Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Richard Etchberger has finally received the recognition that he deserved back in 1968. Etchberger will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously for his saving the lives of his comrades in a battle in Laos — at the loss of his own life. The problem is that his heroism occurred in a place where our government stated publicly that there were no combat troops. To cover that lie, Etchberger’s bravery had to be buried with the truth.
While the military wanted Etchberger honored at the time, President Lyndon Johnson refused to reveal that the United States had lied to the public and international community (even though Laos itself was aware of our troops).
Etchberger was part of a secret U.S. Air Force radar base used to guide bombers that was located just 120 miles from Hanoi in North Vietnam.
In March of 1968, over 3000 North Vietnamese troops attacked the site, called Lima Site 85, that was defended by fewer than a couple dozen U.S. airmen and about a thousand Laotian soldiers.
Eight Americans were killed and several more wounded. Etchberger deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire “in order to place his three surviving wounded comrades in the rescue slings permitting them to be airlifted to safety.”
Legislation was need to waive the usual rule that such honors have to be awarded within two years of the subject action. Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota (Etchberger was from Bismarck) helped push for the reconsideration.
Congratulations to the Etchberger family which deserves this recognition from a grateful nation. It is no replacement for their loved one, but it finally allows a nation to honor his selfless courage.
Well done, Master Sergeant, well done.
Source: CNN
Henman, I think FFN is despicable in blaming the victims of the war rather than the leaders.
I would like to hear from him his own actions during the Vietnam era.
He said: “Vince Treacy did not mention WWII in the context of just/unjust wars. I’m not sure exactly why he trotted WWII out — it seems merely to compare me to Neville Chamberlain (a well known slander of militarists, and the only historical anecdote they seem to know, as I mentioned earlier).”
FFN is challenged in reading skills.
Please, everyone, reread my post. I did place World War II in the context justified, necessary wars when I immediately quoted and endorsed Mespo’s wise statement: “As for your implied assertion that every peace is a good one, I think history only shows every peace resulting in the triumph of the rule of law is a good one.”
FFN did not even read my post to the end.
I did not slander Chamberlain. I quoted his words, verbatim, and accurately. If FF wishes to spell out his theory of “slander” by means of a persons own accurately quoted words, I am all ears.
I will just say that I think FFN lied when he said my comparison of him to Chamberlain, merely by quoting Chamberlain in his own words, was a “slander.”
So, FF , how is it slander to quote Chamberlain’s own words?
We will wait for your answer, and respond whenever you post.
The example of World War II is only one of many.
If FFN does not like my example of Chamberlain as an example of pacifist delusion, then I will nominate that fool, Gandhi.
Gandhi said “If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy…the calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror.”
“Hitler,” Gandhi said, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.”
In the November 1938 article on the Nazi persecution of the Jews quoted above, he offered non-violence as a solution:
“The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province. But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#World_War_II_and_Quit_India
If former “Nothing” wishes to defend the obscene nonsense of Gandhi, who advocated Jewish acquiescence in the Holocaust, then be my guest.
I repeat.
That pacifist fool Gandhi remained neutral in World War II.
I salute the brave soldiers of every country who fought against that tyranny in World War II.
As for the origins of World War II, I think “The Gathering Storm” by Churchill makes the case cogently and persuasively that failure to confront Hitler, beginning with his reoccupation of the Rhineland, brought on World War II.
There are numerous other scholarly studies that support his position.
There have been apologist, revisionist pro-appeasement treatises since then, but I do not consider them persuasive. If FFN would care to recommend a treatment of his point of view, it will be considered.
Moving along in history, the Korean War was a blatant example of naked aggression by Stalin and North Korea. The unified response by the West was justified and necessary. The expansion of the war to the north by MacArthur in 1950 may have been a disaster, but Eisenhower resolved the dispute without a wider war.
I maintain that the first Gulf War was necessary and justified. The leaders learned from Korea and refused to expand the war by invading Iraq and occupying Beirut after freeing Kuwait. The opposition by the Left to this war revealed their intellectual bankruptcy.
So.
The FFN alternate history.
1948. Truman abandons Berlin to the Communists. See the recent book, “The Candy Bombers” on the Berlin Airlift.
1950. The west abandons South Korea to the Communists.
1971. Kuwait is abandoned to Iraq.
1981. Afghanistan is abandoned to the Taliban.
Jump in anywhere, Nothing, on any of these topics.
