Thanks 'feminist' Sergeant. We appreciate your ill thought out nonsense.
When I weighed in before, I noted I won't attend the parade, I noted it was against everything I believe in.
But it's going to happen.
And here's one good thing about it: The next two generations won't have to hear a bunch of War Hawks whining constantly that (a) they were spit on (when they weren't) because (b) they never go their parade.
'WWII got a parade! We never got our parade.'
Well, hard point for some to grasp, the US won in WWII.
The US didn't win in Vietnam.
Although, honestly, compared to the continuing Iraq War, Vietnam could pass as a 'win.'
Only by comparison.
Have the parade, by all means. End the Rambo b.s. before it begins.
Have the stupid glorification of war parade.
I don't want to spend the next 20 years with everyone having to avert their eyes every time someone whines that they didn't get their parade.
Again, parades are generally for winners.
I'm not a sports fan but I doubt Tom Brady's Patriots got a parade when they returned after this year's Super Bowl.
I Googled just now, see a 2017 parade for the Patriots, nothing for 2018.
But the whinery over Vietnam went on forever and a day.
If a parade prevents War Hawks from building a whine cellar over the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, I'm all for it.
And if you're for peace and you have even a minor memory, you should be too.
Give them their participation trophy and get it over with so that the nation isn't again held hostage by emotional blackmail.
If you're old enough to remember how the right-wing hawks (and centrists ones as well) spent the mid-to-late 70s and 80s rewriting history and using the lack of a parade as part of that, then you know a parade disarms the War Hawks.
I've noted already that it will help some veterans who might feel isolated or alone reconnect and considering that TBI and PTS are the signature wounds of the modern wars, that's a good thing. They can learn from one another far better than from a cold system (the VA) that refuses to reform. For those who actually served, this can be a good thing. And for that reason alone, I'm fine with not objecting.
But the reality of how the 'we were treated awful by the people' lie took root last go round? That's reason enough to have the parade.
Guess what, VoteVets, we agree on this one too!
I won't participate.
I won't be there.
I won't take a moment out of my day for it.
I think a standing military has proven to be the biggest problem the US government has had. I think having it leads to Mad Maddie Albrights saying, 'Well we've got it, we should use it.'
Could the money be better spent?
Of course it could.
But it won't be.
Vets from Vietnam were betrayed.
But it wasn't by the people of America.
It was by the government.
It was the government who sent them there that betrayed them.
It was the government that refused to honor the promises made when the veterans returned that betrayed them.
Grand standing veteran Jim Webb, as a US senator, attacked the notion that veterans might get benefits for their exposure to Agent Orange.
I know because I was at that hearing and reported on it. From the September 23, 2010 snapshot:
Today we heard US Senator Jim Webb babble on and, when he's insincere, his voice cracks. It was like the episode of The Brady Bunch where the kids are set to record a song but Peter's voice begins changing and won't stop cracking. As he used opening remarks to recount his entire resume at length -- everything but working the counter one night and giving a veteran a free milk shake -- that voice cracked and cracked. Why was that such a hard thing for him. "We have a duty," Webb insisted as he added coughs to his bag of tricks. And "this is not simply a cost item." Oh, now you may be getting why Webb was freaking out.
If not, join us as we drop back to the June 15, 2010 snapshot:
WAVY reports (link has text and video) that victims of Agent Orange (specifically Vietnam era veterans) could recieve addition beneifts for B-Cell Leukemia, Parkinson's disease and coronary heart disease. Could? A US Senator is objecting to the proposed changes by VA. Jim Webb has written VA Secretary Eric Shinseki that ". . . this single executive decision is estimated to cost a minimum of $42.2 billion over the next ten years. A regulatory action of this magnitude requires proper Congressional review and oversight." Besides, Webb wrote, "Heart disease is a common phenomenon regardless of potential exposure to Agent Orange." That is really embarrassing and especially embarrassing for the Democratic Party (Webb is a Democrat today, having converted from a Reagan Republican). It also goes a long way towards explaining Webb's refusal to get on board with Senator Evan Bayh's bill to create a national registry that would allow those Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans to be able to receive treatment for their exposures without having to jump through hoops repeatedly.
And if you doubted that Webb was about to try to pull out the axe on Vietnam veterans benefits, you had to only give him a few more seconds as he began bemoaning that the law was written one way (yes, he is a 'framers' intent' and 'original construction' type politician) and then expanded (to "dual presumptioms both based on very broad categorizations"). What are the expansions? It's been expanded to allow payments to Vietnam Veterans suffering from Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease and hairy cell leukemia. VA Secretary Eric Shinseki is not someone we praise blindly here (to put it mildly) but the hearing was really about Shinseki's 'performance,' specifically with regards to expanding the categories -- based on medical and science evidence -- qualifying for payments.
There's a whole dance going on beneath the hearing that few will ever notice. If there was anything sadder than Webb's remarks it was Senator Jon Tester who felt the need to praise Webb "for asking some very tough questions." To watch some of the senators today was to be aware they appeared to think leukemia, heart disease and Parknson's is little more troubling than adult acne.
I don't remember Vote Vets defending veterans against Jim Webb.
Mainly, I don't remember that because it never happened.
I'm sure money could be spent more wisely.
I'm also sure, with our government, that won't happen.
1) It could possibly help a veteran who is currently struggling (by allowing them to reconnect).
2) It takes away the club that the revisionay War Hawks used to repeatedly beat the peace movement following Vietnam.
On item number two, are we refusing to learn from our mistakes?
Or is just more comfortable on our high horses than it is to break the cycle?
And if Margaret Flowers stages a counter-march, as she's saying she will, I will denounce that and I hope others smart enough to remember post-Vietnam in the US will as well.
A counter-march is a waste of time and energy. If Margaret wants to join me in objecting to the ongoing Iraq War, I would certainly welcome her. But the reality is that she and her husband have ignored the ongoing wars and the continued US colonization of Iraq.
So stay out the peace issue, Margaret, if you're too stupid to grasp that a parade takes away the club the War Hawks used last go round.
On today's earlier posts? We were saluting songbirds of the 60s who found success in England:
Jody Watley, Cindy Sheehan and DISSIDENT VOICE updated:
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.