Another hero lost

[Bradley7735]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_ ... obit_scott

[Ron Saueracker]

97 is a great kick at the can and he kicked it all over the place.

[Big B]

Wow!
I didn't realize he was still with us for so long!
I read his book as a boy (and of course saw the movie). Sad,...but as Ron said - he had a great life....

[BossGnome]

you know, it gets me wondering; its true those vets were heroes, however, is it totally right for an individual to define himself (as this gentleman obviously did) entirely from something he has done in one of the most horrible periods of history? I mean, when you talk to those veterans (and I know I've talked to a few), you sometimes wonder if they're glad the war is over, or if they still wished to be back there, fighting the good fight.

On the one hand, I think it is normal for people to remember with fondness their "golden days", but on the other hand, hearing a senior talk with longing and nostalgia about something as horrible as war kind of creeps me out. Remember, yes. Remember fondly? Well... I'm a little less comfortable with that...

[rogueusmc]

You feel very much alive in combat...that is hard to duplicate in other places.

[Nomad]

Diferent people, different takes. My father was in the US Navy during WW2, and in the Pacific. He rarely ever talked about anything to do with combat, he did have some interesting stories. when I pressed him about his experiences his response was always something like "The war is over and thank god I made it out alive."

[PBYPilot]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

you know, it gets me wondering; its true those vets were heroes, however, is it totally right for an individual to define himself (as this gentleman obviously did) entirely from something he has done in one of the most horrible periods of history? I mean, when you talk to those veterans (and I know I've talked to a few), you sometimes wonder if they're glad the war is over, or if they still wished to be back there, fighting the good fight.

On the one hand, I think it is normal for people to remember with fondness their "golden days", but on the other hand, hearing a senior talk with longing and nostalgia about something as horrible as war kind of creeps me out. Remember, yes. Remember fondly? Well... I'm a little less comfortable with that...

I'm sure that one of the benefits of a long life such as General Scott's, well and bravely lived, is developing a tolerance for expressions of sanctimonious, hand-wringing, hypocritcally pious after the fact judgement made possible only by the risks and sacrifices of men such as he.

I wish I could do the same.

[el cid again]

you know, it gets me wondering; its true those vets were heroes, however, is it totally right for an individual to define himself (as this gentleman obviously did) entirely from something he has done in one of the most horrible periods of history? I mean, when you talk to those veterans (and I know I've talked to a few), you sometimes wonder if they're glad the war is over, or if they still wished to be back there, fighting the good fight.

A military tour is an intense experience - you remember it for the rest of your life - just boot camp in fact. A military tour in a war is more intense still. And some people get to control really major assets that they would never have at that age as civilians. In Viet Nam it was fairly common to commit $2 billion (that is $20 billion in todays' terms) just to rescue a downed pilot! And it might be coordinated by an enlisted man - otherwise a relatively junior (and probably reserve) officer. You may also witness amazing things - even if confused. [I saw what everyone present "knew" was an "atomic explosion" - when the ammo dump when up at Da Nang - and when 15 seconds later I said "it can't be an atom bomb - because we are not blind" - NO one believed me! They could see the mushroom cloud. Of course eventually they believed me - but they will still never forget the moment they saw and "knew the balloon went up". Lots of things happen - and some you can't talk about - but you still don't forget.]

If you see an actual battle in which you are at risk (we often fight battles in which we are NOT at risk today) - you DO feel glad to be alive. And you get adrenalized. If you do it often enough you crave the adrenelyn. For decades I waded in to any situation - not only confident - but actually wanting the challenge - and the adrenelyn. Only when I ended up with a child (from China) and no mommy did I stop taking risks - and it was HARD the first few times. [Once I didn't help a girl being dragged down the street - I called 911 - and the police failed to respond in time. I much prefer to take the risk I might get hurt - and tiny details like being outnumbered and outgunned are mere sauce for someone trained by Marines. They are not trained, and they will not do well against intelligent opposition. But suppose I die? You can't live forever - and I would rather die trying to save someone than from cancer or some such thing. I would die proud for having tried.] It is hard to explain this - but I had a Marine mentor - and he said "if you are thoughtful and careful you will live a long time - you will mostly win." Over the years I have found he is right. And you CANNOT win every bet - but once you get used to betting and mostly winning - you are willing to lose once - some day. It is sort of a natural thing - one reason you get adrenylin flowing - and anyway you don't really want to die of old age - do you?

