NationStates Jolt Archive

Why exactly, if you do, hate all of the war protesters? I can understand hating the ones that call every single one of you criminals, but what about the ones who just wanted to bring you guys home? What about the ones who just wanted to end a war that we had no reason to participate in in the first place? And what about those who were complaining because of their lost relatives? My dad, for example, never went to Vietnam because of his eye condition, but his brother did; ever since, he's been out of it; he just wanders the streets of Denver, speaking incoherently. I've never met him, and I don't even know if he's alive anymore.
Because of that, my dad campaigned against the Vietnam war; plus my mom, though they wouldn't meet for another fifteen years, also campaigned heavily against it. What I ask, again, is why do you hate them?

When the testimony of certain protestors is used against POW's, that is my major problem. Also when the anti-war movement gives a morale boost to the enemy! Thus making the war last longer in the first place, sort of going against the whole concept of the protests. You do know that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for the US, but because of the protestors, it turned out to a political victory for the North.

I don't hate them. I just don't want them speaking for me. I wanted to be in the first Gulf War, and I remember people making all kinds of dire predictions that never came true, and were never even close to true.

Feel free to protest. Don't feel free to speak for me if I want to be there.

I remember talking to some Vietnam vets who actually felt they were doing the right thing over in Vietnam, and didn't like someone else speaking for them. At the same time, they wanted to be sure that protesters had the right to protest.

By all means, protest. But not in my name.

What do you guys think honestly about Jane Fonda, John Kerry and their kind during those era's?

What I ask, again, is why do you hate them?



why not?

why not?
Because a lot of them were protesting to save you and the other troops in combat; they didn't want a senseless war.

Jane Fonda - She went to North Viet Nam and met with the government that was sponsoring the VC. The VC were killing US Troops, torturing POW's. She sat in the same weapons that were used to shoot down US planes and kill our men. She had no reguard to the feeling, thoughts or treatment of people that defended her right to speak out. She was, is and will always be a ttraitor in my eyes. It's not the fact that she protested the war. It's the fact that she gave aid and comfort to our enemy. That makes her a traitor.

John Kerry - Although he served, and served heroiclly by some accounts, he threw all that away when he gave false testamony under oath in front of the US Senate and his actions after. The statements he used and took for that hearing were taken from men who were either not in the military or ever were, or were from men who didn't serve in 'Nam. The leader and his partner in VVAW, Hubbard, claimed he was a USAF pilot, held the rank of Capt. and flew in 'Nam. He was not a pilot, Capt and he was never in 'Nam. He was a SGT in a plane crew that was stationed in W.Germany. John Kerry will remain a traitor to his 'comrade in arms' and all the Vietnam vets/POW's in my eyes until he formally apologizes to those Vets, POW's and the families of POW's who were killed by what he said during those hearings and after.

Other protesters - Hey this is America, It is one of the few places in the World where you can protest what your Gov't is doing without the fear of reprisals. Go ahead. I served 22 years in the Navy to defend your freedom to do just that. But, you are required to be responisble for what you say. Be respectful to those who sacrificed for your ability to protest. Be responsible for what you say to those who served. Call me a 'baby killer', murderer...etc and be prepared for the beating that will follow. That is not a threat, it's a promise. But do me a favor, use your own thoughts, research you position and question those who are giving you 'facts' just as you question the reason you are protesting. Don't beleive what people are saying. You owe it to yourself to perform some research, from as many sites/sources available from both sides to form your opinion. In other words, don't take what people like Michael "Where's the buffet table" Moore says as gospel. Do your own research, form your own opinion.

i rather think we can save ourselves without a bunch of tree hugging hippies


sorry i hate protestors

Neither one of my parents were tree hugging hippies, nor were the vast majority of the protestors. I just don't understand how you could hate them; I would actually love the fact that we were able to fight for such a right, that they could protest the war.

I just like to hate people....

really though.. it's their right.. while i may not agree with it (in fact.. i am usually totally against what they protest).. i recognize it is their right.. and personally, i don't actually hate them.. it's just an act

That seems a bit stupid. Why would you hate protesters, whats the point in having a democracy if you can't protest against something?

Because a lot of them were protesting to save you and the other troops in combat; they didn't want a senseless war.

Define senseless. IMO ALL war is senseless. But because there are people out there that feel they have the right to dictate how others live, think, read, learn...etc, there will always be war. The question you need to ask yourself is isn't if this war is right. It has to be more generral than that. The question should be - "At what point is it right to assist a country/people/region who are under the rule/oppression/threat militarily with troops and weapons in order for them to have a say in the determination of who/how they wish to be governed in the future?"

How many people in a country have to die, and for how many years, at the hands of brutal governemnts before intervention becomes mandatory?

Is it only ok for military response after you are directly attacked? Or is it ok to prevent such an attack before it occurs?

Define senseless. IMO ALL war is senseless. But because there are people out there that feel they have the right to dictate how others live, think, read, learn...etc, there will always be war. The question you need to ask yourself is isn't if this war is right. It has to be more generral than that. The question should be - "At what point is it right to assist a country/people/region who are under the rule/oppression/threat militarily with troops and weapons in order for them to have a say in the determination of who/how they wish to be governed in the future?"

How many people in a country have to die, and for how many years, at the hands of brutal governemnts before intervention becomes mandatory?

Is it only ok for military response after you are directly attacked? Or is it ok to prevent such an attack before it occurs?
No, you're right, and I understand that. The way I see it, war is going to happen, but only if you're attacked, though in some cases I suppose it does make sense to intervene. Thing is, I'm not the person to determine when war is right or not; I can only protest or support a war once it begins.

Why exactly, if you do, hate all of the war protesters?
It's not a matter of "hate." I honestly don't "hate" anyone. Try to understand that, having been in combat with some of the best people ever to walk the face of the planet, I do my utmost to defend them, particularly those who died since they can't defend themselves.

I am anti-war and have gone to several protests. I don't agree with spitting in soldiers faces, because we are against the politicans who started the war, not the soldiers themselves.

When the testimony of certain protestors is used against POW's, that is my major problem. Also when the anti-war movement gives a morale boost to the enemy! Thus making the war last longer in the first place, sort of going against the whole concept of the protests. You do know that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for the US, but because of the protestors, it turned out to a political victory for the North.
1. Not all anti-war protestors are John Kerry. In fact, all of them except for the man himself are not John Kerry.

2. I have doubts about the whole "morale boost to the enemy" thing. Even if it is, it is better that we protest against our government when it is doing something wrong. Otherwise we might as well be living in a dictatorship.

I am anti-war and have gone to several protests. I don't agree with spitting in soldiers faces, because we are against the politicans who started the war, not the soldiers themselves.

1. Not all anti-war protestors are John Kerry. In fact, all of them except for the man himself are not John Kerry.

2. I have doubts about the whole "morale boost to the enemy" thing. Even if it is, it is better that we protest against our government when it is doing something wrong. Otherwise we might as well be living in a dictatorship.
You have every right to protest anything your demented little heart desires. As a soldier, one of the main reasons *I* was in the military was to defend my and others' right to speak our minds. In fact, I view those who disagree with government and yet choose to NOT speak out as somewhat foolish for neglecting their own freedom.

Where I part company with "protest" is when it takes what I consider to be unacceptable forms: blocking traffic, agitating by making outrageous claims or performing ridiculous acts, spitting on military personnel, defaming military personnel, referring to soldiers as "baby-killers," throwing things at those with whom you disagree, so-called "street theatre," the list is long and infamous.

If you can't make your point without resorting to theatrics or quasi-violent acts, then I don't wanna hear it!

When the testimony of certain protestors is used against POW's, that is my major problem. Also when the anti-war movement gives a morale boost to the enemy! Thus making the war last longer in the first place, sort of going against the whole concept of the protests. You do know that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for the US, but because of the protestors, it turned out to a political victory for the North.

This is old, tired, right wing pro-war propaganda with no basis in fact. The Tet offensive was indeed a military victory for the U.S. military, but its importance was that it exposed the lie that the military victory was well within reach - the famed "light at the end of the tunnel." When the American people witnessed that the Vietcong could strike anywhere in South Vietnam, including the American embassy, the question turned from how to win the war in Vietnam to how the U.S. would get out of Vietnam. The Tet offensive made clear to Americans that the Vietnam War (or American War as the Vietnamese call it) was unwinnable.

It was not just a bunch of barefoot hippies who opposed the war in Vietnam by 1968. Polls show the public at large was uneasy about the war and growing more weary of it, with a majority turning against its continued prosecution and favoring gradual withdrawal. Politicians knew how to read polling data and were also questioning the wisdom of fighting a war without a goal or exit strategy. Both Democratic and Republican leaders were expressing doubts. It was not just the general public's mood that had changed. Many corporate executives were also losing faith, as well as military officers and soldiers in the rank and file.

The Nixon Administration sought a negotiated settlement with the North Vietnamese Communist because they too saw that the war could not be won in a military victory over the southern guerrillas and the North Vietnamese main-force units. It was Nixon who actually prolonged the war, not the American people who recognized the reality of facts on the ground long before their leaders did.

I am anti-war and have gone to several protests. I don't agree with spitting in soldiers faces, because we are against the politicans who started the war, not the soldiers themselves.

I agree with your post, but this idea that Vietnam War protesters spat on returning soldiers is an right-wing urban myth that has continued to be perpetuated long after the Vietnam War ended. There is no documentation from the period when war protests were taking place that this actually happened. There may have been some isolated incidents of this kind of conduct, however, the record shows that this type of abuse did not occur when veterans returned. This is not to say that some members of the anti- war movement weren't hostile, but by and large, the anti-war movement viewed the veteran as a victim of our government's policies.

Articles in magazines of that time period find no references to anti-war protesters spitting on veterans. Neither are there any pictures of these supposed incidents. Logic would dictate that if this occurred, at the level that is said, then some photographer would have taken a picture. In fact, there aren't any existing pictures offered by the FBI, the army, news services, the returning veterans themselves, all of whom had the power to record incidents of this type. Furthermore, there isn't even written proof of these veterans reporting these alleged incidents to the proper authorities.

There was, however, one group that did indeed spit on veterans. The Young Republicans who spat upon on Ron Kovic (you know, the movie Born on the Forth of July)and other veterans at the 1972 Republican convention. The veterans were protesting and calling for an end to the war in Vietnam and were greeted by the young zealots of the GOP who cursed and spat upon them.

All of Indochina today is a Vietnamese imperial despotry. Massive slaughters in Cambodia and Vietnam followed the victory of the communists in that war, including an extermination of the indigenous Hmong that lasted for decades.

The Vietnam War was as "immoral" and "unwinnable" as the war against the Nazis. In that conflict, we jailed pro-Nazi activists. I don't see why supporting Left fascism should have been any different - perhaps, because the Nazi socialists weren't liked by other socialists. In any case, it wasn't our support for the people of Vietnam that we should be ashamed of, but our betrayal of the South Vietnamese in the mid 70's - and that betrayal was almost exclusively the work of Bolshevik socialist seditionists and their allies in the West.

So-called "anti-war" activists, whether actively fighting for tyranny or simply duped by Marxists into doing so, have nothing at all to be proud of.

I agree with your post, but this idea that Vietnam War protesters spat on returning soldiers is an right-wing urban myth that has continued to be perpetuated long after the Vietnam War ended. There is no documentation from the period when war protests were taking place that this actually happened. There may have been some isolated incidents of this kind of conduct, however, the record shows that this type of abuse did not occur when veterans returned. This is not to say that some members of the anti- war movement weren't hostile, but by and large, the anti-war movement viewed the veteran as a victim of our government's policies.

