United States, should have understood from the beginning that they were caught in a Vietnamese Civil War. Johnson, had been informed by Generals on the ground, and by his cabinet, that the war was unwinnable. He escalated the war, for political purposes, and was dishonest with the American public. Those who demonstrated against the Vietnam War, some of them shot dead on their campus, during another Republican War President's administration, who turned out to also be a liar and a crook, were the American Heros of the era, John Kerry, among them.

Unfortunately, Goerge Bush, and Dick Cheney, ignored the lessons of Vietnam, and created a civil war, under false pretenses, in the most volital part of the world, and now use it to further promote the false statements about Vietnam, which have continued to this day. Also, the professed "Domino theory" which was supposed to happen, if we removed ourselves from a Civil War, in which communism would take over the world, didn't happen, just as leaving Iraq, will not create a void which will be filled by al Qaeda, as has already been demonstrated by the Sunnis in al Anbar Province, who were well on their way to defeating the al Qaeda presence, well before the beginning of Bush's "Surge" which he now claims is a result of the "Surge" along with other lies about the "Conditions on the ground" </font color>
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SKennedy
09-08-2007, 12:59 PM
You are like my mother. She believes everything she reads or hears on TV, regardless of what is said or who put it out, etc. Bless her heart...I love her anyway.

Why doesn't the article say anything about the French? It is pointless to argue with someone like you....and I don't mean that in a complimentary way. It's just taken me awhile to learn what others on this site have been trying to tell me. Communist aggression by a country with "North" in the name against a country with "South" in the name still does not make it a Civil War, regardless of who you quote or the history re-writes by the anit-war movement of the 60's. You should consider supporting Ron Paul. He's against the war also.
Jeb Bush/Rice 2012!!

Gayle in MD
09-08-2007, 02:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It escalated from a Vietnamese civil war into a limited international conflict in which the United States was deeply involved, <hr /></blockquote>

This isn't an article, FYI, it is from the encyclopedia. The war in Vietnam was a civil war. Do you think that Ho, didn't know what kind of war was going on in his own country?

I'm not interested in your sarcasm. I don't get my information from the media. However, I'm sure one damned professor you had in college, knows more about the Vietnam War than the leader of the country.


As your co-hearts on here, the more you are proven wrong with the facts, you more nasty you get. Some her don't know the difference between Richard Clarke, our former terrorist Czar, and a terrorist. Such mistakes don't transfer into any humility from any of you, however. One would think those who voted for the worst president in history, would have learned some humility from their drastically inferrior judgement.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
09-08-2007, 02:45 PM
Nothing mentioned about France or nothing mentioned about where the NVA and the Vietcong were getting their weapons and financial backing

DeadCrab
09-09-2007, 06:05 AM
Assuming you are old enough to remember, and I'm not sure that is the case, you will surely recall that the decisive force in the VN war was the Viet Cong. These were South Vietnamese fighting against their own government and foreign occupation. It was a civil war within a civil war. Their hit-and-run tactics similar to what we are seeing in Iraq today.

If you want to bring up the French, fine. It is just another example of foreign occupation solidifying citizen resistance.

Viet Nam could have been nuked and paved. But if one male and one female VC survived and reproduced, they would have eventually won.

Bobbyrx
09-09-2007, 05:11 PM
Originally they were made up of South Vietnamese communists but they were being led by and supplied by Russia and China through the NVA. Most of the South Vietnamese VC were wiped out in the Tet offensive and were replaced by North Vietnamese troops sent south after that. But it was still an attempt by the communists to take over the country, not just a civil war between the north and south. What other reason did we have to go there but to stop the communists? Was Haliburton around then???

SKennedy
09-09-2007, 06:09 PM
You did mean "co-horts" as opposed to "co-hearts", right?
I mean you're not implying we are all gay are you? Although if we were, I guess that would be OK?

By the way, how's the chop today? I have a real problem with motion sickness. On an area lake 2 years ago during duck season we had about 2 1/2 ft - 3 ft swells and I was starting to feel kind of puny. I've never been able to adjust and get my sea legs.