[BossGnome]

I'm sure that one of the benefits of a long life such as General Scott's, well and bravely lived, is developing a tolerance for expressions of sanctimonious, hand-wringing, hypocritcally pious after the fact judgement made possible only by the risks and sacrifices of men such as he.

I wish I could do the same.

niice. Please think a little before using up valuable megabyte space in posting a grammatically incorrect and heated sentence, which bring very little to the discussion. Where was I being sanctimonious? I said he was a hero, and I appreciate what he did. However, it seems to me that a lot of veterans (not all, I HAVE talked with some like Nomad's father here) are really eager to tell you about the war. Stuff like "I actually had 22 aerial victims, but I only had proof of 13." really creeps me out. Ok, so you had 22 aerial victories. It was for a good cause, but is it really something to be that proud of? I mean, remember man, you killed 22 guys!! Not airplanes, people!

In Saburo Sakai's book, I remember reading how the pilots, trying to distance themselves from the carnage, only thought about the planes they were downing; not the pilots. I will admit I do not know enough about Robert L. Scott to make any sort of affirmation here, it is only a question thrown open to debate. That is: DEBATE. Not idiotic replies thrown straight out of a NRA handbook.

EL Cid, thank you for your reply. It was very interesting. I can see how actually being in combat where you might die would be one of the craziest experiences ever, but, especially in the case of Vietnam, did you pause to think about what you were doing? I'm not trying to be...ahem...sanctimonious or anything here, just asking an honest to god naive question. What made you want to sign up? Were you ever disgusted with mankind, the war, communism, your own country, that sort of stuff?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

you know, it gets me wondering; its true those vets were heroes, however, is it totally right for an individual to define himself (as this gentleman obviously did) entirely from something he has done in one of the most horrible periods of history? I mean, when you talk to those veterans (and I know I've talked to a few), you sometimes wonder if they're glad the war is over, or if they still wished to be back there, fighting the good fight.

On the one hand, I think it is normal for people to remember with fondness their "golden days", but on the other hand, hearing a senior talk with longing and nostalgia about something as horrible as war kind of creeps me out. Remember, yes. Remember fondly? Well... I'm a little less comfortable with that...

Actually, my expetiance was that you got very little from WWII vets between 1945 and 1980. They came home, and generally got on with their lives. But as they approached retirement and found the present world kind of a mess, they started opening up about "the Good War". It was one of, if not the most important thing they had done in their lives, they now had time to go to reunions and maybe make a trip back to the scene of their experiances. I heard very little from my Dad or my Uncles and others of that generation until they were in their 60's. Then you started to hear answers to the question "what did you do in the War?" Oddly most of it was about other guys they had served with and admired or liked.

[PBYPilot]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

niice. Please think a little before using up valuable megabyte space in posting a grammatically incorrect and heated sentence, which bring very little to the discussion. Where was I being sanctimonious? I said he was a hero, and I appreciate what he did. However, it seems to me that a lot of veterans (not all, I HAVE talked with some like Nomad's father here) are really eager to tell you about the war. Stuff like "I actually had 22 aerial victims, but I only had proof of 13." really creeps me out. Ok, so you had 22 aerial victories. It was for a good cause, but is it really something to be that proud of? I mean, remember man, you killed 22 guys!! Not airplanes, people!

In Saburo Sakai's book, I remember reading how the pilots, trying to distance themselves from the carnage, only thought about the planes they were downing; not the pilots. I will admit I do not know enough about Robert L. Scott to make any sort of affirmation here, it is only a question thrown open to debate. That is: DEBATE. Not idiotic replies thrown straight out of a NRA handbook.

Gee, BossGnome, I must have missed the post that put you in charge of grammar and how much any post "brings to the discussion." I'd say my post you quoted, all 55 "megabyte using" words of it hit the point exactly.

But since you obviously missed it, here it is again - that it's very easy for morally ambivalent individuals such as yourself to post hand-wringing, oh-so concerned tripe in a thread devoted to this man's memory while enjoying the freedom to do so bought with his bravery and other men's lives.

You haven't been called upon to risk your life for anything, much less the freedoms you abuse. So where do you get off questioning and judging others who did?

Since you bring up the subject of idiocy, I'm sure you won't mind me pursuing that topic.

The belief that anybody cares what "really creeps you out" is idiocy.