Articles in magazines of that time period find no references to anti-war protesters spitting on veterans. Neither are there any pictures of these supposed incidents. Logic would dictate that if this occurred, at the level that is said, then some photographer would have taken a picture. In fact, there aren't any existing pictures offered by the FBI, the army, news services, the returning veterans themselves, all of whom had the power to record incidents of this type. Furthermore, there isn't even written proof of these veterans reporting these alleged incidents to the proper authorities.

There was, however, one group that did indeed spit on veterans. The Young Republicans who spat upon on Ron Kovic (you know, the movie Born on the Forth of July)and other veterans at the 1972 Republican convention. The veterans were protesting and calling for an end to the war in Vietnam and were greeted by the young zealots of the GOP who cursed and spat upon them.
God! Have you no shame at all??? NONE? This is the most bald-faced LIE it has ever been my extreme displeasure to read! Were you there, you wet-behind the ears neonate? No? Well I WAS! When I came home from Vietnam and our plane landed at LA Airport, I along with many other soldiers was spat upon by those friggin' anti-war bastards you seem to be so inordinately fond of praising.

NOW you say that Ron Kovic ( a most dispicable human being ) was a VICTIM? Jesus! Talk about twisting reality around to suit your own needs!

:rolleyes: :headbang: :mad:

All of Indochina today is a Vietnamese imperial despotry. Massive slaughters in Cambodia and Vietnam followed the victory of the communists in that war, including an extermination of the indigenous Hmong that lasted for decades.

The Vietnam War was as "immoral" and "unwinnable" as the war against the Nazis. In that conflict, we jailed pro-Nazi activists. I don't see why supporting Left fascism should have been any different - perhaps, because the Nazi socialists weren't liked by other socialists. In any case, it wasn't our support for the people of Vietnam that we should be ashamed of, but our betrayal of the South Vietnamese in the mid 70's - and that betrayal was almost exclusively the work of Bolshevik socialist seditionists and their allies in the West.

So-called "anti-war" activists, whether actively fighting for tyranny or simply duped by Marxists into doing so, have nothing at all to be proud of.

Opposing an unwinable and illegal war that the U.S. had no legitimate right to be involved in is not the same as supporting the communist forces who ultimately won that civil conflict. I oppose the Communist government in China which is responsible for the deaths of 38 million people; however that does not mean I am ready to commit American sons and daughters to a war with China.

Anti-war protestors in the 60s and today can be proud they live out the grandest ideals upon which this nation was founded - individual liberty, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and freedom of speech.

God! Have you no shame at all??? NONE? This is the most bald-faced LIE it has ever been my extreme displeasure to read! Were you there, you wet-behind the ears neonate? No? Well I WAS! When I came home from Vietnam and our plane landed at LA Airport, I along with many other soldiers was spat upon by those friggin' anti-war bastards you seem to be so inordinately fond of praising.

NOW you say that Ron Kovic ( a most dispicable human being ) was a VICTIM? Jesus! Talk about twisting reality around to suit your own needs!


Really? Did you report it? Do you have pictures? Did a local paper do a story? Did you file a police report?

No. Neither you nor any of the other "eye witnesses" who have manufactured this story long after the war ended. As I said, articles in magazines of that time period find no references to anti-war protesters spitting on veterans. Neither are there any pictures of these supposed incidents. Logic would dictate that if this occurred, at the level that is said, then some photographer would have taken a picture. In fact, there aren't any existing pictures offered by the FBI, the army, news services, the returning veterans themselves, all of whom had the power to record incidents of this type. Furthermore, there isn't even written proof of these veterans reporting these alleged incidents to the proper authorities.

Nor did I say anything about Ron Kovic being a victim; just that it is documented that Young Republicans spit on him.

By the way, I would estimate that we are pretty close in age.

Really? Did you report it? Do you have pictures? Did a local paper do a story? Did you file a police report?

No. Neither you nor any of the other "eye witnesses" who have manufactured this story long after the war ended. As I said, articles in magazines of that time period find no references to anti-war protesters spitting on veterans. Neither are there any pictures of these supposed incidents. Logic would dictate that if this occurred, at the level that is said, then some photographer would have taken a picture. In fact, there aren't any existing pictures offered by the FBI, the army, news services, the returning veterans themselves, all of whom had the power to record incidents of this type. Furthermore, there isn't even written proof of these veterans reporting these alleged incidents to the proper authorities.

Nor did I say anything about Ron Kovic being a victim; just that it is documented that Young Republicans spit on him.

By the way, I would estimate that we are pretty close in age.
BTW ... I'm a 61 year old, disabled Vietnam veteran. If you choose to not believe me, that is your problem, not mine. You're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the facts are. You're no better than the mindless little bitch in San Francisco who called me a "baby killer" at first sight without ever knowing who I was or what I had done. I pity you. You are one sorry excuse for a human being.

For those who actually want to know what that time in our nation's history was like, ask a Vietnam veteran in your area. Chances are, they'll be FAR more truthful with you than this guy.

BTW ... I'm a 61 year old, disabled Vietnam veteran. If you choose to not believe me, that is your problem, not mine. You're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the facts are. You're no better than the mindless little bitch in San Francisco who called me a "baby killer" at first sight without ever knowing who I was or what I had done. I pity you. You are one sorry excuse for a human being.

For those who actually want to know what that time in our nation's history was like, ask a Vietnam veteran in your area. Chances are, they'll be FAR more truthful with you than this guy.

For 61 you throw a temper tantrum like 6. It seems that the stories of veterans being spit on is not unlike the number of people who attended the concert at Woodstock. Each year the number increases. Yet, none of them reported it, were caught on film, wrote a letter to the editor, or contacted a reporter. And what is truly amazing is that these battle hardened vets stood there and allowed themselves to be spit on by long-haired college kids without ever once getting into an altercation that required the intervention of the police (and the filing of a police report to document the incident).

No, sir. I do not believe you were spit upon. However, I do believe you are busily searching the web for some fragment of evidence that somewhere, somehow, someone was spit upon returning from Vietnam. I will leave you to your search and check in later to see the results. Make sure it is something from the time period and not a "memory" recollected after this urban myth got started.

I wish you good luck.

That seems a bit stupid. Why would you hate protesters, whats the point in having a democracy if you can't protest against something?

Hating protestors doesnt mean they don't think that they don't have the right to protest...

For 61 you throw a temper tantrum like 6. It seems that the stories of veterans being spit on is not unlike the number of people who attended the concert at Woodstock. Each year the number increases. Yet, none of them reported it, were caught on film, wrote a letter to the editor, or contacted a reporter. And what is truly amazing is that these battle hardened vets stood there and allowed themselves to be spit on by long-haired college kids without ever once getting into an altercation that required the intervention of the police (and the filing of a police report to document the incident).

No, sir. I do not believe you were spit upon.

Why would they report it? What are the cops going to do? Are you one of those people on NS who calls for moderation whenever something you disagree with is posted?

The most patriotic thing you can do is to die for your nation, God knows too many have. Would you spit in the face of a double amputee, and call them a baby killer if you knew they were a veteran?

BTW it's the people like you who should be spat on, and called baby killers. It's because of people like you that the war lasted as long as it did, and that our POW's were severely abused (or is that a right wing myth as well?). You and your yellow, cowardly friends have no conception of what sacrifice is. Sure, dodge the draft, just so long as someone else has to be called in your place (and possibly die). Just so long as you have your latte, hairy legged girls, and institutions of "higher learning", you'll be ok.

Would you spit in the face of a double amputee, and call them a baby killer if you knew they were a veteran?

No.

And neither did anti-war protesters.

That is my point. Nor would returning vets put up without being spit upon without some violent altercation (resulting in a police report or news story).

Jane Fonda - She went to North Viet Nam and met with the government that was sponsoring the VC. The VC were killing US Troops, torturing POW's. She sat in the same weapons that were used to shoot down US planes and kill our men. She had no reguard to the feeling, thoughts or treatment of people that defended her right to speak out. She was, is and will always be a ttraitor in my eyes. It's not the fact that she protested the war. It's the fact that she gave aid and comfort to our enemy. That makes her a traitor.

John Kerry - Although he served, and served heroiclly by some accounts, he threw all that away when he gave false testamony under oath in front of the US Senate and his actions after. The statements he used and took for that hearing were taken from men who were either not in the military or ever were, or were from men who didn't serve in 'Nam. The leader and his partner in VVAW, Hubbard, claimed he was a USAF pilot, held the rank of Capt. and flew in 'Nam. He was not a pilot, Capt and he was never in 'Nam. He was a SGT in a plane crew that was stationed in W.Germany. John Kerry will remain a traitor to his 'comrade in arms' and all the Vietnam vets/POW's in my eyes until he formally apologizes to those Vets, POW's and the families of POW's who were killed by what he said during those hearings and after.

Other protesters - Hey this is America, It is one of the few places in the World where you can protest what your Gov't is doing without the fear of reprisals. Go ahead. I served 22 years in the Navy to defend your freedom to do just that. But, you are required to be responisble for what you say. Be respectful to those who sacrificed for your ability to protest. Be responsible for what you say to those who served. Call me a 'baby killer', murderer...etc and be prepared for the beating that will follow. That is not a threat, it's a promise. But do me a favor, use your own thoughts, research you position and question those who are giving you 'facts' just as you question the reason you are protesting. Don't beleive what people are saying. You owe it to yourself to perform some research, from as many sites/sources available from both sides to form your opinion. In other words, don't take what people like Michael "Where's the buffet table" Moore says as gospel. Do your own research, form your own opinion.

Sorry if I don't buy you moronic Anti-American Hamiltonian Imperialistic diatribe.

But CONSTITUTIONALLY, and settled by the Kentuky Resolution against the Alien and Sedition Act by Thomas Jefferson, forever put an end to the Federalistic, imperial idea that people like Jane Fonda and Michael Moore provide "aid and comfort to our enemies...". Legally, and factually, the argument is over. You loose. The Constitution wins, Jefferson wins... And the American ideal wins...

The Myth of the Spat-Upon Veteran
By Gabrielle Bernard, Winsted


Chad Barlow, in his impassioned support of war [Some War Is Necessary, February 14], repeats the myth that peace activists "SPAT ON our soldiers returning from Vietnam." It’s a great story, but like many right-wing myths (e.g., the story of feminists burning bras), it is simply not true.

Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College, did an exhaustive search in the process of writing his 1998 book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam. He found not a single case of a returning Vietnam veteran spat upon by antiwar activists. The relation between Vietnam veterans and the peace movement was generally good, since the antiwar people saw the mostly working class vets as just as much victims of the war machine as the Vietnamese peasants. We should remember that in that war, as many as 550,000 GIs went AWOL or deserted. A Harris Poll in 1971 showed that only 1% of the veterans encountered hostile reactions when they came home, and they did not think the antiwar movement was hostile to them.

There are practically no reports of spitting during the war itself (1965-75). The first reported instance occurs during an International Day of Protest featuring "Veterans for Peace in Vietnam." Here it is the war supporters who are spitting on the pro-peace veterans. In 1965, World War II veterans who were taking part in an antiwar demonstration were reviled as "cowards" and "traitors."