DeadCrab
09-09-2007, 06:38 PM
************
What other reason did we have to go there but to stop the communists? Was Haliburton around then???
*************

Viet Nam had very productive rubber plantations. That is why the French were there. They also have significant offshore oil. Not to mention lots of foliage that Dow and DuPont had an answer for.

The overall positive impact of the VN war for the companies that profited from it was far greater than the current mess in Iraq, because money spent on the VN war was a much higher percentage percentage of the GNP.

Only short wars can be fought effectively without a draft. And as we learned in Viet Nam, lack of citizen support for a draft during a shooting war pretty much pulls the plug on the war.

Bobbyrx
09-09-2007, 09:48 PM
So we went into Vietnam because we saw a civil war and saw a chance to steal their rubber and oil, and to let Dow and Dupont test their defoliants?

DeadCrab
09-10-2007, 06:27 AM
No, the initial attraction was to fight a proxy war with the USSR and China war through little countries. The domino theory being the public selling point. Any direct conflict with those powers had the potential to vaporize the planet.

Once there, we found ourselves immersed in a conflict where the citizenry we were supposedly saving had a large faction that was killing us at night. The locals were primitive, but they had tunnels everywhere and could move supplies and rebuild bridges unfazed by carpet bombing. The longer we were there, the easier it was for them to recruit.

Then there were the women, the booze, the drugs, the daily combat without rest, the corruption of the South government, and the ineffectiveness of the South's army. Low morale and poor dicipline in our own army. Over half of the U.S. Army's 2LTs were killed by their own men.

As our body count kept rising, public support slipped. When they did away with student draft deferments and instituted the draft lottery, public support vanished.

So, Nixon turned the war over to the South, and they were overrun, and the domino theory did, in fact, play out as predicted. However, the "we will have to fight them in San Diego" threat never materialized. In fact, the general consensus in the years following the war was that they (and we) were better off with them at peace under a commie government, than they were during decades of war.

Gayle in MD
09-10-2007, 06:32 AM
This wasn't a discussion about gay people. It's about your insistance that Viet Nam, wasn't a civil war. Obviously, you're wrong about that. And no, I meant co-hearts, guess you didn't get the pun.

As for the sea sickness, this will sound a bit far out, I'm ssure, but the best prevention, is to drink a beer on the dock, an hour before you go out, and stay out of the cabin. It brings up your blood sugar, and wards off sea sickness.

Vietnam, provided us with a good example of what happens when there are warring factions, civil war, between nationals, and illogical expectations for what will happen when we leave, combined with lies from the White House. We didn't cut off funding until 1975, and by then, most of our people were already out of there. It was a costly war, which we should have never gotten involved with, but we didn't create it, like Bush has done with his foreign policy.

Cheney, is all for bombing in Iraq. That should bring up the price of oil for his cronies. Bush is determined alright, but determined to leave this colossal mess he's made to his successor, then he can stand back and blame the next guy for the results, but he won't be keeping up with what's happening when he goes. He doesn't like to think about pressing threats. On bin Laden, he said, not that long after 9/11, "I don't know where he is, he's hiding. I don't think about him" ...GWB. His attention is on setting up his oil cronies, and getting a hundred thousand dollars for his speeches after he gets out.

Meanwhile, our army is broken, Powell says this surge can only keep the lid on the pot for a while, and meanwhile, we're at risk, unable to be active in other international obligations, and unable to respond to any emergencies, here at home. Since most experts do agree to one thing, that Iraq is years away from any political success, or reconciliation, which is the crux of the violence, the only way to maintain even spotty success in preventing violence, is to maintain a large American presence, in the midst of their civil war. Is America ready and committed to this campaign enough to re-institute the draft? Hell no. What's the point in leaving our people to continue to die on the fron lines, in a civil war, which cannot be won militarily, for another two years? Only 5% trust Bush's judgement as regards his version of the situation on the ground. This is what happens when a president lies his country into a war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Bush, has no credibility at all, here or around the world. He is NOT a leader, and has treated our troops outrageously, called by a respected Republican, criminal.