And if you are so concerned about something "so horrible as war" then why are you posting in a forum devoted to exactly that? That's idiocy.

And suggesting that you said you appreciate what Gen Scott did isn't idiocy. It's just lying.

You seem to think that DEBATE is any comment that agrees with you and that any comment that does not agree with you is an "idiotic reply thrown straight out of a NRA handbook"

What an overinflated, pompous buffoon.

[el cid again]

EL Cid, thank you for your reply. It was very interesting. I can see how actually being in combat where you might die would be one of the craziest experiences ever, but, especially in the case of Vietnam, did you pause to think about what you were doing? I'm not trying to be...ahem...sanctimonious or anything here, just asking an honest to god naive question. What made you want to sign up? Were you ever disgusted with mankind, the war, communism, your own country, that sort of stuff?

The "generation gap" is only two years wide! If you graduated from HS in 1964 you volunteered for Vietnam. If you graduated in 1966 you did not. I wasn't around for the period - so I missed the social events that changed people's attitudes. I have no clue what they may have been?

I was a volunteer for military service and once inside I volunteered to go to Viet Nam. I was proud of military service and often wore my uniform to college after my return - to make people against the war uncomfortable (or, maybe, thoughtful). A professor offended me by calling me an "activist." He said "wait - you misunderstand. YOU are an activist because you do NOT follow the mob. You think things through for yourself. All those protesters are sheep. And they don't make any difference on what happens. You regularly change policy, even law, or I bet, facts on the ground when you were in service."

I was a real Cold Warrior - and also I was captivated by Vietnamese culture - see Operation Dumbo Drop for my experience (a true story but not mine, it tells of American SOF in a village - captivated by the morality of rural life - and being moral about how they responded to that - the only Walt Disney movie about Viet Nam I know of - and the only realistic one I know of either!).

I must go to work - more later. But don't expect me to side with Uncle Ho, Hanoi Jane, or Gen Giap - who I think WAS a great general - but a terrible person.

[BossGnome]

Sigh... in response to PBY Pilot who has made another uninspired post [:'(]

1)

The belief that anybody cares what "really creeps you out" is idiocy.

duuh... [:D] However it seems from the interesting discussions and accounts we have had from so far from El Cid, Mike Scholl, and even the little contribution by Nomad seem to show that people ARE interested in discussing the war veteran aspect of things. If you're not interested in doing just that, I suggest you go post in another thread. It is, as you mentionned so astutely, a free country. [:'(]

2)

And if you are so concerned about something "so horrible as war" then why are you posting in a forum devoted to exactly that?

This forum is not devoted to war, but to a WAR GAME. Biiiig difference. We of the community however frequently choose to digress on different topics which usually involve war. I believe most people will tell you war is not a good thing. Many people die, much goes to waste. Money is spent on destroying, when it should be spent on BUILDING. Am I saying I think war should never happen? No. Several wars in history were 100% justified, but absolutely not all of them were. War should be the LAST RECOURSE in any case. Are you saying you do not think of war as a horrible thing? Warmongerer[:D]

3)

You seem to think that DEBATE is any comment that agrees with you and that any comment that does not agree with you is an "idiotic reply thrown straight out of a NRA handbook"

No. What point was I making? I wasn't making any!! [:D] How could anyone agree with a non-existing statement? You might not remember this from debating club, but for there to be an argument, there has to be a statement. For there to be a DEBATE, there has to be a question. Now, what you do is take sides on the question, which in this case happens to be something along the lines of "What is it like to be a war vet?". Now, I CREATED the question, and have no wish to debate much in this argument, since I am NOT (as you correctly observed) a war vet. Would you happen to be one? I somehow doubt it, most war vets have a little more...retenue.

4)

And suggesting that you said you appreciate what Gen Scott did isn't idiocy. It's just lying.

No. Now you think you are a good enough internet philosopher to tell when someone is lying or not[8|]? If I had been born and of age at the time of WW2 I would have signed up, no question. I would have done what was required of me, then gone home. I might have become an ace, I might not have, or I might have died there. Had I killed people, however, I am not sure how I would have thought about it. This is perhaps the main point of the discussion I am trying to make. I am really wondering about the psychological effects of looking at someone and shooting him dead. Gen. Scott here killed 22 people, and seems proud of it. I had never heard his name until today, so I cannot comment any further. I will not try to analyse his personality or anything, "I" don't pretend to be able to do this. [8|] I am not pointing fingers, saying what is right or wrong, I am just asking questions, and wondering, and stating my opinions in a calm and stately matter, something that you so far seem unable to do. I will wish good luck to you so that you are able to post your next message here, should you wish it, in a more calm, rational, and mature tone.