Lembcke was not able to find a single photograph, news story, or FBI report of veterans being spat upon (remember, the FBI did obsessive surveillance of the peace movements). He tried to track down individuals who said they had been spat upon or witnessed it, but they "dissolved on scrutiny" and others "betrayed lack of authenticity"—which, I assume, means they lied. So what is going on here?

Vietnam veterans did not come home in bulk at the end of the war as WWII vets did; they dribbled back after their usually one-year tour of duty. As the war progressed, thousands of WWII and Vietnam vets turned against the war. The Nixon administration launched a campaign to differentiate between "good" (pro-war) vets and "bad" (antiwar) vets. Spiro Agnew, who would soon be hounded out of office as a felon, led the charge. Overnight, conservatives changed the debate from "our objectives in Southeast Asia" (anti-communism, democracy) to "supporting our men who are fighting the war." (Everyone will remember a similar shift during the Gulf War.)

The single image of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran became the perfect myth of the Nixon-Agnew strategy to discredit the antiwar movement. What solidified the image of the reviled, spat-upon, and eventually crazed Vietnam veteran was the movies. It started in Jane Fonda's Coming Home, where a returning vet is verbally accosted as he returns home: "We don't want your rotten war!" Trouble is, peace activists quietly picketed soldiers going to Vietnam, not returning. But it was the 1977 movie Tracks in which we got the good pro-war veteran and the bad antiwar activist, Mark, who repeatedly spits on his opponents. Hollywood's role in creating the myth of the spat-upon veteran had begun.

And the end result was Rambo, the crazed Vietnam veteran: "But somebody wouldn't let us win. I come back and see all these maggots at the airport. Protesting me, spitting, calling me a baby-killer. Who are they to protest me? Huh?"

It's called the manufacture of consent. It is going on now and it's very scary.

http://www.thevoicenews.com/News/2003/0228/In_Response/R03_Bernard-re_Barlow.html

What do you guys think honestly about Jane Fonda, John Kerry and their kind during those era's?

I'm not a vet, but I have known several, and these are my opinions.

Jane Fonda - Willfully and intentionally put the lives of POWs in danger. At one stop in North Vietnamese territory, she was allowed to shake the hands of POWs. Believing she would help them, they all slipped her a piece of paper with their names, numbers, etc. on them. She walked down the line, smiling and shaking hands, and then handed all of the slips of paper to the commander there, purposely endangering these men's lives. She should have been executed as a traitor.

John Kerry - Served in the military and came to believe that the war was unnecessary and wrong. Used his right to speak out about that. Spoke before a Congressional Committee about both his own experiences and things that he heard. Never said that all soldiers were committing crimes and was actually working to get them brought home. A little misguided perhaps, but not evil.

Others - Generally the same as John Kerry, with a few Jane Fondas thrown in.

I'm not a vet, but I have known several, and these are my opinions.

Jane Fonda - Willfully and intentionally put the lives of POWs in danger. At one stop in North Vietnamese territory, she was allowed to shake the hands of POWs. Believing she would help them, they all slipped her a piece of paper with their names, numbers, etc. on them. She walked down the line, smiling and shaking hands, and then handed all of the slips of paper to the commander there, purposely endangering these men's lives. She should have been executed as a traitor.

John Kerry - Served in the military and came to believe that the war was unnecessary and wrong. Used his right to speak out about that. Spoke before a Congressional Committee about both his own experiences and things that he heard. Never said that all soldiers were committing crimes and was actually working to get them brought home. A little misguided perhaps, but not evil.

Others - Generally the same as John Kerry, with a few Jane Fondas thrown in.

Don't forget that Jane Fonda's actions are the very definition of treason: aid and comfort to the enemy. Protest is fine, heck, I even support the rightrs of flag burners. Jane Fonda, however, was a traitor.

Regarding the person who quoted the left wing revisionist history saying that returning soldiers getting spat on was a myth: what a crock!

I was four when my dad came back from Vietnam the second time. His group of Airmen was verbally accosted at the airport by protestors, called baby burners and asked how they'd like it if their kids were napalmed. When they were spat at (it missed) for the third time, their officer raised his hand to the person who spat. He was told by the police at the airport that he'd be jailed for assault if he hit him, since that's what the protesters were trying to provoke. So he put down his hand and got spit at again. All this while I stood their with my mom and brother, waiting for our dad to get through a crowd of animals in human form.

Right about then, my brother and I ran up and kicked the jerk in the leg and went over to hug our dad.

The so called "expert" who claims it never happened doesn't understand exactly what protesters got away with in the late 60s - early 70s, what the cops put up with to prevent riots and what veterans went through.

I was there, I saw it, and I bare witness to it. No police report, so it didn't happen? Right. And domestic violence is at an all time low because there are fewer police reports. Keep on dreaming.

Finally, to answer the question: As the son of a Vietnam Vet and a Desert Storm (Gulf War Round One) Veteran myself, I don't hate war protesters. I pity them; but I'm proud to be in a country where they can protest and not just disappear. I think Fonda was a traitor, which is one step beyond being a protestor. And I think Kerry believed what he said, even when he lied about the "war crimes" under oath before Congress. I may not like Kerry, but at least he didn't go to Hanoi and dance with an AK 47 or help get prisoners tortured, like good ole Jane did.

This is old, tired, right wing pro-war propaganda with no basis in fact. The Tet offensive was indeed a military victory for the U.S. military, but its importance was that it exposed the lie that the military victory was well within reach - the famed "light at the end of the tunnel." When the American people witnessed that the Vietcong could strike anywhere in South Vietnam, including the American embassy, the question turned from how to win the war in Vietnam to how the U.S. would get out of Vietnam. The Tet offensive made clear to Americans that the Vietnam War (or American War as the Vietnamese call it) was unwinnable.
By launching the Tet Offensive the NVA hoped to use the VietCong to shatter our military. They used almost all of their available manpower in S.V. for the offensive and it was pretty much totally destroyed. The VietCong after the Tet was no longer an opponent that could really inflict any harm. Had we stood resolute we would have either outlasted N.V or we would have ended up with a situation like N&S Korea's.

2. I have doubts about the whole "morale boost to the enemy" thing. Even if it is, it is better that we protest against our government when it is doing something wrong. Otherwise we might as well be living in a dictatorship.

The War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) openly praises Kerry and acknowledges that he played a major part in the communists' victory with his 'anti-war' activities.

The War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) openly praises Kerry and acknowledges that he played a major part in the communists' victory with his 'anti-war' activities.
So? They say that because he was a major leader in anti-war activities; it doesn't make him a traitor by any means.

I may not like Kerry, but at least he didn't go to Hanoi and dance with an AK 47 or help get prisoners tortured, like good ole Jane did.
Actually we don't know what he did. Carter's amnesty to all Vietnam Vets gave him an honorable discharge and since the lying bastard won't sign Form 180 we have no idea what his record actually looks like.

So? They say that because he was a major leader in anti-war activities; it doesn't make him a traitor by any means.

No, protesting the war does not make one a traitor. However, his cover-up of the evidence that there are still hundreds of live POWs in Southeast Asia does make him a traitor. Contrary to popular misconception, not all POWs were returned.

The U.S. could have won the war in Vietnam in six weeks or less, had they done the following:

1.Invaded the North
2.Closed the port of Haiphong
3.Invaded Laos and Cambodia and destroyed the enemies' sanctuaries there
4.Bombed the transportation links to China
5.Mined Haiphong harbor
6.Permitted pilots to destroy SAM sites while they were under construction, instead of waiting until they were operational
7.Allowing our troops to blow up dams, factories, power plants, etc.
8.Ceased trade with the USSR and its satellites, upon whom the North Vietnamese were entirely dependent to maintain their war effort
9.Bombed strategic cities such as Haiphong and Hanoi
10.Allowed our pilots to bomb trucks that had wandered more than 200 yards off the Ho Chi Minh Trail
11.Fully supplied our pilots and troops (there were often ammunition and bomb shortages)
12.Restored Bao Dai as Emperor of Vietnam, thereby restoring Vietnamese unity among all non-communists
13.Appointed Nguyen ton Hoan as Prime Minister (he was a militant anticommunist and pro-Western who was popular among Vietnamese but hated and feared by the communists)
14.Put Le Van Vien in charge of ARVN (he was a former pirate who was a military genius and was highly efficient at killing communists and beating them at their own game)
15.Provided ARVN with the latest in weapons and technology (rather than obsolete crap that was almost worthless)
16.Repealed the absurd rules that prohibited troops from firing at the enemy unless and until fired upon (provided the enemy missed)
17.Allowed our pilots to attack ships which were bringing supplies to the enemy
18.Mobilized the reserves
19.Allowed allies such as Rhodesia and Taiwan (who had offered to send troops but were turned down) to contribute troops, and beseech South Africa, Nicaragua, Iran, Portugal, Spain, Malaysia, Paraguay, and other anticommunist countries to do the same, if necessary
20.Put military men in charge with the war rather than politicians
21.Fired Robert McNamara, who gutted the hell out of our military
22.Heavily censored our pro-communist media to keep public morale high

By launching the Tet Offensive the NVA hoped to use the VietCong to shatter our military. They used almost all of their available manpower in S.V. for the offensive and it was pretty much totally destroyed. The VietCong after the Tet was no longer an opponent that could really inflict any harm.

That's true. After Tet, the Vietcong virtually ceased to exist. Never again were they a major factor in the war. That's why the PAVN/NVA had to take over completely. The U.S. lost barely over a thousand troops during Tet, ARVN lost around 4,000-5,000, and the communists lost 40,000+.

It's the last one on that list that I disagree with heavily. Say what you will about winning the Vietnam war; I barely know anything about it so you most likely are correct, but since when has our media ever been pro-communist? The media has always been about putting on good stories that get ratings; it always show wars in a bad light.

By launching the Tet Offensive the NVA hoped to use the VietCong to shatter our military. They used almost all of their available manpower in S.V. for the offensive and it was pretty much totally destroyed. The VietCong after the Tet was no longer an opponent that could really inflict any harm. Had we stood resolute we would have either outlasted N.V or we would have ended up with a situation like N&S Korea's.

Really? The Tet offensive occured in January of 1968. U.S. troops strength reached its peak in April, 1969 with over 540,000 men in Vietnam. In between the U.S. launched the Tet Counteroffensive (January 1968-April 1968), Counteroffensive, Phase IV (April 1968-June 1968), Counteroffensive, Phase V (July 1968-November 1968), Counteroffensive, Phase VI (November 1968-February 1969), and the Tet 69/Counteroffensive (February 1969-June 1969).

Was anyone under the impression that the U.S. was going to win this war after these major offensives? If the NVA was no longer a threat why didn't we roll into Hanoi?

You are correct that Nixon then began his "Vietnamization" of the war a year and a half after Tet, withdrawing American troops slowly while attempting to force the NVA to a negotiated settlement. However, this was because he, along with the rest of the American people, realized this war was not winable.

The U.S. lost 14,000 soldiers in 1968 while Westmoreland and the boys were telling the American people that the Communists were on the ropes and ready to go down any minute (just like you still seem to believe). However, while Tet was a U.S. military victory it also showed that Westmoreland was lying and that the U.S. was nowhere near victory. It also showed that the U.S. could not win this war.

It took no demonstrators for Washington to realize this. At that point the American people had turned. You want to blame someone, blame the entire country (as well as the over 50,000 U.S. soldiers who deserted or went AWOL) for losing faith in leaders who lied to get us into a war they had no idea how to win.

It took no demonstrators for Washington to realize this. At that point the American people had turned. You want to blame someone, blame the entire country (as well as the over 500,000 U.S. soldiers who deserted or went AWOL) for losing faith in leaders who lied to get us into a war they had no idea how to win.
Actually my point stands. Victory was easily in sight, had the generals there been able to do their jobs without poliburo interference. Instead Washington, full of those worried about reelection, bowed to the howling masses and first, heavily restricted the movements of the miltary and underfunded them, and finally just called them home.

It's the last one on that list that I disagree with heavily. Say what you will about winning the Vietnam war; I barely know anything about it so you most likely are correct, but since when has our media ever been pro-communist? The media has always been about putting on good stories that get ratings; it always show wars in a bad light.

An excellent question. Our media has often been pro-communist. I'll cite a few of my favorite examples:

1.In the 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for his cover-up of Stalin's massacre in the Ukraine.

2.Also in the 1930s, Herbert L. Matthews wrote a series of blatantly biased editorials which favored the communist side in the Spanish Civil War.


3.Throughout World War II, our media lauded, extolled, glorified Stalin as a great ally of the U.S.
4.In the late 1940s, many journalists- Edgar Parks Snow being the most graphic example- promoted Mao Tse-tung as an "agrarian reformer," and "true man of the people," while continually portraying Chiang Kai-shek as "corrupt," "power hungry," et. al.

5.In the early 1950s, during the imaginary rift between Yugoslavia and the USSR, the media lavishly praised Tito and presented him as a great, newfound ally of the West.

6.For the most part, our media was vehemently and virulently anti-McCarthy, and sympathetic to the communists and pro-communists he exposed, such as Owen Lattimore, George Marshall, etc.

7.In the late 1950s, the Herbert Matthews (remember him?) won notoriety for his editorials on Cuba. He covered up the terroristic nature of the 26th of July Movement, exaggerated how bad anti-communist President Fulgencio Batista was (Batista, while rampantly corrupt, authoritarian, dictatorial, and far from popular, was far from the Hitler-reincarnation Matthews said he was). Major Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz, Castro's former pilot, warned us in sworn Senate testimony that Castro was a communist. Former ambassador Edwin Pauley, who was present at the Bogotazo, warned the same thing. So did U.S. ambassador to Cuba Earl E.T. Smith, Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch, General Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua, President Batista himself, and others. The evidence that Castro was a communist was overwhelming. Yet, Matthews persisted in insisting that Castro not only was not a communist, but was an anti-communist. Now, of course, we know who was telling the truth.

8.The media portrayed U.S.-installed tyrant Ngo Dinh Diem as a democratic, popular leader of integrity and fairness. His barbarous secret police, concentration camps, suppression of Buddhists and Chinese, rampant nepotism, and all-pervasive corruption were ignored. While repeatedly portrayed as an anti-communist, Diem was nothing of the sort. His administration was loaded with communists, including Pham Ngoc Thao, head of the secret police (Ho Chi Minh's former intelligence chief)- who, I might add, was also portrayed as a hero- and Vu Van Thai, who administered U.S. aid. Diem did everything he could to crush anti-communism and antagonize the population: he destroyed or bought off the Binh Xuyen, Cao Dai, and Hoa Hao; his 'strategic hamlets' disgusted the populace and caused many to turn to the communists in desperation; etc. Meanwhile, Diem did absolutely nothing about the growing communist insurgency in his country. And yet, until almost the very end, he was glorified by our media, as well as presented as an 'anti-communist.'

9.In the early 1960s, our media was pro-Patrice Lumumba, anti-Moise Tshombe (the anti-communist, pro-Western president of the Congolese province Katanga). With a few extremely rare exceptions, the media also went to extreme lengths to cover up the UN's terrorist war against Katanga and its slaughter of Katanga's anti-communist populace.

10.The media's coverage of the Vietnam War was overwhelmingly slanted in favor of the communists. Communist atrocities, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, were very rarely reported (Dak Son is a rare exception), U.S. victories were either ignored or presented as U.S. losses, and the media did everything it could to vilify and smear the U.S. military, through disinformation and propaganda stories like Cam Ne.

11.In the late 1970s, three of the most steadfast anti-communist, pro-Western leaders suffered the same fate as Joe McCarthy. They were: Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran; Ian Smith of Rhodesia; and Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua. They were vilified, smeared, demonized by our media, while the terrorist insurgents in their countries, who massacred thousands and committed atrocities comparable to those of Hitler, were presented as noble saints and 'freedom fighters.' The result? Nicaragua and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) were communized, and Iran became a virulently anti-American nation and a hotbed of Islamic extremism.

12.In the 1980s, the media continued its smear campaign against Chile's strongman Augusto Pinochet and South Africa's P.W. Botha. Ignored were Botha's attempts at reform, the terrorism committed against blacks by the communist-dominated ANC, the terrorism launched in Chile by the communists, and Pinochet's economic miracle and steps toward gradually returning to democratic rule once the country was stabilized.

13.Few men in history have been as loved or as glorified by our media as Mikhail Gorbachev, who the media practically deified.

14.In the 1990s, the media gave Nelson Mandela, who had been imprisoned not for skin color, but for conspiracy to foment a violent revolution that would have resulted in innumerable deaths, the same treatment they had given Gorbachev. They also smeared anti-communist South Africans such as Bophuthatswana's President Lucas Mangope and Prince Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi, chief minister of KwaZulu and president of South Africa's Inkatha Freedom Party.

15.Until the day of his death- and even afterwards- Angolan anti-communist Dr. Jonas Savimbi was presented as one of the greatest monsters in history since Adolf Hitler, while the brutality of his communist enemies was downplayed or even ignored.

You know, that list would be convincing. In fact, I could easily tear it down, but I'm not going to; I'll leave that to someone who would be able to do it in a much better way. Simply put, you're being a conspiracy theorist; our media is not, and never will be, pro-communist or pro-anything that doesn't give them ratings. Simple as that.

You know, that list would be convincing. In fact, I could easily tear it down, but I'm not going to; I'll leave that to someone who would be able to do it in a much better way. Simply put, you're being a conspiracy theorist; our media is not, and never will be, pro-communist or pro-anything that doesn't give them ratings. Simple as that.
*cough*RatherGate*cough*MemoGate*Cough*

Really? The Tet offensive occured in January of 1968. U.S. troops strength reached its peak in April, 1969 with over 540,000 men in Vietnam. In between the U.S. launched the Tet Counteroffensive (January 1968-April 1968), Counteroffensive, Phase IV (April 1968-June 1968), Counteroffensive, Phase V (July 1968-November 1968), Counteroffensive, Phase VI (November 1968-February 1969), and the Tet 69/Counteroffensive (February 1969-June 1969).

Was anyone under the impression that the U.S. was going to win this war after these major offensives? If the NVA was no longer a threat why didn't we roll into Hanoi?

You are correct that Nixon then began his "Vietnamization" of the war a year and a half after Tet, withdrawing American troops slowly while attempting to force the NVA to a negotiated settlement. However, this was because he, along with the rest of the American people, realized this war was not winable.

The U.S. lost 14,000 soldiers in 1968 while Westmoreland and the boys were telling the American people that the Communists were on the ropes and ready to go down any minute (just like you still seem to believe). However, while Tet was a U.S. military victory it also showed that Westmoreland was lying and that the U.S. was nowhere near victory. It also showed that the U.S. could not win this war.

It took no demonstrators for Washington to realize this. At that point the American people had turned. You want to blame someone, blame the entire country (as well as the over 500,000 U.S. soldiers who deserted or went AWOL) for losing faith in leaders who lied to get us into a war they had no idea how to win.

It's not that they had no idea how to win (read my above post); it's that they had no desire to win. Read, for example, the March 1968 issue of Science and Mechanics, In Their Defense: U.S. Soldiers in the Vietnam War, by Dr. Pham Kim Vinh, Wings of the Eagle by W.T. Grant, A Soldier Reports by General William Westmoreland, The Hanoi Commitment by Jim Mulligan, the Congressional Record (March 6, 14, and 18, 1985), Thud Ridge by Colonel Jack Broughton, America is in Danger by General Curtis E. LeMay, Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam and How We Lost the Vietnam War by Nguyen Cao Ky, The Ravens by Christopher Robbins, Television's Vietnam by Accuracy in Media, We Were Soldiers Once...and Young by Lt. Col. Harold G. Moore, Jr. and Joseph Galloway, the May 29, 1995 issue of The New American, the May 1966 issue of American Opinion, and March 10, 1971 issue of The Review of the News.

You know, that list would be convincing. In fact, I could easily tear it down, but I'm not going to; I'll leave that to someone who would be able to do it in a much better way. Simply put, you're being a conspiracy theorist; our media is not, and never will be, pro-communist or pro-anything that doesn't give them ratings. Simple as that.

Pretty idiotic, arguing against someone who cites examples without citing any of your own, wouldn't you agree? :rolleyes:

Pretty idiotic, arguing against someone who cites examples without citing any of your own, wouldn't you agree? :rolleyes:
Yes, it is; however, I don't want to try to argue where I don't have all the facts at hand. I'm simply saying that I don't agree and I'll leave it to someone who has a better grasp of the facts to actually tear down your argument.

Yes, it is; however, I don't want to try to argue where I don't have all the facts at hand. I'm simply saying that I don't agree and I'll leave it to someone who has a better grasp of the facts to actually tear down your argument.

I respect that. And I would like to add that I was not calling you an idiot (you are the farthest thing from one I have ever seen), I am simply criticizing the idea of arguing without presenting proof.

blame ... the over 500,000 U.S. soldiers who deserted or went AWOL ...
Where is the proof for this? And kindly refrain from referring to left-wing propagandists if and when you find any.

It's not that they had no idea how to win (read my above post); it's that they had no desire to win. Read, for example, the March 1968 issue of Science and Mechanics, In Their Defense: U.S. Soldiers in the Vietnam War, by Dr. Pham Kim Vinh, Wings of the Eagle by W.T. Grant, A Soldier Reports by General William Westmoreland, The Hanoi Commitment by Jim Mulligan, the Congressional Record (March 6, 14, and 18, 1985), Thud Ridge by Colonel Jack Broughton, America is in Danger by General Curtis E. LeMay, Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam and How We Lost the Vietnam War by Nguyen Cao Ky, The Ravens by Christopher Robbins, Television's Vietnam by Accuracy in Media, We Were Soldiers Once...and Young by Lt. Col. Harold G. Moore, Jr. and Joseph Galloway, the May 29, 1995 issue of The New American, the May 1966 issue of American Opinion, and March 10, 1971 issue of The Review of the News.

Thanks for the reading list. Curtis "we should bomb Vietnam back into the stone age" LeMay and William "light at the end of the tunnel" Westmoreland probably won't make it to the top of my nightstand in the near future.

Where is the proof for this? And kindly refrain from referring to left-wing propagandists if and when you find any.

Hmm, left wing propaganda. That would be anything other than FOX I guess. Is Encarta generic enough for you? You do the math and see if the number comes close to 50,000 (I accidently included an extra zero in my original post which has been corrected - a typo only).