F.F. Nothing has nothing to offer.
Ps, I think the operative term for Chomsky is “The Village Idiot.”
Just kidding.
Maybe.
Blouise…”I have all the paraphernalia from Johnson’s presidential campaign in my attic … preserved all these years. I hang onto the stuff because to this day I hate him for Nam and I love him for Civil Rights … I have never resolved the conflict within myself … I’m my own little Nam and my attic is still occupied.”
I have 1 word…eBay
Mike Spindell: I am glad you are criticizing the anti-war left for attacking the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. They were the greatest victims of that war. I would guess that well over 80% of the Army under the rank of Sergeant(E-5) were draftees. I think FFN has a greatly exaggerated idea of the possibility of refusing an order in the military, particularly in a combat situation. I was drafted in January,1964 and served 2 years in the Army. I, and every draftee I knew had a common goal: to stay out of trouble, obey orders, learn to do your job and do it well so that if you went into combat, you and your friends would survive to achieve our greatest goal– to get the hell out of the Army in 2 years. In the Army during duty hours, you make virtually no decisions of your own-even the NCO’s are basically supervisors who pass along orders and assignments from the officers. Disobeying orders and regulations gets you nothing but trouble and you will always be the loser. You make your life easier by keeping a low profile. I was assigned to the Artillery which was not my decision. I was trained to be a Special Weapons Assembler – not my decision. I was levied to go to Vietnam- not my decision. Three days later I was taken off the levy to go to Vietnam- also not my decision. A few terms you will learn if you go the route of disobeying orders: Article 15 Company Non-Judicial Punishment, Court Martial, Stockade, Leavenworth, Dishonorable Discharge,etc. I hope you get my drift.
FFN,
I think the point that Mike S is trying to make (please correct me if I’m wrong, Mike) is that real democratic political change requires broad coalitions rather than small ideologically pure groups.
Mike,
I love the phrase ‘hipper than thou’.
That word you keep using . . . addressed. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Unless of course you think it means stomping your feet about the illegalities of others whom are clearly not heroic and falsely attributing their bad acts on to others who are plainly heroic.
In which case, never mind.
Mike,
I am not one to hold up idols. While I greatly admire the contributions of Zinn and Chomsky and others to society, I will by no means unconditionally defend them, or anyone.
However, I understand your grudge against Zinn even less than Chomsky. Zinn was one of the first people to call for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. And he also went to Vietnam, successfully negotiating the release of American POWs. Now, that is certainly doing something. And, like Chomsky, he has contributed notably to other movements as well.
“Vince Treacy did not mention WWII in the context of just/unjust wars. I’m not sure exactly why he trotted WWII out”
FFN,
My take is he trotted it out as an example of how every peace activist, i.e. Chomsky/Zinn, might not be helpful in the battle against totalitarianism. Perhaps because you alluded to Chomsky as a leading peace advocate. Always keep in mind the “Law of Unintended Consequence.”
BIL,
I didn’t respond to that part of your comment because I have already addressed it plenty in this thread, not because I was avoiding the topic, obviously.
“The whole “soldiers being spat upon” phenomenon is probably false…”
FFN I was born in 1944 so I was there, involved in the movement via the most radical union in the country. There was a lot of vitriol being heaped on the troops, especially by those too old to be drafted or who were 4F. It was the egotism, near sightedness and the following of party lines that turned me off to joining any of the various factions available to me. It also seemed that somehow the ones who talked the best game, were the ones with the least empathy for people. To me Chomsky/Zinn for instance.
Slarti,
I confess the term Caribou Barbie is still my favorite as well.
FFN,
As a point of argumentation, I’m pretty sure I know where Vince was coming from, but I’ll let him address that himself from this point.
However, the key part of my statement, which you ellipsoided over, was “just as you are unable to distinguish an individuals act of heroism even if occurs in unjust circumstance.”
FFN,
Glad you brought up Zinn too. I also have little use for him. Have you ever heard these two speak, smug and self-congratulatory? My point wasn’t that they backed causes, my point is that they’ve done nothing to form the broad coalitions needed to actually change things. Talk is cheap. They alienate rather than coalesce, but damn they can congratulate themselves on being right. Hipper than thou.