5)

how much any post "brings to the discussion."

If your posts brought to the discussion of what is it like to be a war veteran, then please enlighten me on their informative contents[8|]! Now to be fair, the posts that I was forced to use to ANSWER you brought very little either, so its a double waste of space and megabytes.

Now, to get back to our sheep (as we say in french)[:D]

That activist comment is very interesting El Cid. You know, it really gets you thinking. I don't know what it's like where you are, but where I am the military usually has a bad reputation. The people who go there are usually poor and needing the money, or are considered "sheeps that like to follow orders." That comment got me thinking you know, could it be that a lot of these people are actually totally thinking for themselves and not following the "non-military trend" that seems to have taken hold? However, Vietnam was a very rough war. I remember hearing a story of a soldier who got court martialed when, after he returned from a tour Vietnam, totally pissed off at what he saw over there, decided to protest for peace in a rally, in uniform.

However, I have to disagree with your teacher when he says the peace protesters didn't achieve anything... history proved him wrong. This might be an un-tactful question, but did you kill anyone while in service? How did you deal with that? How do you continue to deal with that? Sorry for the questions, its just that I cannot imagine myself killing another human being... I litterally cannot imagine how I would react in such a situation...

[el cid again]

Had I killed people, however, I am not sure how I would have thought about it. This is perhaps the main point of the discussion I am trying to make. I am really wondering about the psychological effects of looking at someone and shooting him dead.

Read the Fellowship of the Ring - the first of the Trilogy The Lord of the Rings. READ it - not see the movie. When Gandolf the Wizzard stands on the bridge before the Balrog (and thousands of orcs and a few trolls) while his friends flee - and says "you shall not pass" - it is a most intensly moral moment. When a tiny naval landing party (joined by a squad of Vietnamese militia) stands before a battalion of Vietnamese infantry attempting to cross a causeway to wipe out a village (which did a political no-no that, under communism a la Vietnam, means every person must die) - it is a similar moral experience. The battle may be won or lost - the village may be wiped out or not - but the men defending the village are moral men either way. A "discretionary order" allowed them to abandon the place. [A later mandatory order to evacuate was not heard, because the radio had no local oscilator, to insure such an order would not be heard]. When the smoke cleared - outcomes of battles are always a bit ambiguous - there were 113 bodies on the field. How many were dragged off or walked off to die somewhere else, I do not know. But the way you feel at that moment - and for the rest of your life - is intensely proud, happy, glad to be alive, glad no women or children got hurt, glad for every big and small good thing. No one ever can make you lose your temper ever again - if they are not shooting at you it really isn't serious is it? If you do not know how you would behave in similar circumstances, I feel sorry for you. You are either moral or you are not. You either stand before evil to save good people, or you do not. Well - there is another option - you can choose to be evil yourself as well. But moral men won't do that. As an aside, the village in this case was Roman Catholic. The priest quoted some Psalm I had not read, and I regarded it as nonsense: but why not let him say things that might comfort some people? The essense was that God is on the side of those who protect His people. I didn't believe a word of it - and maybe I was right - but none of my men was even wounded that day. I am not certain there is not real power in being moral? There is at least psychological power: our behaviors caused the local population to be on our side; that gave us good intelligence; that gave us the initiative and doubled our strength on the ground (because the locals joined us in the fight). [In Vietnamese culture, if I give you a gift, it creates and obligation that you must give me an equal gift. If I offer you my life, to save your village, the village men must offer me their lives - before the battle is lost and we are all dead - hope or not they must try. So offering to stand for them meant they had to stand for themselves.] Being moral need not mean being passive in the face of evil.

[el cid again]

That activist comment is very interesting El Cid. You know, it really gets you thinking. I don't know what it's like where you are, but where I am the military usually has a bad reputation. The people who go there are usually poor and needing the money, or are considered "sheeps that like to follow orders."

Better education gives you better soldiers. We have fair standards. Many third world countries do not. The British countries (Australia, Britain, Canada) have even higher standards than we do - and usually they get better soldiers (man for man). [They also need so few they select for men who are giants - like football players - as well as bright and educated.] In the Viet Nam era the US Army didn't educate as much as the Navy and Marines did - and it showed in troop quality. I did debriefings of returning vets in 1972 and it was shocking: troops went out on patrol with NO sergeants or officers! They, being abandoned, and scared, would sit down, make up a report, and then go back. That is not an army - it is a mob in uniform - and not effective. Not that poor means bad - we find we can take poor people and educate them - but you MUST educate them to be effective.

[el cid again]

However, I have to disagree with your teacher when he says the peace protesters didn't achieve anything... history proved him wrong. This might be an un-tactful question, but did you kill anyone while in service? How did you deal with that? How do you continue to deal with that?

In naval battle? Probably, but you never really know. In naval vs shore battle? Probably, but you never really know. It is distant and impersonal, and you just use machines, and you cannot even see when the shells fall (if you are inside a control room like I was). In anti-air battle? No - because the targets I had were missiles - and there is no one to kill on a missile. But I would not have felt any remorse to shoot at a combat jet.
In land battle? Oh yes. Infantry combat in a jungle is up close and personal, even if you have killing ground (open ground) at the point of contact. And also in other ways - I was present when a band armed with M-16s crashed the gate at Subic Bay Naval Air Station and killed ALL the Marines guarding it - then broke into the Alaska USA Federal Credit Union. [I was present in that same building as an armed courrier- and before the day was over I got to participate in what you might call a hostage rescue operation - the first in action because I was the only armed person inside.] I also was present in two incidents involving gross criminal misconduct by American soldiers or sailors, and not all of them lived through the experience. I don't particularly care what the circumstances are: I don't particularly care what uniform, or none, the enemy wears. The Code of Conduct begins "I am an American fighting man" and the oath we swear is that we will "fight all enemies, foreign or domestic." [When I attend a ceremony where immigrants swear the same oath, I feel very strongly about its words, that people willingly say them]. I never have had a bad dream, much less a nightmare, and I never have doubts about what I did. I was trained, and training really helps you to act, even if the events are not exactly what you train for.
I also am a bit of a student of theology, and I have formally studied the law of land warfare ( regretfully AFTER I participated in land warfare, not before ). But both help me to understand my part in any situation. I am there to limit the damage evil men with evil plans have, and if limiting what they do means some must die, so be it. In the end fighting (for the moral agents of civilized countries) is that simple: if it is NOT clear you MUST shoot, then DON'T! If it IS clear - then DO - and you will be proud you did not hesitate (not to mention you also might live to tell the tale).
Being passive in the face of evil is a very bad thing.

"Nothing more is necessary that evil should triumph than that good men do nothing" (more or less- from memory ) Edmond Burke.

[el cid again]

However, I have to disagree with your teacher when he says the peace protesters didn't achieve anything... history proved him wrong.

First, you misunderstand him. He meant the sheep. The organizers might achieve something, but not the followers.

Second, I am not sure what you think they accomplished? I have a very center perspective (I have been a delegate for both Republican and Democratic presidents, and I helped found the Libertarian party in three states) - and I think all they may have done is kill the Democratic party as a viable political institution. In our time there is an amazing trend to try to blame President Bush for a war he did not want and could never have started if he did want it (the war was formally declared in 1993 by Osama bin Laden BEFORE he became president, and it involved several attacks we did not understand were attacks in a war BEFORE he took office). There is no way to make peace with this enemy - even if we agreed to surrender control of the USA to Osama it would not bring peace. Yet there is little serious attempt to grasp what might eventually bring peace (it must be something like the defeat of communism - the followers must give up)? And almost all this muddle headed stuff is from those who protested Viet Nam, or their children, people who WANT another Vietnam in politial terms - so they can be anti-government!
And, you understand, I get along with real Democrats, like Norm Dix of Washington, or the former Senator Jackson (same state). I also read everything - I can quote Mao batter than a CCP member - having read him even when his books were banned in my country!

[whippleofd]

Combat.

I wasn't infantry, but when you hear, "Missles inbound. All hands brace for shock. This is not a drill." Thats about as close as I want to get.

I won't cover the areas that el cid has. I wouldn't do it as well has him anyways. Let me cover a different topic if I may.

During that 45 minute period of Operation Praying Mantis I made more friends than I've made in my entire life. Overcomming a period of extream stress will bond the group in a way that nothing else can or will. That operation occured in 1988 and most of use are still in contact on a weekly basis.

I think the "Bard" said it the best:

This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Whipple