"Incidents in which soldiers were absent without leave (AWOL) also became more frequent toward the end of the war. Some soldiers who were AWOL for 30 days or more were administratively classified as deserters. Most deserted for personal, rather than political, reasons. Of 32,000 reported deserters who were assigned to combat duty in Vietnam, 7,000 had failed to report for deployment to Vietnam, and 20,000 had completed a full tour of duty in Vietnam but still had obligations of military service; the remaining 5,000 reported desertions occurred in or near Vietnam. Most who went AWOL or deserted later returned or were found, and they received less-than-honorable discharges."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552642_2/Vietnam_War.html

Is Encarta generic enough for you? You do the math and see if the number comes close to 50,000 (I accidently included an extra zero in my original post which has been corrected - a typo only).
Ah. Well, without the "extra zero," the figure seems to be more possible. It was the original "500,000" figure with which I had a real problem.

The biggest problem with the Vietnam war was that we were fighting on the wrong side. Vienam was once a colony of France and the arbitrary division between North and South was a decision made by the French government when it gave up control of the territory. Many people on both sides supported reunification which is why the VC Gurilla movement was so effective.

Before deciding to become Communists, North Veitnamese leaders petitioned the US for aid in their reunification attempts. The US refused because doing so would alienate France. However, other powers were happy to lend aid, so long as that aid was going to their revolutionary proliteriate brothers. Thus, the North Veitnamese government turned to Communism.

Had the US supported North Veitnam earlier, it would have prevented Communist expansion, given Veitnam a real chance of industrializing, and provided the US with an oppertunity ti curb human rights abuses throughout the region.

The biggest problem with the Vietnam war was that we were fighting on the wrong side. Vienam was once a colony of France and the arbitrary division between North and South was a decision made by the French government when it gave up control of the territory. Many people on both sides supported reunification which is why the VC Gurilla movement was so effective.

Before deciding to become Communists, North Veitnamese leaders petitioned the US for aid in their reunification attempts. The US refused because doing so would alienate France. However, other powers were happy to lend aid, so long as that aid was going to their revolutionary proliteriate brothers. Thus, the North Veitnamese government turned to Communism.

Had the US supported North Veitnam earlier, it would have prevented Communist expansion, given Veitnam a real chance of industrializing, and provided the US with an oppertunity ti curb human rights abuses throughout the region.

Good point. Wilson screwed up in Paris. During the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference Ho Chi Minh attempted to present United States President Woodrow Wilson with a proposal for Vietnam's independence, but was turned away.

The biggest problem with the Vietnam war was that we were fighting on the wrong side. Vienam was once a colony of France and the arbitrary division between North and South was a decision made by the French government when it gave up control of the territory. Many people on both sides supported reunification which is why the VC Gurilla movement was so effective.

Before deciding to become Communists, North Veitnamese leaders petitioned the US for aid in their reunification attempts. The US refused because doing so would alienate France. However, other powers were happy to lend aid, so long as that aid was going to their revolutionary proliteriate brothers. Thus, the North Veitnamese government turned to Communism.

Had the US supported North Veitnam earlier, it would have prevented Communist expansion, given Veitnam a real chance of industrializing, and provided the US with an oppertunity ti curb human rights abuses throughout the region.

No, the North Vietnamese were always communist. In 1920, Ho was one of the founders of the French Communist Party. Le Duc Tho, Pham Van Dong, Vo Nguyen Giap, etc. were all hard-core communists since the 30's.

No, the North Vietnamese were always communist. In 1920, Ho was one of the founders of the French Communist Party. Le Duc Tho, Pham Van Dong, Vo Nguyen Giap, etc. were all hard-core communists since the 30's.

And there is the reason the United States lost the war.

The political and military leaders of the United States always thought we were in Vietnam fighting a battle in the Cold War. However, this was not a war about Communism. It was a war about nationalism. The NVA was so successful in recruiting support in the North and South because the Vietnamese have a centuries old animus toward foreign invaders.

Nationalism, not Communism.

We never got that (some of still don't) and that is why we lost the war.

And there is the reason the United States lost the war.

The political and military leaders of the United States always thought we were in Vietnam fighting a battle in the Cold War. However, this was not a war about Communism. It was a war about nationalism. The NVA was so successful in recruiting support in the North and South because the Vietnamese have a centuries old animus toward foreign invaders.

Nationalism, not Communism.

We never got that (some of still don't) and that is why we lost the war.

Ho Chi Minh and the others were more communist than they were nationalist. A nationalist communist is no more possible than cold fire or metal wood. Communists are internationalists. Their goal is world communism. If the NVA were mostly nationalists, they would have reunited Vietnam, and that would have been it. Instead, they helped communize Laos and Cambodia, as well. Another thing to note is that most South Vietnamese were vehemently anticommunist. The Tet Offensive was supposed to inspire a mass uprising against the government, but no such thing occurred. Instead, it rallied more of them than ever to the anticommunist cause. Most South Vietnamese were unhappy with their government, of course, and many were anti-American, but the vast majority of them were 100% anticommunist, which is why the communists had to resort to mass executions, torture, kidnappings, etc. to 'persuade' the South Vietnamese to join their cause.

In fact, there aren't any existing pictures offered by the FBI, the army, news services, the returning veterans themselves, all of whom had the power to record incidents of this type.


--The FBI does not release information it does not wish to. Nor does the army. And the media of the time was largely against the war--so why would they report something that would make those who protest the war look bad? And how do you know that no veterans attempted to make reports? Have you looked at every single county court record in the country to see?
If a veteran were to report anything of this nature, how far would it have been able to fly?


I oppose the Communist government in China which is responsible for the deaths of 38 million people; however that does not mean I am ready to commit American sons and daughters to a war with China.

--So how, exactly, do you propose we do anything to stop them? How do you propose we stop China from invading Taiwan right now? How do you stop North Korea? Talk to them? Europe has already done a fine job of proving that talks have more than failed (even if they have yet to accept it). At what point do you finally accept that you simply cannot talk some people out of committing atrocities, and you need to put your foot down?


No. Neither you nor any of the other "eye witnesses" who have manufactured this story long after the war ended.

--I wonder, do you also mean to imply that we should not trust the words of other veterans, such as those from the Second World War, when they tell us of what they experienced and saw?


And what is truly amazing is that these battle hardened vets stood there and allowed themselves to be spit on by long-haired college kids without ever once getting into an altercation that required the intervention of the police (and the filing of a police report to document the incident).


Nor would returning vets put up without being spit upon without some violent altercation

--Just goes to show you how professional the American soldier is; able to stand firm whilst being spat at, knowing that he served his country and did his job. Able to hold back the anger and frustration and confusion they must have felt at those moments, instead of letting go and cuffing the protesters upside the head for not appreciating the blood that was spilt by the American soldiers so that they could spit on them.

--Also, you’re committing the fallacy of guilt by association and equivocation in both those arguments, implying that all vets are violent, and quick to react. How do YOU know that Vets wouldn’t put up with it? The men who fought in that war were not extremists. They weren’t blood-craving fanatics. They were American Soldiers; professionals. Besides (on a lighter note not intended to make offence)—I’m sure that they were used to being spat on by their drill sergeants anyway.

-With regards to your source, TheVoiceNews.com; what kind of publication is that? It is certainly not a scholarly journal, nor is it a recognized research or publication firm. In other words, where is its credibility? Its about as credible as the local paper from WhiteHorse, Yukon Territory, or even my University Student run paper.

2. I have doubts about the whole "morale boost to the enemy" thing. Even if it is, it is better that we protest against our government when it is doing something wrong. Otherwise we might as well be living in a dictatorship.

The morale thing is true, it is the reason the Tet Offensive was succesful. The North Vietnamese lost over half of their army on it, and if the American soliders were fully supported the war would have been won.

I also want to give my salutations and expressions of appreciation and respect for both Forseral and Eutrusca. In particular, Forseral, your comments have been the most objective yet, filled with common sense (something that those who blindly follow Mr. Moore seem to lack). My respects.

--The FBI does not release information it does not wish to. Nor does the army. And the media of the time was largely against the war--so why would they report something that would make those who protest the war look bad? And how do you know that no veterans attempted to make reports? Have you looked at every single county court record in the country to see?
If a veteran were to report anything of this nature, how far would it have been able to fly?
--So how, exactly, do you propose we do anything to stop them? How do you propose we stop China from invading Taiwan right now? How do you stop North Korea? Talk to them? Europe has already done a fine job of proving that talks have more than failed (even if they have yet to accept it). At what point do you finally accept that you simply cannot talk some people out of committing atrocities, and you need to put your foot down?
--I wonder, do you also mean to imply that we should not trust the words of other veterans, such as those from the Second World War, when they tell us of what they experienced and saw?
--Just goes to show you how professional the American soldier is; able to stand firm whilst being spat at, knowing that he served his country and did his job. Able to hold back the anger and frustration and confusion they must have felt at those moments, instead of letting go and cuffing the protesters upside the head for not appreciating the blood that was spilt by the American soldiers so that they could spit on them.
--Also, you’re committing the fallacy of guilt by association and equivocation in both those arguments, implying that all vets are violent, and quick to react. How do YOU know that Vets wouldn’t put up with it? The men who fought in that war were not extremists. They weren’t blood-craving fanatics. They were American Soldiers; professionals. Besides (on a lighter note not intended to make offence)—I’m sure that they were used to being spat on by their drill sergeants anyway.
--With regards to your source, TheVoiceNews.com; what kind of publication is that? It is certainly not a scholarly journal, nor is it a recognized research or publication firm. In other words, where is its credibility? Its about as credible as the local paper from WhiteHorse, Yukon Territory, or even my University Student run paper.

The gist of your argument seems to be the very lack of proof that soldiers were spit upon is in itself proof.

Interesting.

The newspaper story I cited was a review of a book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam by Jerry Lembcke. That is the source. The newspaper article is a summary of it (I swear, I post more supporting evidence and citations than anyone else in NS, yet people expect scholary monographs - this is a bulletin board, right?).

Your comments about soldiers is just plain silly. I never said they were bloodthirsty, but if the spitting was as widespread as people claim it was someone would have lashed out (I would have). Also, the FBI was spying on peace groups throughout the 60s and 70s and would have released embarrassing information such as demonstrators spitting on soldiers (just as they did the information about MLK's affairs).

Also, the FBI was spying on peace groups throughout the 60s and 70s and would have released embarrassing information such as demonstrators spitting on soldiers (just as they did the information about MLK's affairs).

Most of the MLK files are still classified, and will remain so until 2027.

Most of the MLK files are still classified, and will remain so until 2027.

Yep, but not the info about his affairs. J.Edgar was not averse to releasing info about his enemies and those he disliked.

The gist of your argument seems to be the very lack of proof that soldiers were spit upon is in itself proof.


Read this again, and see if that makes sense. Because it certainly doesnt to me. Where in my responce did I make such a ridiculous claim? The lack of proof of ANYTHING does not by default prove that the claim is true--that, sir, is yet another fallacy, one which I did not commit.

In fact, I quite explicitly stated that you are wrong for accusing veterans of lying. I said that we have eye-witnesses (I accepted that veterans experienced these things)--I never once said they didn't. Their eye-witness accounts are proof. Its funny, isnt it...that the legal process in your country can accept eye-witness tesimony as turth in court, but you seem unable to accept it here. Would you prefer these gentlement take an oath in a court of law? I'm almost sure they would. (well, no, they wouldn't--they're not about to waste their time on you.)

Also, you failed to address key issues in my responce--one, that you seem to automatically dismiss what any veterans says simply because no media reported it (maybe the soldiers were too proud at the time to admit it?)

And, you failed to address the issue of a half-hearted opposition to tyranny (China)--you said you do not support the Communist government in China, but are not willing to send Americans to die to stop them. I ask again: How then do you propose we deal with them?

I agree with your post, but this idea that Vietnam War protesters spat on returning soldiers is an right-wing urban myth that has continued to be perpetuated long after the Vietnam War ended. There is no documentation from the period when war protests were taking place that this actually happened. There may have been some isolated incidents of this kind of conduct, however, the record shows that this type of abuse did not occur when veterans returned. This is not to say that some members of the anti- war movement weren't hostile, but by and large, the anti-war movement viewed the veteran as a victim of our government's policies.

Articles in magazines of that time period find no references to anti-war protesters spitting on veterans. Neither are there any pictures of these supposed incidents. Logic would dictate that if this occurred, at the level that is said, then some photographer would have taken a picture. In fact, there aren't any existing pictures offered by the FBI, the army, news services, the returning veterans themselves, all of whom had the power to record incidents of this type. Furthermore, there isn't even written proof of these veterans reporting these alleged incidents to the proper authorities.

There was, however, one group that did indeed spit on veterans. The Young Republicans who spat upon on Ron Kovic (you know, the movie Born on the Forth of July)and other veterans at the 1972 Republican convention. The veterans were protesting and calling for an end to the war in Vietnam and were greeted by the young zealots of the GOP who cursed and spat upon them.

I don't want to debate the woulda, shoulda, coulda of how the war should have been executed. You sir are wrong. When I got home from my second tour I was advised to put on civvies before I left reception. I did. Some of the guys I was with didn't. There was a group of protesters waiting, waving signs with "Baby-killer" "rapists" and "murderers" and other anti-war and anti-GI slogans. They cursed, they spit, they threw balloons filled with urine and other bodily wastes, we were splattered with fake (?) blood and flowers - of all things flowers!! It wasn't bad enough I had been in that stinking sewer called Nam for 8 1/2 months. We had to come home to that kind of crap and the worst part was that my Mom and Dad had to see and hear it.

So don't tell me it didn't happen because you can't find pictures of it. Because I will always have a picture of it in my head. And the only reason we didn't mop the dirt with them was because they had police cordons protecting them from us. After all, we were raping, murdering, baby killers, right?

I don't want to debate the woulda, shoulda, coulda of how the war should have been executed. You sir are wrong. When I got home from my second tour I was advised to put on civvies before I left reception. I did. Some of the guys I was with didn't. There was a group of protesters waiting, waving signs with "Baby-killer" "rapists" and "murderers" and other anti-war and anti-GI slogans. They cursed, they spit, they threw balloons filled with urine and other bodily wastes, we were splattered with fake (?) blood and flowers - of all things flowers!! It wasn't bad enough I had been in that stinking sewer called Nam for 8 1/2 months. We had to come home to that kind of crap and the worst part was that my Mom and Dad had to see and hear it.

So don't tell me it didn't happen because you can't find pictures of it. Because I will always have a picture of it in my head. And the only reason we didn't mop the dirt with them was because they had police cordons protecting them from us. After all, we were raping, murdering, baby killers, right?

You have my utmost respect. There is no one on earth I respect more than Vietnam veterans.

In fact, I quite explicitly stated that you are wrong for accusing veterans of lying. I said that we have eye-witnesses (I accepted that veterans experienced these things)--I never once said they didn't.

Also, you failed to address key issues in my responce--one, that you seem to automatically dismiss what any veterans says simply because no media reported it (maybe the soldiers were too proud at the time to admit it?)

And, you failed to address the issue of a half-hearted opposition to tyranny (China)--you said you do not support the Communist government in China, but are not willing to send Americans to die to stop them. I ask again: How then do you propose we deal with them?

And I have said that these claims did not start popping up until long after the war was over. Nor have they been substantiated.

It is an urban myth. Do you believe all urban myths just because there are people who pass them on?

As to your question about China, what makes you think it is our business to deal with China? We are not the policeman of the world. Vietnam demonstrated that. I would suggest that it is the responsibility of the people of China to deal with their government.

The gist of your argument seems to be the very lack of proof that soldiers were spit upon is in itself proof.

Interesting.

The newspaper story I cited was a review of a book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam by Jerry Lembcke. That is the source. The newspaper article is a summary of it (I swear, I post more supporting evidence and citations than anyone else in NS, yet people expect scholary monographs - this is a bulletin board, right?).

Your comments about soldiers is just plain silly. I never said they were bloodthirsty, but if the spitting was as widespread as people claim it was someone would have lashed out (I would have). Also, the FBI was spying on peace groups throughout the 60s and 70s and would have released embarrassing information such as demonstrators spitting on soldiers (just as they did the information about MLK's affairs).

Interesting that your entire argument against the fact that Vietnam veterans, including me, were spat upon relies entirely on a book by a Marxist:

Recapturing Marxism
An Appraisal of Recent Trends in Sociological Theory
Edited by Rhonda F. Levine and Jerry Lembcke

Interesting that your entire argument against the fact that Vietnam veterans, including me, were spat upon relies entirely on a book by a Marxist:

Recapturing Marxism
An Appraisal of Recent Trends in Sociological Theory
Edited by Rhonda F. Levine and Jerry Lembcke

Have you read this book EDITED by Lembcke? It is about trends in sociology (Lembcke is a sociologist). He also wrote a book about woodworkers in America. You think he might be a woodworker?

And your claim is based upon...?

Nothing.

As for Fonda, Kerry, Pitkin, and that whole crowd, they're traitors of the worst kind. At least Fonda apologized, and Pitkin admitted he lied, but Kerry tried to deny the effects his false testimony created and ride his lies to the White House. How could any thinking people ask our military to follow a Commander in Chief who had betrayed his own men?

You have my utmost respect. There is no one on earth I respect more than Vietnam veterans.

I appreciate that. Respect is what we didn't get when we came home. A lot of guys came back mentally crippled and the hatred we found here made it worse. But equal respect should be paid to every person who has served this country, whether it's Nam, WWI, WWII, Korea, Desert Storm, and especially now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether you agree with any of these wars or not, these people put their lives at risk in order to protect our rights.

Have you read this book EDITED by Lembcke? It is about trends in sociology (Lembcke is a sociologist). He also wrote a book about woodworkers in America. You think he might be a woodworker?

And your claim is based upon...?

Nothing.
Just as is your claim that I was never spat upon. What would you have had me do, take a picture?

And, for someone who is "just a sociologist," Lembcke sure does write about Marxism a lot:
Capitalist Development and Class Capacities: Marxist Theory and Union Organization
and the book to which you made reference ... One Union in Wood
by Lembcke, Jerry
A political History of the International Woodworkers of America. In an account as absorbing as it is informative, the authors effectively argue for vindication of the union's radical past leaders and for revival of their militant spirit.

I appreciate that. Respect is what we didn't get when we came home. A lot of guys came back mentally crippled and the hatred we found here made it worse. But equal respect should be paid to every person who has served this country, whether it's Nam, WWI, WWII, Korea, Desert Storm, and especially now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether you agree with any of these wars or not, these people put their lives at risk in order to protect our rights.

And yet a Harris Poll in 1971 showed that only 1% of the veterans encountered hostile reactions when they came home, and they did not think the antiwar movement was hostile to them.

Were those vets lying in 1971? Or has the myth about the hostile reaction vets received been so thoroughly perpetuated that it has changed they way vets "remember" their return?

Vietnam veterans also have my respect, as do those of any other war. However, I always hate it whenever I hear anyone condeming Kerry as a traitor; say what you will, but I will never believe that he is.

Just as is your claim that I was never spat upon. What would you have had me do, take a picture?

And, for someone who is "just a sociologist," Lembcke sure does write about Marxism a lot:
Capitalist Development and Class Capacities: Marxist Theory and Union Organization
and the book to which you made reference ... One Union in Wood
by Lembcke, Jerry
A political History of the International Woodworkers of America. In an account as absorbing as it is informative, the authors effectively argue for vindication of the union's radical past leaders and for revival of their militant spirit.

What is your point? You are the one who denies the truth of anyone to the left of Genghis Khan or Rush Limbaugh. Do you have a litmus test for academics? Can they only write about topics and from points of view you support to be true?

I have no problem with left wing authors or progressive writers.

Tell me, how did you react when you were spit upon? Did you just walk on by? And who did the spitting? Did people around you come to your defense? Or has that "memory" faded?

As to your question about China, what makes you think it is our business to deal with China? We are not the policeman of the world. Vietnam demonstrated that. I would suggest that it is the responsibility of the people of China to deal with their government.

So, am i to be led to believe that you also think that Britain, France and Canada had no right to declare, in 1939, that they were not going to allow the German government to continue its aggression against Poland? I imagine that you think it was the responsibility of the German people to "deal with their government"--funny...I dont think they had a choice, the Gestapo demonstrated that.

What is your point? You are the one who denies the truth of anyone to the left of Genghis Khan or Rush Limbaugh. Do you have a litmus test for academics? Can they only write about topics and from points of view you support to be true?

I have no problem with left wing authors or progressive writers.

Tell me, how did you react when you were spit upon? Did you just walk on by? And who did the spitting? Did people around you come to your defense? Or has that "memory" faded?

I'll answer that one for you. We were told to keep our eyes front, not to react or engage the demonstrators. Our families were asked to stay back in a secured area so they wouldn't be harrassed. No one came to our defense as we didn't need defending. Any one of us could have seriously maimed the cretins. We proceeded with dignity and pride to our loved ones, wiped off what we could, went home (I spent my first night in a motel and went home the next day), and showered the filth off. Fortunately my dress uniform wasn't soiled like some of the other guys because then I would have killed the idiot that did it.

So, am i to be led to believe that you also think that Britain, France and Canada had no right to declare, in 1939, that they were not going to allow the German government to continue its aggression against Poland? I imagine that you think it was the responsibility of the German people to "deal with their government"--funny...I dont think they had a choice, the Gestapo demonstrated that.

The difference is that Germany invaded Poland. China, to my knowledge, has not. Britain, France, and Canada were perfectly willing to allow the Nazis to persecute Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, handicapped people, and whomever else they wanted until Germany stepped outside its borders and attacked a nation with which they had a mutual defense pact.

Is it your contention that the U.S. should invade every country that violates the human rights of their people? Are you will to sacrafice your father, son, brothers, or friends in that never ending endeavor? Would we have stood for that when we were enslaving Black people or waging genocide against Native Americans?

Vietnam veterans also have my respect, as do those of any other war. However, I always hate it whenever I hear anyone condeming Kerry as a traitor; say what you will, but I will never believe that he is.

There's a video you need to see "Stolen Honor". Watch that, it's accurate, and then tell me what you think.

The difference is that Germany invaded Poland. China, to my knowledge, has not. Britain, France, and Canada were perfectly willing to allow the Nazis to persecute Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, handicapped people, and whoever else they wanted to until Germany stepped outside its borders and attacked a nation with which they had a mutual defense pact.

Is it your contention that the U.S. should invade every country that violated the human rights of their people. Would we have stood for that when we were enslaving Black people or waging genocide against Native Americans?

While many Nazi victims were homosexuals, the Nazis were never anti-homosexual. Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a good source.

What is your point? You are the one who denies the truth of anyone to the left of Genghis Khan or Rush Limbaugh. Do you have a litmus test for academics? Can they only write about topics and from points of view you support to be true?

I have no problem with left wing authors or progressive writers.

Tell me, how did you react when you were spit upon? Did you just walk on by? And who did the spitting? Did people around you come to your defense? Or has that "memory" faded?
My reaction both to being spat upon and to being called "a baby-killer" was stunned disbelief. Since the protester who spat on me was female, I felt I had no options other than to wipe her spittle off my face and go on about my business. No one around me came to my defense. The memory has not faded. Is that sufficient information for you? The one who called me a "baby-killer" was also female and was staying in the same youth hotel in San Francisco where I was staying while awaiting my return flight to Vietnam.

As to my being right of Genghis Khan, most on here will tell you that I am neither a neo-con or any other garden variety of rightist. Why would I have a "litmus test" for academics? Although not without higher education myself, I definitely am not an academic. They are free to speak, write or otherwise communicate whatever information they feel is true, and with which their consciences can allow them to live.

The only problem I have with authors or writers, right, left or "progressive," is when they attempt to propagandize by making statements I know to be untrue. This applies to Jerry Lembcke, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else.

Your use of condescention makes it exceedingly difficult to treat you with anything other than extreme skepticism, but I have tried to address any actual questions lurking beneath your condescending manner. Forgive me if I have failed.

There's a video you need to see "Stolen Honor". Watch that, it's accurate, and then tell me what you think.

Other excellent sources:

Losers Are Pirates: A Close Look at the PBS Series "Vietnam : A Television History" by James Banerian, In Their Defense: U.S. Soldiers in the Vietnam War by Dr. Pham Kim Vinh, and Stolen Valor by B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley.

There's a video you need to see "Stolen Honor". Watch that, it's accurate, and then tell me what you think.
I have, and to be perfectly honest I thought it was plain bullshit, completely biased to support Bush just before the election was held.

Would we have stood for that when we were enslaving Black people or waging genocide against Native Americans?
So we should let the mistakes of the past interfere with the suffering of those in the present-day and those in future times?

Your use of condescention makes it exceedingly difficult to treat you with anything other than extreme skepticism, but I have tried to address any actual questions lurking beneath your condescending manner. Forgive me if I have failed.

Bravo. Your restraint in the face of my condescending manner is admirable. And all this time I thought you just saw me as a "wet-behind the ears neonate" and a "sorry excuse for a human being."

I have, and to be perfectly honest I thought it was plain bullshit, completely biased to support Bush just before the election was held.
This comes as no surprise to those of us who have read your previous posts.

I have, and to be perfectly honest I thought it was plain bullshit, completely biased to support Bush just before the election was held.
No it wasn't. It was meant to rip away the facade that Kerry has built over his war record, which incidentally he won't let the public see.

Bravo. Your restraint in the face of my condescending manner is admirable. And all this time I thought you just saw me as a "wet-behind the ears neonate" and a "sorry excuse for a human being."
I did. I was angry. I apologize.

I did. I was angry. I apologize.

Oh, what a low blow. An apology. I see they taught you stealth warfare in the military.

Damn, I have to be civil now.

I will refrain from questioning your personal experience with peace protesters.

No it wasn't. It was meant to rip away the facade that Kerry has built over his war record, which incidentally he won't let the public see.
To me, it didn't; it was like listening to Ann Coultre or Rusch Limbaugh; I can't stand either of them, nor could I stand this film. I forced myself to watch the entirety of it though, and it did not change my opinion in the least.
Eustraca, should I take that as an insult?

To me, it didn't; it was like listening to Ann Coultre or Rusch Limbaugh; I can't stand either of them, nor could I stand this film.
Hey, the second that lying bastard signs Form 180 and all the bad things people like me have said or repeated are proven untrue I'll publicly apoligize that I ever thought bad of his military record. How much money do you want to bet that ain't gonna happen?

Hey, the second that lying bastard signs Form 180 and all the bad things people like me have said or repeated are proven untrue I'll publicly apoligize that I ever thought bad of his military record. How much money do you want to bet that ain't gonna happen?
Honestly, I don't know. And frankly, I don't care; he's out of the spectrum now, and he's not going to be nominated again. He wasn't really all that electable for most of the country, unfortunately; we need someone good, like...well, who would you suggest? Frankly, I'm thinking Wesley Clark or perhaps John Edwards.

although i am not old enough to be in the US military, i do recognize the fact that protesters have the freedom to do just that, a freedom which i will soon be defending. i will defend that right, but i will not by any means defend people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry who deliberately gave aid to our enemies (wheter you like it or not they were OUR enemies because we as a people were waging war against them.)

For the Dems had they actually wanted to get a candidate elected? Ummm, Lieberman would have been more likely, but given the fickleness and general assbackwardsness of voters a name like Lieberman isn't exactly helpful when running for president.

The difference is that Germany invaded Poland. China, to my knowledge, has not. Britain, France, and Canada were perfectly willing to allow the Nazis to persecute Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, handicapped people, and whomever else they wanted until Germany stepped outside its borders and attacked a nation with which they had a mutual defense pact.

Is it your contention that the U.S. should invade every country that violates the human rights of their people? Are you will to sacrafice your father, son, brothers, or friends in that never ending endeavor? Would we have stood for that when we were enslaving Black people or waging genocide against Native Americans?

--I have not said that China should be invaded. China should be given an ultimatum, as was Germany before it invaded Poland. Germany was warned that if it invaded Poland, a state of war would exist between itself and Britain. You pointedly tell China it is NOT in invade Taiwan.

It has been argued that duing WWII, the allies made no effort to save the Jews or free the camps. This is lunacy. First, the Allies had no idea of the existance of all the camps, let alone locations. Second; the allies had NO WAY of doing liberating them any earlier than they did, evne had they known of all of them. The longest reaching bombers could not bomb the camps, because they had to travel over too much enemy territory (which would result inheavy fire and losses--because fighters could not reach as far). Not to mention the obvious hazards in bombing a camp in which you do not know what are targets and what are not--you could very well end up bombing those you're trying to save, especially since aerial bombing wasn't terribly accurate at the time.

Second, absolutely NO land attack on the camps was possible until the Spring of 1945, when the Russian advance had finally pushed the Germans far enough back.

Now, as for before the war: Most of Europe was anti-semetic, and had no love of Jews. The WORLD turned their backs. Second, the world did not KNOW the full extent to which the Nazis were carrying out the persecution--not even the majority of Germans knew. The world DID react to the Euthanasia programs--which is why the Nazis had to take them underground. Also, Kristellnacht was met with hordes of objection and outcry the world over--by both Jews and non-jews alike.

The United States went ot Vietnam to stem the spread of communism--i'm sorry sir, but you are just plain wrong in your accusations about it being about stiffling Nationalism. And yes, in countries where the powers that be oppress their own people, I do not see much of a problem justifying making a military pressence to end conflict if possible. My son, daughter, father, mother, sister, brother, and friends are free to make their own choices about their committments in life--I do not control them, as we are all free to make choices as we see fit--or have you forgotten those who fought so that we have it this way? Am I willing to stand against oppression and tyranny? I believe I have already made it clear that I am.

As for the American ancestors, those who enslaved Africans and butchered Aborigionals, I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion. America was a different country with a different mind set at that time. And, I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that a fair number of Americans (oh, like, say, the upper half) was against slavery, or at the very least not for it. But again, this is irrelevant to Vietnam.

To me, it didn't; it was like listening to Ann Coultre or Rusch Limbaugh; I can't stand either of them, nor could I stand this film. I forced myself to watch the entirety of it though, and it did not change my opinion in the least.
Eustraca, should I take that as an insult?

I don't listen to Rush, he's a whiner, or Ann, she's a sarcastic bitch. And whether you want to believe it about Kerry or not, he did enough damage to motivate a movement of Nam Vets to stop his election bid. They first started protesting last spring when he used old pics that some of the vets were in, in his campaign. They tried to get people to listen that they didn't support him and had valid reasons not to. When that didn't get media attention they recruited more people who knew and or were affected by Kerry and created Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Republicans recognized the positive influence this could have on the election for Bush, and bank-rolled their ads. Ever checked to see how many of the Swifties and POWs are registered democrats?

Why exactly, if you do, hate all of the war protesters? I can understand hating the ones that call every single one of you criminals, but what about the ones who just wanted to bring you guys home? What about the ones who just wanted to end a war that we had no reason to participate in in the first place? And what about those who were complaining because of their lost relatives? My dad, for example, never went to Vietnam because of his eye condition, but his brother did; ever since, he's been out of it; he just wanders the streets of Denver, speaking incoherently. I've never met him, and I don't even know if he's alive anymore.
Because of that, my dad campaigned against the Vietnam war; plus my mom, though they wouldn't meet for another fifteen years, also campaigned heavily against it. What I ask, again, is why do you hate them?

...some protestors simply were traitors giving aid and comfort to the enemy and never have apologized to us for their treason.

Why I was fighting for my life and too many friends were dying, Jane Fonda was posing for NV propaganda: "manning" an NVA anti-aircraft battery and then posing in the middle of a SAM ring claiming that it was only a rice paddy. She played a significant role in prolonging the war after the NVA and VC had been beaten soundly in most head-to-head campaigns.

If you are antiwar, or anti-a-particular-war, go crazy with your protesting but don't give aid and comfort to those who are killing our soldiers.

...some protestors simply were traitors giving aid and comfort to the enemy and never have apologized to us for their treason.

Why I was fighting for my life and too many friends were dying, Jane Fonda was posing for NV propaganda: "manning" an NVA anti-aircraft battery and then posing in the middle of a SAM ring claiming that it was only a rice paddy. She played a significant role in prolonging the war after the NVA and VC had been beaten soundly in most head-to-head campaigns.

If you are antiwar, or anti-a-particular-war, go crazy with your protesting but don't give aid and comfort to those who are killing our soldiers.

Another Vietnam veteran, eh?

*Salute*

Maybe you should be aware that none of the 33 Swifties were paid.
Not one cent. For saying what they believe to be the truth.

Maybe you should be aware that the only Swifty (just one) who served with Kerry who was willing to say something in his favor enjoyed a full-time paid position on his staff - for just that purpose.

I don't listen to Rush, he's a whiner, or Ann, she's a sarcastic bitch. And whether you want to believe it about Kerry or not, he did enough damage to motivate a movement of Nam Vets to stop his election bid. They first started protesting last spring when he used old pics that some of the vets were in, in his campaign. They tried to get people to listen that they didn't support him and had valid reasons not to. When that didn't get media attention they recruited more people who knew and or were affected by Kerry and created Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Republicans recognized the positive influence this could have on the election for Bush, and bank-rolled their ads. Ever checked to see how many of the Swifties and POWs are registered democrats?
No, actually, I didn't, because I found their actions disgusting. How many were? 75%? 65%?

I don't hate them. I just don't want them speaking for me...
Who is "speaking for you" ?

I don't listen to Rush, he's a whiner, or Ann, she's a sarcastic bitch. And whether you want to believe it about Kerry or not, he did enough damage to motivate a movement of Nam Vets to stop his election bid. They first started protesting last spring when he used old pics that some of the vets were in, in his campaign. They tried to get people to listen that they didn't support him and had valid reasons not to. When that didn't get media attention they recruited more people who knew and or were affected by Kerry and created Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Republicans recognized the positive influence this could have on the election for Bush, and bank-rolled their ads. Ever checked to see how many of the Swifties and POWs are registered democrats?
You can register for anything but the question is are they?
And the Swift boat guy lied more times than they told the truth. So its hard to believe that anything they said is true.

No, actually, I didn't, because I found their actions disgusting. How many were? 75%? 65%?
? Why did you find their actions disgusting?

