WHEN DID IT HAPPEN

I am a Vietnam Era Vet 1962-1966. Those from that era will remember this picture and how it changed public opinion.

Was watching Sunday news shows. Change the channel now when they scroll the pictures and names of the brave young men who died last week.

And suddenly I thought WTF !!! When did innocent victims become " collateral damage " ?

Mission, leave this thread here. I am a confirmed gambler and would like the opinion of my peers, not interested in Diversity Thanks.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/girl-in-the-picture-brings-peace-message-to-winnipeg-1.1862521

https://www.facebook.com/Vietaid/posts/492648064103793

41 views no comment Seems like the wordsmiths know what they are doing. Like changing illegal alien to undocumented worker.

Not a law breaker anymore , sounds like a guy going to work who left his citizen papers on the night stand !

69 views no comment

Do you want a comment on the photo or on illegal aliens? I'll comment on the photo. Much worse that that happened almost every day over there. I imagine all wars have similar tragedies.

I thought I first saw the definition of "collateral damage" (actual definition, IIRC: damage done to something that was not the primary target; e.g. damage done to infantry units when trying to hit a tank with artillery, or bomb damage done to civilian businesses when trying to bomb a military factory of some sort) change to "civilian deaths" in one of Paul Dickson's first two books (The Official Rules and The Official Explanations, the latter of which was published in 1980, but I can't find the specific reference. However, using the term in this way probably does go back at least 30 years.

OK, Buzz, here's some comment.

Not just that picture, but the one of NVC blowing out the brains of a prisoner, and the pyramid of skulls of the 2 million who died in Cambodia; that's the Vietnam war to me. Brought every dinnertime by all 3 networks, night after night for 10 years.

Cowering under school desks during air raid drills.
Killing JFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, RFK, MLK Jr.
Rambo films, Natural Born Killers, Pulp Fiction all made mass killing cool.

Talk about desensitizing people to death and destruction. But not sure what the immigration issue has to do with any of it.

Caveat: the first Rambo (First Blood) is not at all mass killing. Rambo is the prey. He actually kills no one. It is a film that protests against (1) the "killer" training received by the citizen-soldiers (2) the unwelcomness they encountered when back home.
It is based on a book written in the 70's by a university assistant who wanted to protest the war.

But the film appeared in 80 or 81. Reagan was there and his minions. Movie halls erupted in enthusiasm for the battling, not the ideas.
Do you know that originally Rambo dies? But the screen tests showed such an outraged reaction by viewers that the producers changed it.

And that led to Rambo II, III, you count it.

Thanks for the link to Kim Phuc's story, Buzz. I was a child during the Vietnam war, but i remember being moved by that photo. I am moved again to find out what became of her.

' but the one of NVC blowing out the brains of a prisoner"

Story behing the story Babs That prisoner has just raped the wife of the shooter's best friend. Then killed her and her 3 kids just for the hell of it. War is hell, no problem with that pix whatsoever.

I'm always moved by 'Nam pics, but probably for different reasons.

Rarely does a "scene" catch my attention. Dunno if it's how I'm made or if a lifetime of Grand Theft Auto and Duke Nukem has desensitized me, but what's going on barely registers. It's always the people I notice.

Like this one. You have kids bawling at full tilt. One is naked, and even in this gritty, 60's era black and white photo, you can see she's incinerated. You can see the outline of her sundress or tank top or whatever the hell she was wearing. Those aren't yells or screams or shrieks, those are full on banshee wails from hurt and terrified children. The kind that make your spine chill if you ever hear one in person. The kind that let's you know immediately and without question - something is terribly wrong.

And look at the soldiers. I count 7. MAYBE two of them are even recognizing the children. Two others are focused on other things entirely. Not a one of them has the posture of a man in hurry. None of them reads as in high alert or in peril or otherwise in a stress mode.

What terrors must you have seen, what atrocities must you have endured, to maintain that body language in that scene? To walk away from a cacophony of fire and destruction, to walk amidst shoeless, clothesless, and screaming children that came from that same nightmare, and do so as if you were walking down a creekside park somewhere in rural America?

This is just 2 years before my Pops entered the service. That's one party I'm glad he missed.

Quote: Buzzard

I am a Vietnam Era Vet 1962-1966.

I have seen the term Vietnam Vet and Vietnam Era Vet.

What is the difference?

Vietnam vet actually served in Vietnam between February 28, 1961 - May 7, 1975. Vietnam era for all other veterans is service from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.

Ya know, the caption in that link apparently tells the whole story. 6/8/72. Long AFTER sentiment was swayed.

The good Lord looks out for fools. Summer of ,1962 and I was safe from feds in us at but you never know. Was just an enlisted man. So I applied for this warrant officer special program. Did not get accepted as I did not have 20/20 uncorrected or I might have spentl next 3 plus years as helicopter political in Vietnam I always put ERA IN ANY POST ABOUT MY SERVICE I remember all those tv shows in 70's where the killer always a Vietnam vet. And assholepoliticians always claiming to have e served in Vietnam but never did. All feast people reacted to that pix. Nobody considered her collateral damage.

Quote: chickenman

Vietnam vet actually served in Vietnam between February 28, 1961 - May 7, 1975. Vietnam era for all other veterans is service from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.

Thanks chickenman.

I already knew the answer. I served in VN 66-67. I was an infantryman with the 1st Air Cav.

It just makes me mad that some people wear hats that say Vietnam ERA veteran. Most of the public doesn't know that if you were in the military during the time you mentioned you are an ERA vet. You could have been stationed in Germany, Japan or Fort Dix, NJ and say that you are a Vietnam ERA Veteran. People will think that you actually were in Vietnam.

There is a big difference between a Vietnam Veteran and someone who never set foot in Vietnam.

Hi FatGeezus.

Same-same here - 1st Air Cav.
A couple of tours in the late 60's.

The distinction is mostly for privileges and benefits considerations. Hey, don't be mad, they served - the luck of the draw usually. I've not see the "ERA" hats or didn't notice if I did see one. Just lay that big yellow patch (camo also works), CIB, Purple Heart on 'em and grab the bragging rights! :-)

Quote: chickenman

- the luck of the draw usually.

Not always. One group of newly minted Air Force pilots received orders for Vietnam but one of the new pilots, who just happened to be a general's son, got orders for Germany. Made one officer so mad he put in his retirement papers.

Yeah, chickenshit happens...

Screaming Eagle here. Don't even get me started on Stolen Valor. Then there are the outright liars. Richard Blumenthal, my state senator, was in the reserves and claimed he was a Nam vet. Actor Brian Dennehy is another liar. He served but not in Nam. The list goes on. They should all be ashamed but, clearly, they are not. Dennehy still makes the claim even after being exposed.

I've always been aware of the word era being used and never gave it much thought. I suppose everyone has their reasons and I never thought it to be deceitful. I don't talk about my service, in fact I don't think much about it at all. With my "problem" with authority it's a wonder that I got through it at all. That's why I could never work for anyone other than myself. :-)