From now on:

1) Name-calling is discouraged in all cases, but tolerated with respect to public figures. It is not to be used against other commenters, or your hostess. If you resort to this, I may change your comments to make you sound stupid. If that's, you know. If it's feasible. (Often, it simply isn't, and I just let the comment stand.)

2) If there's no chance that your words will edify others or persuade someone else to come around to your point of view, why bother?—you could be watching re-runs of Man from U.N.C.L.E.. Or doing drugs. Or working out a New York Times crossword.

3) Stick to one screen name here, particularly within a given comment thread. Of if you're going to pretend to be several different people, do try to make it convincing: misspell different words. Commit separate grammatical errors. Live it up and use paragraph breaks, even if that isn't normally your bag.

I want to believe.

4) If you're going to claim status as a Vietnam Vet, I want your branch of service, the years you served, your unit number, the tasks your group specialized in (tunnel rats? LRRP?), and the area(s) where you were deployed. Or, you know—I get to counter your arguments by claiming to be the reincarnation of Molly Kettle. This isn't a Monopoly game, and pretending to be a Vet isn't like drawing a get-out-of-jail-free card, releasing you from the normal rules of civilized discourse.

I'm starting to conclude that real 'Nam vets are far outnumbered by those who are "recovering memories" of their service therein. Matter of fact, I think I might have been there myself. I was eight years old at the time, but tough as nails. I killed a lot of VC, and now I'm plagued by guilt.

Thanks.

Posted by: Attila at 07:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Not to mention that the REMF to combat troop ratio in the 'Nam was 8 or 9 to one, so even someone legitimately in-country might not have a whole lot to add to the party. There is a professor up here who simultaneously claims to have been a VN combat vet in the 101st and not to have fired a shot in anger. Either a) he was a REMF pogue, or b) he's lying about being in the 101st, because his claimed time of service coincides with the Hamburger Hill action. If he really was that much of a pacifist, either his platoon mates would have fragged him for non-support in combat, or (more likely) the 101st would have washed him out for insufficient belicosity. My vote is that he was a desk jockey or supply pogue attached to the 101st. He brings exactly zero to the debate about the horrors of combat.

Posted by: John at August 29, 2005 03:42 AM (YFWw+)

2 "...watching re-runs of Man from U.N.C.L.E." I cannot imagine how deep in your repressed memory you had to delve to come up with that.

Posted by: James at August 29, 2005 10:08 AM (95AVn)

3 Blogger, 2003-present, 101st Keyboarders Division, Comment Sniping Specialist and Anti-Drug Warrior, deployed on the lower right hemisphere, taking and giving flak from Moonbats, Libertarian Utopians, and Rightwing Statists, depending upon the day and the specific patrol I was on. You're welcome, you're welcome very much!

Posted by: Desert Cat at August 30, 2005 11:22 PM (xdX36)

4 On the thread I was specifically complaining about, the opposition switched from vague claims of being Vietnam vets to equally vague claims of having participated in the Korean War. People are so stupid.

Posted by: Attila Girl at August 31, 2005 06:55 AM (EtCQE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment