Vietnam Vets

[jmorris]

An opinion piece by a retired Vietnam Vet in today's San Antonio Express New. I came into the Army soon after Nam, never served in combat but had many NCOs who did. And served with officers who had. I'd like your opinions on this.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/com ... 224259.php

[anygunanywhere]

I have never been in combat.

I cannot comment on the author's opinion or life experience.

The decision to use a firearm in defense of self or others and commit to the possibility of taking someone's life must be made before the event actually occurs.

There are times when one must take action against other humans. Among these are in defense of ourselves, our loved ones, innocent others, and against tyrants.

Anygunanywhere

[K.Mooneyham]

An opinion piece by a retired Vietnam Vet in today's San Antonio Express New. I came into the Army soon after Nam, never served in combat but had many NCOs who did. And served with officers who had. I'd like your opinions on this.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/com ... 224259.php

I'm curious as to what the NCOs and officers you served with who had been in combat had to say about it, specifically, taking a life. In a general sense, were they in agreement with what the man in that article said, or were they of a different opinion? I, being a mechanic, have never been in combat, and I thank goodness for that. But I have read hundreds of accounts from combat veterans and it seems that most of them did what they had to do in the situation they were in...many of them said it bothered them later, but it seemed to me very few said they would have done things differently if they had it to do again. I pray that the Good Lord will give me strength to do what is necessary if I am ever put in that position.

[jmorris]

....

I'm curious as to what the NCOs and officers you served with who had been in combat had to say about it, specifically, taking a life. In a general sense, were they in agreement with what the man in that article said, or were they of a different opinion? I, being a mechanic, have never been in combat, and I thank goodness for that. But I have read hundreds of accounts from combat veterans and it seems that most of them did what they had to do in the situation they were in...many of them said it bothered them later, but it seemed to me very few said they would have done things differently if they had it to do again. I pray that the Good Lord will give me strength to do what is necessary if I am ever put in that position.

I was waiting for some who'd been to offer up their opinions first.

[txhighlander]

I have a friend who served in Vietnam. I sent him the article for his opinion and his response was the the author is a fraud. He said "I've been in more than one firefight in more than that war,and I know, from experience that troops love to shoot at identifiable targets. I've seen the enemy dropped, and if they were still visible the troops would continue to peck at them just to have a target to shoot at. This clown may, assuming he was there, have seen a lot of suppressive fire going down range, but that's what you do when you know where they are , but can't see them." This was slightly edited for board posting . Two things one must come to terms with before they carry or plan on protecting themselves or anybody else in any situation you might find your self in. Prepare yourself to take someones life and prepare to lose your life as well because any situation may just end either way. This doesn't mean you are blood thirsty, but you just want to survive. This decision does not mean you won't have to deal with the after effect of taking someones life, it just means you have decided you can or are willing to deal with that if it ever comes. I hope never to take someones life in any situation, but I have decided I will do what ever it takes to survive. An friend once told me, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[Topbuilder]

I've known and talked to many 'nam vets including 3 uncles. What he describes covers none of them. The people in the woods shooting at you are not cheerleaders on the way to a movie... you do what you have to do to protect yourself and the others around you. When people are trying to kill you those normal barriers fall. If everyone were as the writer described, noone would reenlist. I worked with a guy who re-upped two times... recon... People have "different" skills.
It's not for everyone. Look at the pilots who volunteer to carry in the cockpits...using his arguements I would guess he is opposed to that as well. They are all volunteer, have EXTENSIVE background checks and training compared to a CHL. Any teacher carry program would/should include extra requirements as well.

[G26ster]

It's real easy for a pacifist-minded soldier to put bullets over the head of the enemy at a distance - but I've never have heard of many in the trenches in close-up combat who didn't fight with everything they had to save themselves or their buddies. That lady who shot the burglar 5 times in the face recently - does Terry really want to tell her that she wasn't capable of pulling the trigger?

When your back is against the wall and you have to pull the trigger to save lives, 99% of people will.

As a Vietnam vet, I don't see what "Vietnam" has to do with anything, because all conflicts pit soldier against soldier, and not everyone will react the same. From my combat experience, the vast majority of ground forces performed with distinction and bravery, although the majority were "draftees" who didn't want to be there in the first place. I had the mission to intercede on their behalf, and regardless of fire directed at me, as I was just doing "my job" as they did theirs. Of course when one felt rounds impacting one's aircraft, the PF (pucker factor) does go up. Have I thought about some of those experiences, especially some of the nastier ones? You bet, over the years I think we all replay events over in our head, and give pause. But in the end I believe most know what they did was the necessary thing to protect their own lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers. I have no greater respect for anyone than I do for those ground troops who did their job with great bravery.