So, you folks who want to keep our troops over there had better get ready to send your own sons to the fight. do you think it's worth, that?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
09-10-2007, 06:41 AM
Excellent appraisal, sir, and a good example of why we should have gotten out of vietnam, years before we finally did. You wouldn't think Bush would be dumb enough to use Vietnam, as an example of why we should continue to lose blood and treasure in Iraq. This is a huge mess, and has only made everything much worse. Bush and Cheney should be impeached. It is a felony to lie to Congress, and to operate a secret, hidden government for the purpose of creating false propaganda to send our country to war.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
09-10-2007, 08:37 AM
I actually agree with Deadcrab's assessment also!

Did miss the pun....thought intellectuals stayed away from puns? Sorry for missing it.

By 1973 few boys were being sent to Vietnam. I think funding may have actually dried up before 1975.

Thanks for the tip about sea-sickness. A southern bible-belt baptist is always looking for a legitimate reason to drink beer.

Chopstick
09-11-2007, 09:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr>
Thanks for the tip about sea-sickness. A southern bible-belt baptist is always looking for a legitimate reason to drink beer. <hr /></blockquote>

The reason the water is choppy is because there is too much carbon in it. I admit that lately, I haven't been doing my part yankin it out of there but I'll get back at it soon. The trick to having southern baptists on the boat is you must always take two of them. If you take just one, they will drink all your beer. If you take two they won't drink any. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I may be telling you something you already know, but just in case, sea sickness is caused by your inner ear. It is filled with a liquid that gives you your sense of balance. If you sit rigid in a boat in rough water your head gets slung around by the water and the fluid in your inner ear get sloshed around making you dizzy etc. "Sea legs" means that you are moving your legs and body with the fluctuations of the boat and keeping your head still.

The other thing is to keep the boat moving. You probably can't do that since you are using it as a shooting platform. Down here we pray for 2 to 3 foot seas. That is a very good day for us. I can troll in 6 to 8 footers but stopping is out of the question. Everyone on the boat would get beat to death in less that a minute. One time I had a wave 5 feet high inside the boat. It broke on the console in a big v-blast. I figure it must have been 10 or 12 feet outside the boat to be that high after it came over the bow. I can't believe I let myself get talked into trying to go out in that stuff.

SKennedy
09-11-2007, 11:57 AM
I spent 3 years in the Navy and 1 of those aboard ship..an LSD (29) which has a flat bottom. I was always sick unless we were at dock, or anchored in a calm harbor. Most people recover from the motion and adjust, but there are those who never do. I am one of the unfortunates. My body worked 24/7 and fought constantly to maintain its equilibrium, even when I was sleeping.
I went up in a small prop plane and had to video some property for an environmental study. The pilot tilted the plane so we would do a big circle around the property and there I was looking thru the small view finder. The pilot and a co-worker of mine were freezing in temps in the mid 30's with the windows open on the plane. They were open for me. I was sweating profusely!! In fact, by the time we landed, I was drenched. I can't read in a car for 1 minute or even look at a map while in motion. I sometimes have trouble just riding as a passenger in a car. If I'm driving, I'm fine. I have turned down trips for deep sea fishing, rides in helicopters, etc. due to it. I guess vocation at sea was never meant for me.
As for carbon in water....just read something about a guy who claims he can burn salt water and it will burn at about 3,000 degrees F. He applies radio waves to the salt water, which weakens the hydrogen bonds and allows the hydrogen to be released and burn. Sounds too good to be true and likely is. But if true, would be great and in fact, global warming will help produce more fuel (just joking Gayle). This guy was working on desalination of salt water and accidently discovered this. Supposedly DOE is meeting with the guy about funding further research and figuring a way for it to work in comustion engines, etc.

Bobbyrx
09-11-2007, 12:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr>
No, the initial attraction was to fight a proxy war with the USSR and China war through little countries. The domino theory being the public selling point. Any direct conflict with those powers had the potential to vaporize the planet.

Once there, we found ourselves immersed in a conflict where the citizenry we were supposedly saving had a large faction that was killing us at night. The locals were primitive, but they had tunnels everywhere and could move supplies and rebuild bridges unfazed by carpet bombing. The longer we were there, the easier it was for them to recruit. <font color="red"> The local VC were practically wiped out in the Tet Offensive so they had to bring down NVA and children from the north to take their place </font color>

Then there were the women, the booze, the drugs, the daily combat without rest, the corruption of the South government, and the ineffectiveness of the South's army. Low morale and poor dicipline in our own army. Over half of the U.S. Army's 2LTs were killed by their own men. <font color="red"> Where did this stat come from?? </font color>

Fran Crimi
09-11-2007, 01:13 PM
I have a motion sickness problem, too. I've always wondered if it has to do with the shape of your inner ear(s) where the fluid destabilizes easier than normal. I need to take Dramamine in boats and when flying or I'm guaranteed to puke, and I used to fly 30,000 miles a year. You'd think I'd have gotten used to it by then. Nope.