You can register for anything but the question is are they?
And the Swift boat guy lied more times than they told the truth. So its hard to believe that anything they said is true.
If Kerry didn't release his records, how do you know what is lies and what is truth?

? Why did you find their actions disgusting?
Because I admired Kerry and they were blatently lying, saying anything they could to bring him down. Know what they said after the election? They said that they weren't satisfied with him losing the election; they were going to continue to go after him, to get him locked up for good, because they believe he's so dangerous that he can't even be allowed to fill up his gas tank at a gas station. That's why they disgust me.

Because I admired Kerry and they were blatently lying, saying anything they could to bring him down.
And yet, Kerry did not do the one thing that, if things were as he claimed, would have exonerated him from all attacks. Interesting coincidence.

And yet, Kerry did not do the one thing that, if things were as he claimed, would have exonerated him from all attacks. Interesting coincidence.
Look, regardless of whether they're right or not, doesn't what they're doing show a personal agenda on the part of the person in charge? Doesn't the fact that they're persuing him no matter what disgust you in any way? If it doesn't, then I don't understand you.

If Kerry didn't release his records, how do you know what is lies and what is truth?
Fact Check .Org and .com (comedy genuis because Cheney mentioned the wrong one )

Maybe you should be aware that none of the 33 Swifties were paid.
Not one cent.do you know that as a fact? :cool:

Vietnam was military victory for the US. Where we lost the war was politics. By the time we left the NVA could not send a plane in the air, we had destroyed most, if not all, their bridges. There were in an extreamly weakened state.

MY OPINNION as to why the US backed out is that the goverment realized that they would have to re-nurtue the county as they did with Japan, but this time with gurrilla fighting. This caused them to back out. This is only my opinnion on why we backed out, you may have another opinnion but please dont force it upon me like most try and do.

Also, one thing many people fail to relaize is that the people of vietnam WANTED us to be there. They wanted our help. My father was a medic and was very close to the vietnamese people and it breaks his heart the we let the down. We let the NVA and VC to take over the country. How many people have paid for that? How many people suffered? I was and will always be for that war. I belive that we should see this new war out also. The Iraq people need us the most right now. If we back out and let the terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, take over the country. How many will day then? How many will lose loved ones?

To anyone who has a Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Counsin, Aunte, Uncle, Gradeparent, or Friend in Iraq or the military right now, May God bless you and them, you have my condolences. Be proud of what they are doing, freeing a country. Be sure and keep in contact with them; it will mean soo much to them.

To anyone who has lost a friend or relative in any war, you have my love.

One last thing, protest the war if you want. But never, never disrespect a solider. In fact, give them a hug and think them for doing what they have done.

I'm not a vietnam vet, I'm not a Gulf War vet. But I am a student of military history..

Ogiek..the Tet Offensive crippled the VC. All those Counter Offensives which you listed were mop ups and attacks against regular NVA units. Or did you forget we were also fighting the NVA? Most of the VC targets were lost and back in US/ARVN hands. Even a Marxist website that berates the US admitted that the VC lost somewhere near 50,000 soldiers in the Tet offensive compared with 6,000 ARVN/US dead. The only place which saw the heaviest of the fighting was Hue city. This is only because we didnt want to level the ancient capital of Vietnam. And while the US did use artillary and air support most of the city remained intact anyway. 600 ARVN/US dead compared to about 9,600 killed,captured,wounded.

Vietnam was a battle worth fighting for..the Communist north was no different than Stalin or Moe and this was evident after the recapture of Hue city and the mass graves of political undesirables found..those in the city government, catholics, and ARVN sympathizers..some were shot on their way to re-education camps simply because the US and ARVN got to close. The Tet Offensive itself only lasted until Hue city fell and the NVA battalions were forced out from the surrounding suburbs.

As for Jane Fonda and treason..the definition for treason is:

trea·son [ trz’n ] (plural trea·sons)
noun
1. betrayal of country: violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country, for example, by aiding an enemy.
See also high treason
2. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
3. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty

When Jane Fonda visited a government the US was opennly involved with hostilies with, and sat in a weapons emplacement used to attack US military aircraft, it can be considered a treasonous action. There were plenty of reasons why she was never brought up on treason though. Public outcry at that time would have been horrendous.

In Jane Fonda's defense though her ripping up or giving those letters to the commander is a myth. However when a well known US citizen commits that kind of action in public then it does give heart to the enemy. It gives heart to the enemy and demoralizes soldiers of her own country.

With John Kerry..tossing other peoples medals back doesnt make him a traitor. It makes him a dickhead. Using his three purple hearts for political gain some 34 years down the line makes him a self serving dickhead. But not a traitor. He doesnt fall in that definition.

As for Born on the Fourth of July..I've seen it..nice little movie..did it happen to some Vets? Of course Kovic is a prime example. Some folks geniuely never recovered from that war and some vets went anti war(see Kerry). I do however believe that Kovic got spat on. But it wasnt Vietnam which changed Kovic mentally..it was when he got home and saw the Bronx VA hospital and got treated like crap. If that Bronx VA hospital were well staffed,maintained and he got treated better we would have probably never heard of Kovic.

As for that book..in 1971 there were still plenty of soldiers in Vietnam..I want to know how many soldiers were asked in that survey as well. I also wonder where the Survey was taken place and so on. A 1971 survey seems questionable. But whatever. Whether its true or not is an issue that can only be answered by the Vets themselves. Out of what 500,000 veitnam vets, if even 1% said they had been spat on thats still 5,000 people. Thats still a large number. I wonder though how many got called baby killer and war criminal.

Lastly..those 22 points to win the Vietnam war..agree with 1-21, but not 22. Censorship of the press is always a bad idea. Granted the Press had absolutely no idea what it was talking about in terms of military affairs and had a detremental effect the military didnt itself do a good job to keep the US public informed on efforts in the war. Both sides felt burned by the other after Vietnam. Its one reason why journalists were cut out of the loop for every other military engagement after the Vietnam War until recently.

...Also, one thing many people fail to relaize is that the people of vietnam WANTED us to be there.....and The People of Iraq want US to invade...they will greet US with Flowers...and cheer with people dancing in the Streets... :rolleyes:

American politics as usual...

Despite what John Kerry did or didn't do, the tragedy remains that he could easily have run this country ten times better than Mr Bush, as could 99% of the members of both the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington.

Why people voted for GW is beyond me. He proved to everyone that he was incapable of making any sort of rational decision when he ordered American troops into Iraq under the auspices of finding fictitious WMDs. Aside from Operation Market Garden, that's got to be the worst military blunder in American history.

I could never in clean conscience bring myself to vote for such a person, and it astonished me that so many people out there somehow did.

But I guess that's just politics :rolleyes: .

American politics as usual...

Despite what John Kerry did or didn't do, the tragedy remains that he could easily have run this country ten times better than Mr Bush, as could 99% of the members of both the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington.

Why people voted for GW is beyond me. He proved to everyone that he was incapable of making any sort of rational decision when he ordered American troops into Iraq under the auspices of finding fictitious WMDs. Aside from Operation Market Garden, that's got to be the worst military blunder in American history.

I could never in clean conscience bring myself to vote for such a person, and it astonished me that so many people out there somehow did.

But I guess that's just politics :rolleyes: .

Umm..Market Garden was a British led Operation. If anyone blundered it, it was Monty for ignoring intelligence about 2 whole SS Divisions in and around the drop zones. Not the old men and boys they had been expecting. So lets not blame the US for what was a British Op. Okay?

Heck Monty himself considered the Operation 90% successful..I guess he took out 10% for losing some 6,000 British paratroopers. Of course the Prince of Holland went out and said "We cant afford another one of Monty's successes"

and The People of Iraq want US to invade...they will greet US with Flowers...and cheer with people dancing in the Streets... :rolleyes:

Well, there are many Iraqi's who wanted us there, just the media wouldn't show them. I'm guessing you don't watch Fox (the one conservative say in the media); so instead you get the liberal bias. Pick your poison ;)

Well, there are many Iraqi's who wanted us there, just the media wouldn't show them. I'm guessing you don't watch Fox (the one conservative say in the media); so instead you get the liberal bias. Pick your poison ;)
Actually the majority don't. The minorites like the Kurds want us there, but not the majority.
Some Iraqis (40%) want us there, but not many like 60%

Yes, the operation was mostly British, but the decision to launch it was made by the Supreme Allied Commander: an American. Monty was being very annoying at the time, but that doesn't mean Eisenhower had to listen to him. All allied forces in the European theatre were under American control, hence it was our blunder.

Yes, the operation was mostly British, but the decision to launch it was made by the Supreme Allied Commander: an American. Monty was being very annoying at the time, but that doesn't mean Eisenhower had to listen to him. All allied forces in the European theatre were under American control, hence it was our blunder.


Umm...the option was either Market Garden to end the war by going through Holland or the unnamed Operation to push through the Siegfried line by Patton. Einsenhower didnt have many choices. However you cant blame the US for Market Garden...because in the end it was crafted by the British and the British blundered it.

Not enough gliders for troops, the dropzones themselves were far away from their targets. Blaming Einsenhower and calling it a US blunder is being very naive as Monty was given pretty much overall control of the Op.

Not to mention the choice of Market Garden was to bypass the heavily defended Siegfried line, and assist in openning up the major supply port at Antwerp which was still cut off by Germans holding a critical bridge.

Oh..and you saying it was the US's fault for Monty's failure is like saying its a coaches fault because his players made the wrong move.

Fact Check .Org and .com (comedy genuis because Cheney mentioned the wrong one )
In no way addresses Kerry's record. If Kerry was clean he would have signed the Form. He didn't and so I suspect that at least half of what the Swifties said was true.

Actually the majority don't. The minorites like the Kurds want us there, but not the majority.
Some Iraqis (40%) want us there, but not many like 60%
How little you truly know. If most of that country really didn't want us there we would be screwed. Hell, if Sadr was still active we'd be screwed.

wasn't the 101st involved in Market Garden? so it wasn't strictly British

I'd say market garden was a learning expierence...if u want something done right, do it the american way :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :)

When the testimony of certain protestors is used against POW's, that is my major problem.

Most of the testimony was later proven true. So, you'd rather be protected from prosecution because your a soldier than be persecuted by the very law you sought to defend? Funny that.

My father's a Vietnam vet, pararescue, who was also taken captive during the war. He also now has a service connected disability that has crippled him his whole life.

wasn't the 101st involved in Market Garden? so it wasn't strictly British

I'd say market garden was a learning expierence...if u want something done right, do it the american way :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :)

Never said it was strictly British. Yes the 101st took part in the Operation as did the 82nd. Everything else was pretty much British. US land units were stretched from Switzerland up to Belgium forming the spread out line of troops which was smashed in the Battle of the Buldge.

Well, there are many Iraqi's who wanted us there, just the media wouldn't show them. I'm guessing you don't watch Fox...
I do watch FOX/CNN/AP/ and all the flag waving Netwoks...just like I read AljazeeraNEWS,

But for neutral War News I trust more Asian, European or LatinA sources.

i will not by any means defend people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry who deliberately gave aid to our enemies
You're putting Kerry in the same boat as Fonda? As far as I know the "worst" thing Kerry did was to expose war crimes.

When the testimony of certain protestors is used against POW's, that is my major problem.

But what if the testimony is true?

But what if the testimony is true?
But what if the testimony is grossly exagerrated and filled with small lies and inconcisities to the point that it is perverted into a grand lie?