[SSGMWP]

I respect the marine vets opinion, but that is just what it is an opinion. I am a Vietnam combat veteran and have been in several firefights. The movies depict spraying the VC with sustained fire and I am sure in some instances it may have happened, but in my experience it was usually pick your target and fire 2-3 rd burst as accurately as possible. As far as teachers becoming our children and grand children's protectors, that should be up to the teacher that wants the weapons and safety training to do that job. Not all teachers can do it just as I had several of my fellow soldiers who could not pull the trigger when faced with return fire. However I would feel better knowing my grandsons had a teacher there trained to at least try to protect them from sick individuals with a weapon. And as the saying goes" opinions are like rear orifice, everyone's got one". Just trying to keep it nice.

[baldeagle]

Basically what he's saying is he'd rather have the teachers suffer the trauma of seeing lots of kids killed than have them have to deal with the trauma of killing someone. It that makes sense to you, you just might be a liberal. No one wants to take a life, but when faced with a choice between killing someone intent on killing lots of people, including you, or standing there and watching a lot of people die, we have a word for that - it's called coward.

I've never killed anyone, and I hope I never have to, but if I do, I'm pretty sure I can live with myself and deal with the mental trauma. I know men who have killed in combat and have no problem living with it. When you life is on the line, you do what you have to do so you can go home.

[Jumping Frog]

Whether he is a Vietnam vet or not has zero impact on judging his current opinions. Opinions are like ....

After all, John Kerry is also a Vietnam vet.

Laying down the "Vietnam viet" card is not a lifetime free pass to be an idiot either. In my book, the default case that they deserve respect, but they can always prove otherwise.

[The Annoyed Man]

My dad was a confirmed pacifist after his WW2 experience—WIA at Iwo Jima, as a 2nd Lt in the Marine Corps. But later, in the mid 1970s, he did try to kill a man at a Caltech dinner party. The other guy was drunken visiting Polish poet and had just pimp-slapped my mother who was seated next to him. My dad was on him in a flash and had his knee in the other guy's larynx, trying to crush it, when a couple of other guys pulled him off the dude. He later told me that it kind of scared him because he didn't even think about it. The other guy hit my mom, and my dad cleared a dining table in one jump, landing on the guy's chest and taking him down, where he went to work with his knee. He told me he didn't even realize what he was doing until he got pulled off the guy.

My point is that even people with deep seated non-violent convictions—and my dad was a sincere pacifist—will do what they have to do when the flag goes up. The efficacy to which they do it is simply a product of their training. My dad was merely doing as he had been trained by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children 30 years before—not to brawl at the dinner table, but to protect those who are valuable to him.

I've read Dave Grossman's books, and I too heartily recommend them. I was talking just this morning at church with a friend of mine who is retired military, and he mentioned that he was a member of Oath Keepers. We were both saying that there are a whole host of questions that any intelligent person much answer in advance for themselves, and then steel themselves for those possibilities; because if they have to answer those questions while in the breach, they won't be able to do so. We were discussing both the execution of unconstitutional or illegal orders, as well as the predetermined decision to take a life if that is what is necessary to stop an attack. And that is where the vet in the OP link is off-kilter. Armed teachers aren't being asked to go to combat and kill enemy soldiers in offensive action. Rather, they are being asked to be willing to defend themselves and their precious charges until reinforcements arrive. That is not merely a semantic difference. A soldier—even a disciplined and well trained soldier—may have trouble initiating fire on an enemy soldier the first time, particularly if that enemy is far enough away that our soldier may not feel particularly threatened by him. But when out soldier is ambushed out of the blue and feels like he might die if he doesn't get into the fight, my guess is that he will fight first, and deal with the aftermath later. And that aftermath might be anything from giddiness to be alive to self-loathing at having killed another human being.... but in either case, our soldier is ALIVE, and that's what counts most.

[MoJo]

First: Mods, if this is out of line please delete it.

While I disagree with a lot of the writer of that Op Ed piece from the newspaper said. I cannot stand idly by while he is called an "idiot" because of his opinion. The words idiot, moron, stupid etc. should be banned from use on this forum. They only serve to show how limited the user is in human compassion or how narrow minded they are.

[G26ster]

Laying down the "Vietnam viet" card is not a lifetime free pass to be an idiot either.

I checked my wallet and do not have one of these cards.