I've been thinking about something lately.
There's all this anger coming from moonbats concerning the war in Iraq. It's the same old crap since late 2002(ish), and I had actually gotten a taste of it back in '90-'91, I was just too young to know it then. It seems to me that most Americans, while they may not be head-over-heels in love with the war in Iraq, agree that Saddam was evil, and that he probably would've hurt us really bad one day. Some of us (like yours truly) are ecstatic that that murderous tyrant is in a cell where he belongs, and millions of people who have known only despair are now free. But, of course, there's the moonbats. Moonbats that think we went in just to take their oil. Moonbats that think that OIF was completely meaningless because we didn't find a lot of WMDs.* Moonbats that think we're an "imperialist occupation force". I would venture to guess that these anti-war types are a very small percentage of the American people, and that the MSM just gives them a lot of attention because they screech the loudest.
But I'm curious. The two lengthiest conflicts America got involved in this century have gotten completely opposite reviews. World War II is remembered as being a glorious example of American greatness where all the valorous soldiers returned home as heroes. Vietnam, on the other hand, is remembered as being a dark example of American depravity where the soldiers were pot-smokers who returned home and got spit on.
History has judged these two wars very differently. They were obviously not the same war, but are the differences between the wars themselves what has caused the different perceptions? Some of the basic differences, off the top of my head:
World War II was a fight to the death against a heinous evil, that if left unchecked, could have one day conquered America itself.
Vietnam was a "police action" to contain world Communism.
But is it that simple? I consider myself a decent enough WWII buff, but my history about Vietnam is weak, at best. So here's my first need-feedback type question. What were the implications involved in Vietnam? I know we didn't want the South to fall to Communism, which was the biggest threat in the world at that time... possibly ever. But just how important was South Vietnam? Were we convinced that Communism would continue to spread, maybe to India or Japan or Australia next? Or were we just sticking our noses in where they don't belong, as some would have us believe?
World War II was very obviously a just war. We were fighting for survival. What about Vietnam? I know history portrays Vietnam as a colossal mistake, and that it's common to find that as a reason for the anti-war protests. However... having seen what I've seen on TV about Iraq the last two years, I am now inclined to question all that history. Now let me get to the point.
A supposition: World War II is remembered by historians as a good thing, and rightly so. Vietnam is remembered by historians as one big oopso from beginning to end. I'm starting to believe that what the historians say about Vietnam is not entirely accurate. Having seen today's moonbats shriek the most unbelievable things about a just war in Iraq, I wonder if historians are remembering only what is convenient about Vietnam. But... alas... I wasn't there.
So. I would like to know if any SITYSK™ readers who were actually there for these chunks of history saw that either:
a) during the '60s and '70s, most Americans really didn't mind Vietnam but were outscreamed by hippies, or
b) during the '40s, were there morons equivalent to today's moonbats who were still opposed to the war despite the truths about it that were right in front of their faces.
The reason for this is that it wouldn't surprise me, two or three decades from now, to have a whole crop of kids grow up thinking that at the turn of the millenium America had a bloodthirsty president who went around on a religious crusade invading Middle Eastern countries for oil. People today actually believe that, but they're idiots; I'm hoping time will silence them.
That next generation will need to know the truth- that we were in a fight for our lives against a particularly unscrupulous enemy. See, my theory is that not everybody, not even the majority, of Americans were so dead set against our troops being in Vietnam. But all I have to go on is history that's possibly tainted.
So. A call for help: if you were there, let me know what the mood in the country was really like. Especially if you were a veteran of those wars or times. Lord knows if some punk kid comes up to me when I'm seventy and starts talking about the warforoil and how he'd have spit on soldiers' uniforms or some nonsense, I'll smack him upside the head with my cane and force him to listen to every story about the sandbox that I can remember.
*- we didn't find a lot of WMDs. We did find some. A little bit. And just 'cuz we didn't find them all doesn't mean they weren't there. Wanted to clarify that.
Hey, if this entertained or enlightened you in the slightest, kindly visit the new site.
Army NCO Guy decided you should know this at 1517 | TrackBack