Buddha and Elaine,
Those are good, but I still prefer ‘Caribou Barbie’…
FFN,
I do not know who you are and for that you are lucky. If I could figure that out I can assure you your email and phone would buzz all to often. People like you, are a disgrace to the people actually giving there lives so that you can be an ass to them.
Tell me how would you want your child treated? Would you treat yours the same as you are advocating this man and his family be treated?
BIL,
“Congratulations on being unable to distinguish when counter-example is being provided to draw the distinction between a just war and an unjust war …”
Vince Treacy did not mention WWII in the context of just/unjust wars. I’m not sure exactly why he trotted WWII out — it seems merely to compare me to Neville Chamberlain (a well known slander of militarists, and the only historical anecdote they seem to know, as I mentioned earlier).
If we do accept that WWII was a just war (which I may question, but let’s not delve into that right now because we have enough on our hands with Vietnam as it is) then I certainly wouldn’t object to awarding medals to those who performed valiantly in service of a just cause.
But, as I think we all recognize, we’re talking about Vietnam, which can not by any stretch of the concept be imagined as a just war.
Sorry to change the subject but here is a new film about war and the hell that it plays on a soldier.
“It was difficult trying to understand what was at the heart of the soldier’s experience coming home. I spent 2 years doing research before ever writing anything. What I hope the movie does is to bring awareness to some of the difficult issues that some of the soldiers are coming home to. What I found when I screened the film is that the soldiers had an honest and positive reaction. People who don’t know anyone from the military, however, feel as if it’s an over-dramatic portrayal. What that shows is that there is such is a disconnect in how the war is portrayed by the media versus what is really going on. They’re shocked that this experience is really happening.”
http://www.dallassouthnews.org/blog/2010/08/12/the-dry-land-playing-at-the-angelika-film-center-and-cafe-in-dallas/
I think one of the differences between Nam and now is that the TV reported what happened over there days and even weeks later. Today, we see and hear what the media coverage is allowed at almost an instant gratification.
Something that may shock the conscience of some is that the Military only counts the number of its own, contractors and nation (such as the UN and the Country in) assists are not calculated in the casualties. Hence, if 9 are said to have died in combat it could be closer to 100 total. Kinda of sick book keeping if you ask me.
Buddha,
Now…now.
Actually, I see her as more of a Canoodling Cannoli.
😉
More than a little OT, but the language lovers are here.
I just saw a term for Palin I thought merited passing along:
Tundra Tart.
Blouise,
“Jim Henson was a wizard … he saw Cheney comin’ and tried to warn us!”
lol
*****
For you–a little verse I wrote about Dick Cheney and his hunting prowess. It’s a takeoff of Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.”
A Hunting He Will Go
Who’s hunting here? I think I know.
That’s why I’m certain I must go.
Don’t want to get shot by mistake
Because he thinks that I’m a doe.
I hear his voice. He’s coming near.
Oh, Lord! I know I’ve much to fear.
I best be sprightly on my feet
And get the HELL out of here!
His rifle’s raised; he’s taking aim.
“I’m a human being!” I exclaim.
“Hey! Can’t you see I’m not a deer?”
(Guess he’s decided I’m fair game.)
Forsooth! Alas! He walks my way.
I guess this ain’t my lucky day.
I do not want to be his prey.
I do not want to be his prey.
The fact that some soldiers were spat upon is true. Some incidents reported may/probably never happened; however, there were incidents. And no one should deny that returning soldiers, as well as some on leave were mistreated by anti-war types who could not differentiate the warrior from the war. Some in civilian clothes, but who had military buzz-cut haircuts, were harassed or even assaulted.
One of my friends was a Marine fighter pilot. He was spat upon in the airport terminal in the baggage claim area after returning from Vietnam. He was a Captain, and in uniform. He had to take the bus the rest of the way to the small town he came from. Upon arrival, he could not get anyone to give him a ride and had to walk several miles out in the country to his house, carrying his duffel bag. People drove past him, ignoring his attempts at hitchhiking, some giving him a one-finger salute. That is how all too many of our returning veterans were treated. It is sad to see some of the same attitudes still extant in people like FFN.
My friend is now a college professor and head of his department. He is still bitter about how he and other returning vets were treated.