What you learn in 61 years is that off to fight injustice or whatever is not always ill advised. I chose to serve my brother chose not to. Both right in the beginning but whatever the many reasons Nam went south had nothing to do with the troops but politicians and generals who ran things. They would not let the troops fight the NVA & Charles on our terms. You don't send men to die in an ongoing holding mission. I had friends that were Cambodian. We pulled and Pol Pot and the horror of the killing fields descended upon a nation but worse even Pres. Carter has said the US congress stopping from him doing something was his greatest regret as president. President Clinton, Rwanda and the bloodbath the erupted his greatest regret for not doing something.

You see guy it is not a D or R thing or anti war ( as anybody with a brain the size of a pea is anti war ) it is how and when do you fight. Some people believe nothing is worth dieing for others shoot um all...........the answer is usually in the middle. The issue is really when, where, and how you draw the line.

Patton had it right. " The way you win a war is not to die for your country but make the other son of a bitch die for his." When you send people off to fight and die, and some or many will for sure, then the nation has the responsibility to do everything in it can to destroy the enemy or stay the hell out. You just hope you have a President that knows this. Bush Sr did and got in & out ( but he was a vet ) as did Kennedy in pulling the plug on the Bay of Pigs bit ( he was a vet ) as did Ike ( he was a vet ) in bringing and end in Korea but all knew the unbelievable evil thing combat is and what it does to men and women.

Other presidents .................you know guy maybe all prezes should be required to have one day combat duty to be on point as 6 hour fire fight broke out being out numbered 2 to 1. Bet things would be different.