Fran

Deeman3
09-11-2007, 01:39 PM
I still on occasion get a little sea sickness but usualluy when out for long period scuba diving. The strangest thing is that the monent you get under the waves, the sickness goes away, but the moment you surface, if you didn't have enough time under to fully recover, its right back on you!

Seasickness is us teetotallers punishment for past drinking and sins... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SKennedy
09-11-2007, 03:44 PM
Sea-sickness must be a sign of intelligence! Yeah, that's the ticket!

SKennedy
09-11-2007, 03:48 PM
Likely won't see that as a stat anywhere put out by the govt, but I do believe that stat. May not be 50%, but it is higher than you think. Bet it was likely 25% at least for Lt's.

DeadCrab
09-11-2007, 07:34 PM
************
Over half of the U.S. Army's 2LTs were killed by their own men. Where did this stat come from??
************************

When I was in training in the US Army in 1981 this is what they (the Army) told us as part of out training. In fact, they said that it was what they were acknowledging, and it was generally thought to be higher. Having served with many Viet Nam vets, I can't say that I question this number. So what did they tell you?

SKennedy
09-11-2007, 08:04 PM
In the early 70's they didn't tell us anything. Like the old saying goes (or went).... Ours was to do or die. We didn't ask and were only told on an as need basis.
I believe "friendly fire" always claims more casualties than reported.

Bobbyrx
09-12-2007, 02:16 PM
I did not talk to anyone but could not find anything like that figure on the internet. The American military and Vietnamese allies fought well and prevailed on the ground in Vietnam while the American press announced disaster, incompetence, and debacle to readers and viewers back in the U.S. Until the Tet offensive, a majority of Americans agreed with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that failure was not an option. Then good ol Walter Cronkite declared the war was lost, even though the Tet was a huge military disaster for the North. "Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."

Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

DeadCrab
09-12-2007, 03:46 PM
What you find on the internet is largely Wiki-revised history.

The military studied fraggings closely for a while, and when documented cases topped 300 a year, it was quietly dropped. Since there were about 3000 2LTs killed in Nam over 10 years, the figure I mentioned would seem plausible.

You have a pretty homogenized view of Viet Nam, which makes me think you weren't there, and didn't have to face going.

Believe what you will, but if you want to send the boys off to war, make sure you go with them.

Bobbyrx
09-12-2007, 11:57 PM
I can't find more than 806 killed in all and 496 in the Army itself web page (http://thewall-usa.com/summary.asp) and web page (http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc4.htm)
No , I was in high school when it ended but my older brother was there with the Marines in 67 and 68 and he has the same homogenized view. So I assume you think most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics. I don't. 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence in the entire war. 91 percent of those who served in Vietnam combat stated that they were glad they had served their country. 97 percent were honorably discharged. Not bad for a bunch of drug crazed fraggers. So whats your opinion of Cronkite, Fonda, Ramsey Clark, etc?

SKennedy
09-13-2007, 06:15 AM
Jane who?

DeadCrab
09-13-2007, 06:47 AM
**************
I can't find more than 806 killed in all and 496 in the Army itself
**********************
Add in the CW's and other branches and you get a different picture.

I'm going on what I was told by the Army, while I was in the Army. Fragging was common in VN, and everybody knows it.

******************
So I assume you think most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.
******************************
Please do not assume anything regarding my thoughts about an organization that I joined voluntarily and served in for six years. Thank you.

***********************
The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence in the entire war.
****************************
Exactly. In heads-up war, the USA is the best. Wars against an occupied citizenry opposed to the occupation don't work. Never have, never will.

*****************
Not bad for a bunch of drug crazed fraggers.
************************
I wish you could see the damage that was done by the social environment in VN. Many of the brave young men who went there came out with serious drug and alcohol problems, as well as the PTSD that is common to all wars. Fortunately, the military learned from this, and has subsequently turned off the flow of booze and drugs in war zones. It was a very painful lesson.

******************
So whats your opinion of Cronkite, Fonda, Ramsey Clark, etc?
********************
My opinion is that they are entitled to have their own opinions and speak freely. Isn't that what we're always fighting for?

What's your opinion of Americans who support war, but don't join-up themselves?

You can have the last word.

Bobbyrx
09-13-2007, 10:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr> **************
I can't find more than 806 killed in all and 496 in the Army itself
**********************
Add in the CW's and other branches and you get a different picture.

I'm going on what I was told by the Army, while I was in the Army. Fragging was common in VN, and everybody knows it.
<font color="red">I don't know it and the soldiers I know who were there don't know it. Show me some stats differing from the ones I linked to and I might buy it, but 806 IS <font color="red"> </font color> all branches. </font color>
******************
So I assume you think most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.
******************************
Please do not assume anything regarding my thoughts about an organization that I joined voluntarily and served in for six years. Thank you. <font color="red">"Then there were the women, the booze, the drugs......... Low morale and poor dicipline in our own army." Your words not mine.</font color>

***********************
The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence in the entire war.
****************************
Exactly. In heads-up war, the USA is the best. Wars against an occupied citizenry opposed to the occupation don't work. Never have, never will. <font color="red">Where does it say the ppeople of the south didn't want our help. The ones the Communists recruited from the south were wiped out in Tet and the others didn't uprise like the north thought which is one reason the Tet was such a failure. They knew if we left they would be killed which is what happened. </font color>

*****************
Not bad for a bunch of drug crazed fraggers.
************************
I wish you could see the damage that was done by the social environment in VN. Many of the brave young men who went there came out with serious drug and alcohol problems, as well as the PTSD that is common to all wars. Fortunately, the military learned from this, and has subsequently turned off the flow of booze and drugs in war zones. It was a very painful lesson.
<font color="red"> There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study) [General
Westmoreland)
85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life. [General McCaffrey]
Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. [McCaffrey]





</font color>

******************
So whats your opinion of Cronkite, Fonda, Ramsey Clark, etc?
********************
My opinion is that they are entitled to have their own opinions and speak freely. Isn't that what we're always fighting for? <font color="red"> So if Cronkite got on the air and said after D-Day that the war was lost or Fonda made a video with OBL that would be fine with you. Freedom of speech is one thing but a knowingly making false statements on a national news show against our troops at war, when you are supposed to be a non biased reporter is another. And if you think our troops fight for the right of Fonda to make propaganda photos against her own country then I can see exactly where you are coming from <font color="red"> </font color> </font color>

What's your opinion of Americans who support war, but don't join-up themselves?

You can have the last word.
<font color="red"> If they were physically and mentally able, then they would be hypocrites at best </font color>





<hr /></blockquote>

SKennedy
09-14-2007, 09:12 AM
The attention is always focused on the group of vets who are very vocal about their "problems." Some are legitimate problems and complaints, and many are not. Some just use the "vietnam" experience as a crutch or an excuse. There is a vast majority of vietnam vets out there who never complained, came back home, and obtained gainful employment or went to school and are very successful today. Most of these guys don't go around indentifying themselves as veterans to the general public. As a veteran, I do have mixed emotions when I see a vietnam vet or group of them during a memorial day or veterans day celebration get angry or whine about 30+ years ago....and I'm talking about guys with all their limbs still attached. This last veterans day here in my town the TV news had a vietnam veteran whine about how few people showed up at the town square to "honor" him!! He was dressed in his old uniform, while I was sitting on my butt watching TV and I couldn't find my old uniform if my life depended upon it. In my opinion, a veteran is a veteran regardless of which war they served. I will admit there was a big difference in the way many of the public received their veterans back from duty, but that was 30+ years ago. I say get over it. If you're not over it by now, then something else that occurred would have "ruined" your life. WWII vets had the same general problems as later vets, they just didn't have fancy psychological terms for it then. I will admit that our government does not always take cvare of veterans like they should, but let's (Vietnam vets) quit the whining after 30+ years....(just my humble opinion).