Adam Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Hugh Thompson Jr. is a name that should be taught in every history class- he did something that was very unpopular at the time, risked everything by violating chain of command, but is the definition of what a war hero really is. Through all the hell that most of us will never know, he kept his morals and his dignity. It is a shame so few know who he was. I can only hope that I would have the fortitude to be like him. Unfortunately, I am not so sure I could Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 link? He's the helicopter pilot that first reported My Lai to the US Army. He also evacuated 11 Vietnamese from the middle of the massacre, and turned his guns on American soldiers to protect Vietnamese civilians. I don't know that I'd consider him a "hero" (but my definition of "heroism" is very narrow)...maybe, maybe not. He was certainly courageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 I don't know that I'd consider him a "hero" (but my definition of "heroism" is very narrow)...maybe, maybe not. He was certainly courageous. I have done some reading up about the psychological effects of war. anyone who can fight off the urges to slaughter every perceived enemy is a psychological wonder- what he did was heroic IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 He's the helicopter pilot that first reported My Lai to the US Army. He also evacuated 11 Vietnamese from the middle of the massacre, and turned his guns on American soldiers to protect Vietnamese civilians. I don't know that I'd consider him a "hero" (but my definition of "heroism" is very narrow)...maybe, maybe not. He was certainly courageous. Unfortunately my buddy who was in Nam passed away 2 Weeks ago, so I can't ask him, but I think Huey's only had door gunners with M60s. The pilot had no guns to turn on anybody. Turned his guns on American soldiers and that is called courageous? Jesus Christ I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Unfortunately my buddy who was in Nam passed away 2 Weeks ago, so I can't ask him, but I think Huey's only had door gunners with M60s. The pilot had no guns to turn on anybody. Turned his guns on American soldiers and that is called courageous? Jesus Christ I give up. Well, I mean that's a debate unto itself. Are American lives greater that the lives of others? If so, how much greater? Thats in the same vein as that whole "if you kill one person to save two, was it morally correct?" debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Unfortunately my buddy who was in Nam passed away 2 Weeks ago, so I can't ask him, but I think Huey's only had door gunners with M60s. The pilot had no guns to turn on anybody. Turned his guns on American soldiers and that is called courageous? Jesus Christ I give up. He landed between the villagers and the soldiers, and got his door gunners to promise to cover him and shoot if they shot at him or the villagers, while he went out and talked to the platoon leader on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Unfortunately my buddy who was in Nam passed away 2 Weeks ago, so I can't ask him, but I think Huey's only had door gunners with M60s. The pilot had no guns to turn on anybody. Turned his guns on American soldiers and that is called courageous? Jesus Christ I give up. He didn't fire a bullet. He just got the rest of the guys to do what they would under normal circumstances. Stopping a slaughter is heroic.....freedom doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I have done some reading up about the psychological effects of war. anyone who can fight off the urges to slaughter every perceived enemy is a psychological wonder- what he did was heroic IMHO. Trust me, I've done a lot more "reading up" on it than you...and failing to fight of that "urge" isn't a wonder. Quite the opposite: any properly trained soldier doesn't even have that urge, as it runs counter to every instinct of discipline instilled in them via their training. The idiots who perpetrated My Lai are just that - idiots - because they were completely undisciplined. They were a mob, not a military unit. That's why I consider him courageous at least - it takes a lot of courage to stand up to a mob, particularly and armed one. But "heroic"? Like I said...my definition of "heroic" is much stricter than most people's. Unfortunately my buddy who was in Nam passed away 2 Weeks ago, so I can't ask him, but I think Huey's only had door gunners with M60s. The pilot had no guns to turn on anybody. Turned his guns on American soldiers and that is called courageous? Jesus Christ I give up. Depends on the Huey. I don't think it was a gunship he flew...but even so, that wouldn't forbid field modifications. And even beyond that...he, as the pilot-in-command, ordered his gunners to train their weapons on American troops, so fundamentally "he" trained "his" guns either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Hamburger Hill was a !@#$ing MOVIE, Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I have done some reading up about the psychological effects of war. anyone who can fight off the urges to slaughter every perceived enemy is a psychological wonder- what he did was heroic IMHO. Trust me, I've done a lot more "reading up" on it than you...and failing to fight of that "urge" isn't a wonder. Quite the opposite: any properly trained soldier doesn't even have that urge, as it runs counter to every instinct of discipline instilled in them via their training. The idiots who perpetrated My Lai are just that - idiots - because they were completely undisciplined. They were a mob, not a military unit. It's posts like these that keep me laughing my ass off when I read PPP. Two people with zero first hand knowledge posting definitive opposing opinions - on a subject neither has any possible frame of reference for - because they each read a different book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 It's posts like these that keep me laughing my ass off when I read PPP. Two people with zero first hand knowledge posting definitive opposing opinions - on a subject neither has any possible frame of reference for - because they each read a different book. I read a book about the psychological effects of war- and when they say war is hell, they aren't kidding. It can get very good people to do very bad things- most of our troops are very good people who go to fight for what they believe, not to become merciless killers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 It's posts like these that keep me laughing my ass off when I read PPP. Two people with zero first hand knowledge posting definitive opposing opinions - on a subject neither has any possible frame of reference for - because they each read a different book. The difference between you and me is that I understand the limits of my understanding, whereas you on the other hand seem to think that your view from a steel tube fathoms underwater gives you absolute knowledge. Our perspectives aren't quite as different as you'd like to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I read a book about the psychological effects of war- and when they say war is hell, they aren't kidding. It can get very good people to do very bad things- most of our troops are very good people who go to fight for what they believe, not to become merciless killers Given the suicide rates we're seeing the military these days I suspect war is not a good thing, at least not for them. (KBR would argue.) Of course the wingnuts will counter that the soldiers who commit suicide are somehow "defective"...because REAL MEN (and women) can HACK IT and only pansies would commit suicide. Not having ever committed suicide I can't say for sure, but the people I know who have done so took that extreme action because the pain of living - with whatever their unique burden - was simply too much to bear. That type of pain is something I hope I never experience and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Anyway - when you join the military you know you may have to kill people. In the abstract it may sound ok. But no-one ever knows exactly what it means until they're actually called upon to do it. That's why war should really be a last resort instead of a policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Given the suicide rates we're seeing the military these days I suspect war is not a good thing, at least not for them. (KBR would argue.) Of course the wingnuts will counter that the soldiers who commit suicide are somehow "defective"...because REAL MEN (and women) can HACK IT and only pansies would commit suicide. Not having ever committed suicide I can't say for sure, but the people I know who have done so took that extreme action because the pain of living - with whatever their unique burden - was simply too much to bear. That type of pain is something I hope I never experience and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Anyway - when you join the military you know you may have to kill people. In the abstract it may sound ok. But no-one ever knows exactly what it means until they're actually called upon to do it. That's why war should really be a last resort instead of a policy. Situation is usually more powerful an affecter that the person it affects- some people don't like admitting that, but its true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The difference between you and me is that I understand the limits of my understanding, whereas you on the other hand seem to think that your view from a steel tube fathoms underwater gives you absolute knowledge. Our perspectives aren't quite as different as you'd like to believe. Actually, Tom the difference is that I try to limit my post to those areas where I actually have practical knowledge or experience. While you seem to be a fan of Professor Irwin Corey. Or when there's an irresistable opportunity for purely snarky shot at someone. (See Below) Situation is usually more powerful an affecter that the person it affects... I also try to make sense when I post. But, that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 I also try to make sense when I post. But, that's just me. What that meant was aside from a handful of very strong people, situational forces can impact us to make decisions we wouldn't normally make- good or bad. War dehumanizes the enemy and makes it very easy for a good person to treat an enemy inhumanely. Funny thing is, our troops that his mistreated/tortured captives have tested out with very nomal psychological profiles- the scary thing is, so have many of the terrorist "foot soldiers" that we have captured. Even many nazi's have tested normal- meaning that they weren't pathelogical killers. Human nature can be very scary. We are very weakminded and easy to manipulate- and the more you think you are incapable of such inhumane acts, the easier it is to sway you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 What that meant was aside from a handful of very strong people, situational forces can impact us to make decisions we wouldn't normally make- good or bad. War dehumanizes the enemy and makes it very easy for a good person to treat an enemy inhumanely. Funny thing is, our troops that his mistreated/tortured captives have tested out with very nomal psychological profiles- the scary thing is, so have many of the terrorist "foot soldiers" that we have captured. Even many nazi's have tested normal- meaning that they weren't pathelogical killers. Human nature can be very scary. We are very weakminded and easy to manipulate- and the more you think you are incapable of such inhumane acts, the easier it is to sway you. Or you could just say that the herd mentality is strong in humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Or you could just say that the herd mentality is strong in humans. That would be the best way to state the fact IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 That would be the best way to state the fact IMHO. But not as wordy as mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts