NationStates Jolt Archive

No, we have not. I said while certainly possible, there is absolutely no record from the time period that it happened. And it isn't about the number of unhappy homecomings returning vets had that is acceptible. It is about using this urban myth to paint all peace activists and all liberals with the unpatriotic, hate-America brush.

Let me ask you, when you heard some American soldiers were charged with murder and may have executed civilians, did you automatically assume all soldiers were murders? Did you ask, how many murderers are acceptible in the U.S. military?

No, you said these accused soldiers don't represent the greater part of the U.S. military. That is my whole point. IF a soldier was spit upon by a peace activist (still not documented or proven), then that doesn't represent the vast majority of people in the peace movement, nor the typical experience of returning vets.

Here endeth the lesson.

Good night.

Can you please show where Peech said all anti-war protesters were anti-soldier or aggressive toward soldiers. Yes, some people use hyperbole. Kind of like you use hyperbole to evidence your claims. In fact, of the two of you, the only one actually reasonably looking at the evidence instead of just accepting things because you want it to be true is, well, you.

No, we have not. I said while certainly possible, there is absolutely no record from the time period that it happened. And it isn't about the number of unhappy homecomings returning vets had that is acceptible. It is about using this urban myth to paint all peace activists and all liberals with the unpatriotic, hate-America brush.

Let me ask you, when you heard some American soldiers were charged with murder and may have executed civilians, did you automatically assume all soldiers were murders? Did you ask, how many murderers are acceptible in the U.S. military?

No, you said these accused soldiers don't represent the greater part of the U.S. military. That is my whole point. IF a soldier was spit upon by a peace activist (still not documented or proven), then that doesn't represent the vast majority of people in the peace movement, nor the typical experience of returning vets.

Here endeth the lesson.

Good night.


And I never said that all the anti-war activists were foaming at the mouth ready to spit or that they represented the group as a whole.

I'm done as well.

I can't personally account for what happened to vets during the Vietnam conflict, but I do reckon that more than a few statements made so far have exceeded their bounds.


To say that no soldier has been spat upon in the past and none as of present is so unbelievable it scares me how anyone can actually believe that.

The perhaps more credible claim is that very few soldiers have been spat upon. But this does call into question the times when this occurred. I distinctly remember protesters at the funerals of the homosexual soldiers in the US spitting at people attending the funeral. This was on the news. Now they didn't spit on people, as I recall, but its not a far cry to go from spitting at to spitting on.


Protesters can and do go to great lengths to "voice" their opinions and make sure they are in the spot light. This is no less true today than it was during the Vietnam conflict.



And anyone who says that the vets coming home never received a poor reception has no clue what they are talking about. My dad was in the navy at the time and he didn't always receive handshakes and smiles every time he came in on a flight. But what he tells me from the accounts of his battle buddies says that throwing things at the vets can and did happen. Maybe this isn't spitting per say, but to say that gross amounts of disrespect didn't happen just isn't true.


In the final analysis I will believe my dad's account based on information garnered from those he served with over someone who purports to have interviewed any number of GI's. If someone says that they interviewed anything less than 100% of the GI's, and then goes on to claim that gross acts of disrespect didn't happen, then said person is misinformed.



Perhaps the cases of gross disrespect have been blown out of proportion (attributing numbers greater than actually occurred), but to say that this sort of thing never happened is baseless and dishonorable.

NT

yes they were and worse

New Zealand servicemen were spat on so yes.
But they got theirs back, one time a Hippie was running his mouth off while playing Pool and this Army Vet grabbed his beer bottle sashed it and cut the Hippies Pony tail off!
Ha Ha Bitch!

No, we have not. I said while certainly possible, there is absolutely no record from the time period that it happened. And it isn't about the number of unhappy homecomings returning vets had that is acceptible. It is about using this urban myth to paint all peace activists and all liberals with the unpatriotic, hate-America brush.

Exactly. Beatings and assaults are documented - especially when they are politically motivated. I'm not saying that it never happened - I'm just saying that there seems to be no documentation of it happening. If this were the widespread thing we are led to believe - it would be documented somewhere, wouldn't it?

Alright folks, reading through this thread at least one person who served actually stated that they were spit on. And multiple have said they personally know people who were. Rightly so, the person who was spit on compared the denial of this to the denial of the Holocaust, surely not due to its severity, but in the fact that people are alive today who were victims of it.

So, why is the living testimony of the victims being rejected? And why are the newspaper reports, and the entire book of compiled testimony that the article cited titled Homecoming being rejected? The fact is, this is documentation, even if it is not contemporary. I havn't seen a good argument in this thread for rejecting those testimonies or that documentation. Nor did the article in the OP present a good reason for rejecting it.

Do you reject all testimony and documentation that isn't contemporary, or just this? If you don't reject it all on the basis of being non-contemporary, then, TOP, your argument that there is "no record from the time period" is based on the informal fallacy of the double standard.

Likewise, Gartref, you commit a fallacy as well. The argument you're making, that beatings and assaults are documented, thus accounts of spitting should be documented, is a formal fallacy in propositional logic that is a form of disjunctive syllogism. The fact is, not all beatings and assaults are documented, thus there is no logical way to infer that these accounts of spitting should be.

In addition, while spitting is technically assault, it is not similar to a beating in any way. That is a fallacious analogy btw. The two things aren't similiar enough where one can be inferred about the other. If I got spit on, I wouldn't call the police and press charges. If I got a beating, I might.

So folks, the burden is on you to tell us why you reject the living testimony and documentation that we have for the fact that vets were spit on. I would love to see how this rejection can result in anything other than a double standard when weighing documentation and evidence.

Alright folks, reading through this thread at least one person who served actually stated that they were spit on. And multiple have said they personally know people who were. Rightly so, the person who was spit on compared the denial of this to the denial of the Holocaust, surely not due to its severity, but in the fact that people are alive today who were victims of it.

So, why is the living testimony of the victims being rejected?

If a person remembers an event that lacks another witness or corroborative physical evidence, the validity of the memory may be questioned—but not dismissed. I am not saying that an incident of vets being spat upon might not have happened. However, as I have repeated many, many, many times, there is NO RECORD of this happening during the period of the Vietnam War. The government would have had every incentive to play up such an event. It is only around 1980 that this story began to gain traction, especially in Hollywood movies. After that more and more vets "remembered" a spitting incident.

Memeory, as an historian or psychologist will tell you, is a tricky thing. It has been demonstrated that false memories can be implanted (e.g. the 1980s day care sex abuse hysteria cases). These people sincerely and firmly believe the memories they have are real.

Today, if you ask any American about the reception of returning Vietnam Vets the majority will mention verbal abuse and soldiers being spat upon. This story has entered the national collective unconscious. Try it. Ask 10 people. I will be surprised if eight of them don't bring up the spitting.

That is the urban myth, not that someone, somewhere might or might not have encountered an expectorating hippy. As I have demonstrated, returning vets of the time, although they did not receive a ticker tape parade, described their reception as friendly. The majority of vets, at the time, saw the peace activists as having more concern for them than there own government.

Since then the story, and memories, of some vets has changed.

The story of the spat upon vet serves the purpose of those who would make peace activists and critics of the government into unpatriotic, America-haters, and thereby silence dissent.

Since then the story, and memories, of some vets has changed.

So you're dismissing all the veterans who told me of spitting incidents in 1975? Five years before your theory begins? When the memories were still fresh?

So you're dismissing all the veterans who told me of spitting incidents in 1975? Five years before your theory begins? When the memories were still fresh?

We are anonymous posters on a message board. I can give no more weight to your "memory" of incidents than you can to mine. I do know that one professor and former Vietnam Vet has done extensive research on the subject and has failed to find evidence of this widespread phenomenon. However, if spitting on soldiers is as common as you imply ("all the veterans") then provide one, tiny scrap of evidence from the time period.

Otherwise, what you say happened or what you remember happening carries as much weight as any other random, anonymous post describing someone's encounter with aliens.

We are anonymous posters on a message board. I can give no more weight to your "memory" of incidents than you can to mine. I do know that one professor and former Vietnam Vet has done extensive research on the subject and has failed to find evidence of this widespread phenomenon. However, if spitting on soldiers is as common as you imply ("all the veterans") then provide one, tiny scrap of evidence from the time period.

Otherwise, what you say happened or what you remember happening carries as much weight as any other random, anonymous post describing someone's encounter with aliens.


I think you would very much like to believe it never happened, because you desperately want to go spit on a soldier now.

I think you would very much like to believe it never happened, because you desperately want to go spit on a soldier now.

That was uncalled for. You shame yourself.

It also demonstrates why I hate this urban myth so much. It is used as a cudgel to beat into silence anyone who would dare dissent with the government or oppose war.

That was uncalled for. You shame yourself.

It also demonstrates why I hate this urban myth so much. It is used as a cudgel to beat into silence anyone who would dare dissent with the government or oppose war.

I'm not telling you to be silent.

I'm telling you to go spit on veterans if that's what you like to do.

I'm not telling you to be silent.

I'm telling you to go spit on veterans if that's what you like to do.

Not trying to silence me? No, you are only trying to put me on the defensive by stating that I would want to spit on vets? And what gave you that idea? The fact that I said peace activists supported soldiers when their government didn't. The fact that peace activists embraced returning vets when their government didn't? They fact that most returning vets of the time felt peace activists cared more about their plight than their government?

Your statement is the very reason this damnable lie needs to be put to rest. Since this myth was concocted in the past 15 years it has been used to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question the current ill-conceived war.

Yet, the minority who support the war make no more sacrifice than the purchase of a magnetic yellow ribbon to enjoy the presumption they are good Americans.

Not trying to silence me? No, you are only trying to put me on the defensive by stating that I would want to spit on vets? And what gave you that idea? The fact that I said peace activists supported soldiers when their government didn't. The fact that peace activists embraced returning vets when their government didn't? They fact that most returning vets of the time felt peace activists cared more about their plight than their government?

Your statement is the very reason this damnable lie needs to be put to rest. Since this myth was concocted in the past 15 years it has been used to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question the current ill-conceived war.

Yet, the minority who support the war make no more sacrifice than the purchase of a magnetic yellow ribbon to enjoy the presumption they are good Americans.


I guess that's why I saw young people at Gate C-3 at Dulles Airport (the 9:45 flight to Heathrow) throwing food at the soldiers who were waiting for the flight, calling them babykillers.

I am not saying that an incident of vets being spat upon might not have happened.

How many times, in your opinion, does something have to really happen for it to actually really happen?

The problem with your entire case is that rather than trying to put the events into a realistic perspective of their times and a realistic understanding of their frequency, you attempt to deny it entirely.

You only fuel the very fires you are hoping to douse.

So, why is the living testimony of the victims being rejected?
Because some people don't tell the truth?

BTW, by using the word "victims", you are assuming that they are indeed telling the truth?

How many times, in your opinion, does something have to really happen for it to actually really happen?

The problem with your entire case is that rather than trying to put the events into a realistic perspective of their times and a realistic understanding of their frequency, you attempt to deny it entirely.

You only fuel the very fires you are hoping to douse.

You misunderstand. This issue is not whether or not this ever happened. It might have (although there is no evidence of it from the time). If it did happen it was so rare as to be insignificant in terms of drawing conclusions about liberals in general and peace activist in specific.

Yet, that is exactly what is now the case. Most people think this was a common, regular occurrence. This story has entered the national collective unconscious and people believe that most peace activists either spit upon vets or condoned it (see Deep Kimchi's insults).

That is the problem.

That is the urban myth.

Thats odd when I went with my future wife to the Philadelphia international air port in 1971 to retrieve her Brother...he wearing his uniform along with the others that were waiting for rides or taxi's ...etc. were pelted with eggs ..had red dye / paint thrown at them and before my brother in law got into my car a women protester walked up to him called him a " fucking baby killer " and spit in his face . he took all this very stoicly...his dad cried like a baby and my wife was scared shitless...I was simply stunned into a catatonic state.." who are these people " ? These people were my neighbors and the sons and daughters of my neighbors .


There are some things that happen that will forever be etched into your memory so fuck that bullshit about...no record...and " seeming " to remember...thats apologist horse shit. That was my brother in laws homecomming welcome after two tours in Nam .and it got worse when he tried to look up old friends and people he grew up with who were by that time either anti war or apathetic or dead or drafted .

Thats just one example ..considering that along the street I lived there were four houses that had sons enlisted or drafted , one never came home...his parents had to take down the bunting and the star because red paint was throw on their house and someone threw a rock at their window .

The signs expressing good luck and of pride ...simply disapeared from the windows of the other three " neighbors " who had their sons in combat .

" Spat upon " is only a simple thing that morons did to express their first ammedment rights to protest . If you were not alive durring that time ...I just do not see how you will ever come to realise just how bad it was and what was done to our " veterans" in the name of " protest " .

Its like trying to explain to a decent person how a women could drown five babies in a tub..." no way ..no one could ever act like that " ! Or any other reprehensible act that someone would normally think a good human being is incapable of...you just say " no way its just an exageration ..or a lie "

Like the thought of someone intentionally flying an air liner full of people into a building..." no way who would be crazy enough to do that " ? Imagine having no photo proof or survivors who actually witness it .

You would ..or shouldnt.. ever be suprised at what people ...or zealots..will do when they decide that the ends justify the means .


I have Louis Portenza and Joseph Andreachhio's permission to sign thier name to this. Both served and Joseph Jr. is serving in Iraq .
Louis is permantly disabled and suffers from PTSD. he had the pleasure of arriving in San diego and being spat at had shit..as in fecal matter .. thrown at him along with eggs and other garbage . his crime was in being drafted and serving as a gunner in the armored infantry .
I have asked other vets and was politely told to go fuck myself ..they no longer think people are worth it . So they would rather they went on with their lives .

If anyone really cares go through the news paper archives and start at October of 1968....then we will see how many stories exist about the harse treatment veterans recieved on returning from Vietnam .

" spitting " if it was only that bad .


That is the problem.

That is the urban myth.


No sir that is THE problem...you think its a myth...

:rolleyes:

"GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site? And even then, returnees would have been immediately bused to nearby military installations and processed for reassignment or discharge....

Jerry Lembcke

The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...pitting_image/

I know for a fact that when I flew back from Germany two summers ago, there were Sodiers flying back to the US on the United Airlines flight I was on. They were the one's right in front of the psychotic baby, who didn't shut up all night long.

You misunderstand. This issue is not whether or not this ever happened. It might have (although there is no evidence of it from the time). If it did happen it was so rare as to be insignificant in terms of drawing conclusions about liberals in general and peace activist in specific.

Yet, that is exactly what is now the case. Most people think this was a common, regular occurrence. This story has entered the national collective unconscious and people believe that most peace activists either spit upon vets or condoned it (see Deep Kimchi's insults).

That is the problem.

That is the urban myth.


I don't misunderstand at all.

You began the thread denying it ever happened.
The OP posed the question whether it ever happened.
When accounts of it actually happening to vet/posters here were raised, you and others challenged them as false or inaccurate memories.

Post #15 We have had this discussion before. I don't believe it.

This is an urban myth.


Post #19 It didn't happen then. It isn't happing now.

URBAN MYTH

Post #21 There is no public record of any vet reporting being spat upon. None. Not one picture. Not one news story. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Post #24 God, I hate this urban myth. It was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.

Post #74 You have provided not one shread of evidence that returning Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon.

Please tell me you have something.

Post #101 Again, if you had read the articles, you would notice that the author cited other studies, a couple of which back up his assertion that no vets were spat on.


As the thread moved on, you began to allow room that it might have, maybe happened, somewhere, sometime but you still do not accept that it happened even once as far as I can tell.

But who is saying that this happened every time a soldier returned home?
I haven't seen any claims of frequency that you are frantically trying to discredit.
Is the common public perception that this occurred more often than it did in reality?
Probably.
Does that mean that it didn't happen or that those that it did happen to are liars at worst, adled minded at best? Of course not.

If anyone really cares go through the news paper archives and start at October of 1968....then we will see how many stories exist about the harse treatment veterans recieved on returning from Vietnam .



Someone has gone through those records. Jerry Lembcke wrote a book called The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. This Vietnam vet went through newspaper archives, FBI reports, magazines of the period and found NOT ONE story such as you have described. There are no records, no pictures, no news stories from the period to substantiate these "memories."

In fact, a 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Data collected in 1971 for a U.S. Senate study indicated that 99 percent of Vietnam veterans polled described their homecoming receptions by close friends and family as friendly. Even more significant were the 94 percent of veterans who described as friendly their reception by people their age who had not served in the military.

Lembcke does not deny that sometime, somewhere, someone spat on a Vietnam veteran. "But that is not the issue," he asserts. "The issue is that in the memory of a large number of people the anti-war movement came to be connected with the image of activists spitting on veterans. Moreover, what is conversationally safe is not the same as good social science. The fact remains that there is scant evidence that any person opposed to the Vietnam war engaged in this behavior."

Someone has gone through those records. Jerry Lembcke wrote a book called The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. This Vietnam vet went through newspaper archives, FBI reports, magazines of the period and found NOT ONE story such as you have described. There are no records, no pictures, no news stories from the period to substantiate these "memories."

In fact, a 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Data collected in 1971 for a U.S. Senate study indicated that 99 percent of Vietnam veterans polled described their homecoming receptions by close friends and family as friendly. Even more significant were the 94 percent of veterans who described as friendly their reception by people their age who had not served in the military.

Lembcke does not deny that sometime, somewhere, someone spat on a Vietnam veteran. "But that is not the issue," he asserts. "The issue is that in the memory of a large number of people the anti-war movement came to be connected with the image of activists spitting on veterans. Moreover, what is conversationally safe is not the same as good social science. The fact remains that there is scant evidence that any person opposed to the Vietnam war engaged in this behavior."

Yes, the very reliable source who makes several provably false claims. Your source is thoroughly debunked as not credible. Got another one? Or are we to suppose that this individual is the ONLY ONE to manage to put together what you claim is so apparent?

Quote, you said, "this is the question that comes up when i look through debunking sites that i dont know the answer to....


why were you landing at a civilian airport? did panam fly soldiers to and from vietnam?"

For someone allegedly interesting in researching to be able to debunk, you would think you would bother to read a bit....During the Vietnam War our government used commercial flights from Japan to Various West Coast Commercial Airports because it was cheaper to fly them from the west coast to Japan and then from our base on Okinawa, Japan by Military transport to their respcted duty locations in the South Pacific. They did this for duty rotations, TDY (Temporary Duty Assignment) missions, and Tour of Duty rotations, they did this both going in and out. McNamara is the one who came up with this brilliant idea, because it was cheaper to fly them commercial up to the point they were coming close to the conflict zone. The still do this for the military stationed along the DMZ in Korea. You wouldn't waste the expense of using the C-30's to haul them in and out for duty rotations, particularly the officers.

By the way, when I was a little girl we were waiting at the airport when my father came home from his third tour of duty in Vietnam and I saw him spat on, you little doubting, whiney #$% cockroach.

Quote, you said, "this is the question that comes up when i look through debunking sites that i dont know the answer to....


why were you landing at a civilian airport? did panam fly soldiers to and from vietnam?"

For someone allegedly interesting in researching to be able to debunk, you would think you would bother to read a bit....During the Vietnam War our government used commercial flights from Japan to Various West Coast Commercial Airports because it was cheaper to fly them from the west coast to Japan and then from our base on Okinawa, Japan by Military transport to their respcted duty locations in the South Pacific. They did this for duty rotations, TDY (Temporary Duty Assignment) missions, and Tour of Duty rotations, they did this both going in and out. McNamara is the one who came up with this brilliant idea, because it was cheaper to fly them commercial up to the point they were coming close to the conflict zone. The still do this for the military stationed along the DMZ in Korea. You wouldn't waste the expense of using the C-30's to haul them in and out for duty rotations, particularly the officers.

By the way, when I was a little girl we were waiting at the airport when my father came home from his third tour of duty in Vietnam and I saw him spat on, you little doubting, whiney #$% cockroach.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! :)

Quote, you said, "this is the question that comes up when i look through debunking sites that i dont know the answer to....


why were you landing at a civilian airport? did panam fly soldiers to and from vietnam?"

For someone allegedly interesting in researching to be able to debunk, you would think you would bother to read a bit....During the Vietnam War our government used commercial flights from Japan to Various West Coast Commercial Airports because it was cheaper to fly them from the west coast to Japan and then from our base on Okinawa, Japan by Military transport to their respcted duty locations in the South Pacific. They did this for duty rotations, TDY (Temporary Duty Assignment) missions, and Tour of Duty rotations, they did this both going in and out. McNamara is the one who came up with this brilliant idea, because it was cheaper to fly them commercial up to the point they were coming close to the conflict zone. The still do this for the military stationed along the DMZ in Korea. You wouldn't waste the expense of using the C-30's to haul them in and out for duty rotations, particularly the officers.

By the way, when I was a little girl we were waiting at the airport when my father came home from his third tour of duty in Vietnam and I saw him spat on, you little doubting, whiney #$% cockroach.
I wish there was some way of making all those historical revisionists read your post. It's great! :)

I wish there was some way of making all those historical revisionists read your post. It's great! :)

Hmmmm....What needs revising? US entered into a stupid, contradictory war slaughtered millions and got 70,000 or so of its own killed in the process. I'd worry more about the Vietnamese and the other dead and maimed than somebody who had to wipe spit off their poxy suit. Particularily as the same breed of stupidity seems to be bouncing around again to some extent.

Hmmmm....What needs revising? US entered into a stupid, contradictory war slaughtered millions and got 70,000 or so of its own killed in the process. I'd worry more about the Vietnamese and the other dead and maimed than somebody who had to wipe spit off their poxy suit. Particularily as the same breed of stupidity seems to be bouncing around again to some extent.
It was 53,000

Hmmmm....What needs revising? US entered into a stupid, contradictory war slaughtered millions and got 70,000 or so of its own killed in the process. I'd worry more about the Vietnamese and the other dead and maimed than somebody who had to wipe spit off their poxy suit. Particularily as the same breed of stupidity seems to be bouncing around again to some extent.

Ah, but we're not killing nearly as many on either side as before.

Look on the bright side. The US is taking casualties at 1/8th of the rate that they were in Vietnam. And there isn't a Soviet Union or China supplying the insurgents with stuff.

Oh dear, the guys who just came back from napalming commie muslims in the jungle came into contact with saliva!!! Oh cruel world!!! Oh what cruel fate!!! Woe! Woe!

YOU grow the hell up, you demented little twit!
And this is the type of reason why you are on a final warning. ;)

Oh dear, the guys who just came back from napalming commie muslims in the jungle came into contact with saliva!!! Oh cruel world!!! Oh what cruel fate!!! Woe! Woe!

Muslims? In Vietnam?

(faintly reminiscent of "a tiger? in africa?")

Ah, but we're not killing nearly as many on either side as before.

Look on the bright side. The US is taking casualties at 1/8th of the rate that they were in Vietnam. And there isn't a Soviet Union or China supplying the insurgents with stuff.

O it was the mentality promoting it that strikes me as similar in ways...'a crusade against' sort of thing. Many of the groups resisting in Iraq don't strike me as capable of ever producing a coherent or effective movement. Bit too interested in the afterlife.

Muslims? In Vietnam?

(faintly reminiscent of "a tiger? in africa?")

Yes, everyone knows europe is crawling with them.

Oh dear, the guys who just came back from napalming commie muslims in the jungle came into contact with saliva!!! Oh cruel world!!! Oh what cruel fate!!! Woe! Woe!

They were muslims???????? O the HUMANITY!!!!! How could I have ever thought "Fuck the French and the Yanks".......

Yes, everyone knows europe is crawling with them.


Its a well known fact that no-one in europe is ever more than six foot away from one.......

Oh dear, the guys who just came back from napalming commie muslims in the jungle came into contact with saliva!!! Oh cruel world!!! Oh what cruel fate!!! Woe! Woe!
This does not seperate the man from the institution.

There wasn't time spent going through the record of tour of the person being spat on, it was the symbol of the institution and commits the sin of confusing the institution with the man. The man isn't responsable for the decisions that where made and the war that was engaged, and in fact odds are that he himself was not respoonsable for the attrocities that where reported. To blame all of them loses the scope of the issue in the same way blaming all protesters for the spit commits the same sin, it blames the group for the actions of a minority. It does no good for the discourse and you can see it in both those who blame all the soldiers and those who blame all of the protestors-they end up being the same, no better or worse than the other.

The reality is that protestors and those who serve are both a neccisary element to American society and both have a tendancy inflate their importance over the other. When it becomes 'personal' the function falls apart.

Its a well known fact that no-one in europe is ever more than six foot away from one.......

Actually, meters. Liberals and anything to do with them is metric.

This does not seperate the man from the institution.

There wasn't time spent going through the record of tour of the person being spat on, it was the symbol of the institution and commits the sin of confusing the institution with the man. The man isn't responsable for the decisions that where made and the war that was engaged, and in fact odds are that he himself was not respoonsable for the attrocities that where reported. To blame all of them loses the scope of the issue in the same way blaming all protesters for the spit commits the same sin, it blames the group for the actions of a minority. It does no good for the discourse and you can see it in both those who blame all the soldiers and those who blame all of the protestors-they end up being the same, no better or worse than the other.

The reality is that protestors and those who serve are both a neccisary element to American society and both have a tendancy inflate their importance over the other. When it becomes 'personal' the function falls apart.

When someone gives you a gun and tells you to kill another person, you still have a choice. Back then, believe it or not, there were actual Americans who believed the act of pulling the trigger is wrong.

So what do soldier and protestor need to do in order for there to be rainbows and unicorns?

When someone gives you a gun and tells you to kill another person, you still have a choice. Back then, believe it or not, there were actual Americans who believed the act of pulling the trigger is wrong.

So what do soldier and protestor need to do in order for there to be rainbows and unicorns?
Who wants rainbows and unicorns? I'm on record in the assertation that unicorns would be dicks.

Idealogically I'm all for the 'throwing a war and no one came.' In the case of Vietnam we would have been vastly better off not only for what happened in that country but what it did to our cultural landscape (though it did stoke some social change that would have taken longer without it). But pragmaticly it's unrealistic to expect everyone to get it right on the first guess. That's the situation-in the case of Vietnam the protesters where right, it was a civil war and none of our business.

But the reality, not the daydream, is that the argument has to be had and it has to have all the sides on it. Only a fucking moron would believe that it would be about rainbows and unicorns-the reality is that the argument has to be made. When you lose track of that, that you become so convinced that the other side is 'evil' then you're in a fantasy land, and I assure you that the unicorns will be dicks.

I quite frankly think a picture of that girl running and crying with napalm burns all over her, naked, in pain, would get me more bothered at the nature of mankind than the picture of a burly guy with someone else's saliva on his fatigue looking dejected and not understanding that the millions killed in Vietnam did not ask for the "service" he performed.

But that's just me.

I could compare the soldiers in Nam to the cat that brings home a dirty, disgusting dead mouse in the hopes of "pleasing the owner". The problem is, human beings should be smarter than cats.

By the way, before you ask, no I am not "anti-American", as some morons would have you believe. :rolleyes:

Who wants rainbows and unicorns? I'm on record in the assertation that unicorns would be dicks.

Idealogically I'm all for the 'throwing a war and no one came.' In the case of Vietnam we would have been vastly better off not only for what happened in that country but what it did to our cultural landscape (though it did stoke some social change that would have taken longer without it). But pragmaticly it's unrealistic to expect everyone to get it right on the first guess. That's the situation-in the case of Vietnam the protesters where right, it was a civil war and none of our business.

But the reality, not the daydream, is that the argument has to be had and it has to have all the sides on it. Only a fucking moron would believe that it would be about rainbows and unicorns-the reality is that the argument has to be made. When you lose track of that, that you become so convinced that the other side is 'evil' then you're in a fantasy land, and I assure you that the unicorns will be dicks.

(I'm assuming you're an American) It's your country and you guys do with it as you please. I don't really care about "social change" in there. You guys can tap your own phones, run around with assault-rifles, teach your children creationist nonsense, censor nipples to your hearts content and get as fat as you like. I don't mind. However, attacking random countries and murdering under the pretense of waging war on a vague definition on an IDEOLOGY is not ok. Telling me I should care about the feelings of those who participate in it is pointless. If they get spat on, it's fine with me.

Basically: Good Americans = The ones that stay at home. Bad ones = The ones that travel overseas to wage war based on a lie.

And I agree:
All unicorns = bad unicorns.

I quite frankly think a picture of that girl running and crying with napalm burns all over her, naked, in pain, would get me more bothered at the nature of mankind than the picture of a burly guy with someone else's saliva on his fatigue looking dejected and not understanding that the millions killed in Vietnam did not ask for the "service" he performed.

But that's just me.

I could compare the soldiers in Nam to the cat that brings home a dirty, disgusting dead mouse in the hopes of "pleasing the owner". The problem is, human beings should be smarter than cats.

By the way, before you ask, no I am not "anti-American", as some morons would have you believe. :rolleyes:
In matters of scale, yes. One is far more henious and dehumanizing than the other, so much so that the comparison is almost cartoonish. But in terms of what can be done, spittle doesn't unburn that girl but rather polarize an argument-that we're arguing the ridiculousness of spittle is actually a demonstration of the waste it is, because we should be arguing the napalm and the girl because you're right-far far more important and speaks much darker of the human condition.

But losing track of what's at stake and not seperating the man from the institution means we have this instead of what was really important.

(I'm assuming you're an American) It's your country and you guys do with it as you please. I don't really care about "social change" in there. You guys can tap your own phones, run around with assault-rifles, teach your children creationist nonsense, censor nipples to your hearts content and get as fat as you like. I don't mind. However, attacking random countries and murdering under the pretense of waging war on a vague definition on an IDEOLOGY is not ok. Telling me I should care about the feelings of those who participate in it is pointless. If they get spat on, it's fine with me.

Basically: Good Americans = The ones that stay at home. Bad ones = The ones that travel overseas to wage war based on a lie.

And I agree:
All unicorns = bad unicorns.
Off the rails. Sorry, thought you where in for debate. My mistake.

Off the rails. Sorry, thought you where in for debate. My mistake.

I'm sorry for approaching this from an unacceptable angle :rolleyes:

Of course I should care about the feelings of the agressor instead of his victims. Silly me.

I'm sorry for approaching this from an unacceptable angle :rolleyes:

Of course I should care about the feelings of the agressor instead of his victims. Silly me.
If you'd like to pretend thats what that was about, knock yourself out. Your delusion isn't my concern.

It didn't happen then. It isn't happing now.

URBAN MYTH



YEAH! kinda like the holocaust is just a myth.....:headbang:

I quite frankly think a picture of that girl running and crying with napalm burns all over her, naked, in pain, would get me more bothered at the nature of mankind than the picture of a burly guy with someone else's saliva on his fatigue looking dejected and not understanding that the millions killed in Vietnam did not ask for the "service" he performed.

But that's just me.

I could compare the soldiers in Nam to the cat that brings home a dirty, disgusting dead mouse in the hopes of "pleasing the owner". The problem is, human beings should be smarter than cats.

By the way, before you ask, no I am not "anti-American", as some morons would have you believe. :rolleyes:


I agree with you, but its was the stupid American government that put most of them there, most vets just didnt wake up one day and decide, "hey, i wanna go fry me sum gooks!" and grabbed an m60. Its kind of like the german soldiers in ww2, the common german soldier isnt to blame, his leaders are. in vietnam Idiots like R.S. Macnamara are to blame, maybe Gen. Westmoreland too...

This does not seperate the man from the institution.

There wasn't time spent going through the record of tour of the person being spat on, it was the symbol of the institution and commits the sin of confusing the institution with the man. The man isn't responsable for the decisions that where made and the war that was engaged, and in fact odds are that he himself was not respoonsable for the attrocities that where reported. To blame all of them loses the scope of the issue in the same way blaming all protesters for the spit commits the same sin, it blames the group for the actions of a minority. It does no good for the discourse and you can see it in both those who blame all the soldiers and those who blame all of the protestors-they end up being the same, no better or worse than the other.

The reality is that protestors and those who serve are both a neccisary element to American society and both have a tendancy inflate their importance over the other. When it becomes 'personal' the function falls apart.
I agree. :eek:

Off the rails. Sorry, thought you where in for debate. My mistake.
He's funny like that. I know.

YEAH! kinda like the holocaust is just a myth.....:headbang:
Thank you! That's one of the things I mentioned, right after I reiterated that I was one of those spat upon. Your post will probably have just as much impact, i.e. none.

YEAH! kinda like the holocaust is just a myth.....:headbang:

What does the holocaust have to do with this? There is copious documentation for the holocaust. If there was documentation for this myth about hippies spitting on returning soldiers this wouldn't be an issue.

You seem to take this story as a matter of faith. Don't you expect documentation to support a historical event? As a historian I do.

There is no documentation for this particular story. It disn't even become a story until the early 1980s.

I rest my case.

I rest my case.

Why not rest your case with some historical evidence?

This was supposedly a common occurance; so common that it is taken as a matter of faith by most Americans. Surely, there is some kind of documentation beyond the memory of one vet?

This issue is not whether or not this ever happened. It might have (although there is no evidence of it from the time). If it did happen it was so rare as to be insignificant in terms of drawing conclusions about liberals in general and peace activist in specific.

Yet, that is exactly what is now the case. Most people think this was a common, regular occurrence. This story has entered the national collective unconscious and people believe that most peace activists either spit upon vets or condoned it.

That is the problem.

That is the urban myth.

*snip*
Kinda like trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened. :(
*snip*


Holocaust did happen? Lies!!! What will you try to fool us into next? That chocolate is, mostly, brown and that the pope is from Pluto? Bah...

:D

Thank you! That's one of the things I mentioned, right after I reiterated that I was one of those spat upon. Your post will probably have just as much impact, i.e. none.



Yeah, I cant say that I know how you feel, but I know a few vets from that war, one that was at LZ-XRAY and LZ-Albany... that was just crazy shit. war is terrible shit and sure US soldiers commited atrocities just like the VC did, but reg US soldiers dont deserve to be spit on... esspecailly when it was the government the the people shoulda been mad at.

Actually, meters. Liberals and anything to do with them is metric.

I'm 36...I was "Imperialed" as a child.

Holocaust did happen? Lies!!! What will you try to fool us into next? That chocolate is, mostly, brown and that the pope is from Pluto? Bah...

:D


yeah, and the war in Iraq is a hoax! :eek:

...right after I reiterated that I was one of those spat upon.

Of course, half the people on the internet are rangers special force snipers or whatever.
I don't think you got spat on, I think you're a 15 year old who spilled coke on himself while playing CS.

Of course, half the people on the internet are rangers special force snipers or whatever.
I think you're a 15 year old who spilled coke on himself while playing CS.

Eut is who he says he is.

Let's say for the sake of this argument that he was spat upon.

It makes no difference to my general assertion that any spitting on soldiers by peace activist that might have happened was so rare that its elevation to the level of a perceived general truth is unwarranted.

That is the urban myth.

Of course, half the people on the internet are rangers special force snipers or whatever.
I don't think you got spat on, I think you're a 15 year old who spilled coke on himself while playing CS.

Hes been here long enough his bollix would have been handed to him on a plate were that the case. He just sounds like a 15 year old who spilled coke on himself while playing CS.

I rest my case.
You rest it; I resist it.

There's nothing to back up your supposition, other than your claim to have been so mistreated. And given the nature of this medium, there's no way to actually confirm your claim.

Like I said the other night, Eut - show me. Show me, and I'll listen. And look. But no way in Hell am I going to blindly accept your claim; you've proven yourself, on any number of occasions, to be far too unreasonable and one-sided on issues pertaining to Vietnam or the Vietnam era for me (and others on these fora) to be giving you a pass-card and a pat on the back.

Show me.

Hes been here long enough his bollix would have been handed to him on a plate were that the case. He just sounds like a 15 year old who spilled coke on himself while playing CS.

:D Yes, it's possible. I still have doubts though.

So is there any actual evidence that this occured?

Someone has gone through those records. Jerry Lembcke wrote a book called The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. This Vietnam vet went through newspaper archives, FBI reports, magazines of the period and found NOT ONE story such as you have described. There are no records, no pictures, no news stories from the period to substantiate these "memories."

In fact, a 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Data collected in 1971 for a U.S. Senate study indicated that 99 percent of Vietnam veterans polled described their homecoming receptions by close friends and family as friendly. Even more significant were the 94 percent of veterans who described as friendly their reception by people their age who had not served in the military.

Lembcke does not deny that sometime, somewhere, someone spat on a Vietnam veteran. "But that is not the issue," he asserts. "The issue is that in the memory of a large number of people the anti-war movement came to be connected with the image of activists spitting on veterans. Moreover, what is conversationally safe is not the same as good social science. The fact remains that there is scant evidence that any person opposed to the Vietnam war engaged in this behavior."


I guess I should have taken pictures ?

I guess I should have taken pictures ?
No, he's saying that as a poster on the Internet, you do not really exist.

Well I saw it with my own eyes and will never forget it ...nor will my family and my children...I vote and am active in local politics ..and thanks to screaming Dean...also active on the internet..

all I can say is fuck the assholes that say ..if a tree falls in the forrest and no one see's it did it fall ?

It happened and as long as live I will remind everyone it did . So will my children .

I guess I should have taken pictures ?

You would have thought someone would have, if this was such a common occurrence?

This would have been a story of immense propaganda benefit to the Nixon administration. Also, the FBI had infiltrated every major peace group in the '60s and '70s. If this was as common as people believed there would have been a picture somewhere. Or if not a picture or FBI report then there should have been at least one news story or police report (can you honestly imagine all these returning soldiers being spat upon without ONE of them losing his cool and busting some heads?).

What really fascinates me about this myth is the similarity to the "stab in the back" myth perpetuated in Germany after World War I.

Eut is who he says he is.

Let's say for the sake of this argument that he was spat upon.

It makes no difference to my general assertion that any spitting on soldiers by peace activist that might have happened was so rare that its elevation to the level of a perceived general truth is unwarranted.

That is the urban myth.

Just keep moving that line. We'll pretend not to notice.

Just keep moving that line. We'll pretend not to notice.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been consistently maintaining all along that

1) there is no evidence from the time period of soldiers being spat upon by peace activists;

2) this story did not gain circulation until after 1980;

3) it is impossible to prove a negative, so it is possible that someone, somewhere was spat upon (although there is no evidence of it);

4) since this obviously was not a widespread or common occurrence the belief that it was is the urban myth.

Did I make it clear enough for you?

Sure when a car is surrounded by protesters..the first thing a young guy should do is whip out a camera...especially if he has been brought up to be a patriot and the " media" does'nt exist the way YOU know it...again a problem with morons thinking history started when they were born ..

This shit that happened was at the time UNPRECEDENDTED AT THE TIME ..

What part of that do you not get ?

any way... if you ...whomever you are realy care ..

http://www.loc.gov/vets/stories/voicesofwar/voices-chapter6.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-123002-8027r.htm
http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/swensson/interview_hunt_cominghome.html

I will post links to BOTH sides ....

http://www.stfrancis.edu/en/student/Mukerjee/Mukherjee%20Vietnam_Veterans.html

read if you care for yourselves ..

I can only bear witness to what I personaly saw with my own two eyes .


http://www.illyria.com/nursebib.html

Richard E. Hautala, Vietnam veteran
Ballston Spa, NY, Saratoga

4/24/2000

Dear NPR,

I’ve been trying to write something for your "Revisiting Vietnam" for several days now. I wanted to convey the confusion and the seriousness and the strangeness of it. I wanted you to have some feeling for: what it was like to go through the Marine Corps training that prepared you for Vietnam, what it felt like to have men land on the moon a week before I landed in Vietnam, watching the mongoose play in the perimeter wire a moment before a firefight began, having to shoot all the dogs around camp because of rabies, that the identification number on the body bags we put our dead comrades in was 1492, there are so many details, so many crazy things, things part of the war experience no one mentions, I wanted to leave nothing out.

But I had some real problems trying to do that. So NPR this is all you get:

I do not read books about Vietnam. I do not watch the documentaries. I’m uncomfortable hearing the Vietnamese language. The sound of helicopters bothers me. We should have been un-trained when discharged. Instead, for me, the un-training began last year. I was 50 years old.

This coming Memorial Day I plan on going to "The Wall". It will not be a pleasant experience for me. It will be a healing one I’m told. Please wish me luck.

Thanks,
Rich Hautala


give them the respect they deserve...not the disrespect of TRYING to claim they were treated right " comming home "

Thats bullshit and ANYONE alive durring this conflict KNOWS it .



WOW I just used google to look at the sublect...


It seems every left wing or radical ..or liberal apologist have JUMPED on the bandwagon ...of...VIETNAM VETS WERE NOT SPIT ON ....


Well the they had shit thrown on them ...they had ...dye or oaint thrown at them and etc...

Seems some liberal moron ...or just an anti war ..anti whatevere type did a " google '..

Well we all know ..IF ITS NOT ON GOOGLE IT DOESNT EXIST " ...


Well fuck you I saw it . I didnt have google .

give them the respect they deserve...not the disrespect of TRYING to claim they were treated right " comming home "

Thats bullshit and ANYONE alive durring this conflict KNOWS it .
Getting upset and playing to emotions doesn't make supposition fact. Proof makes it fact. And, as has been stated repeatedly, this communications medium does not lend itself to personal veracity.

I don't expect people to believe what I say on internet forums, simply because I say it - so why should I believe what you say? Because you say you were there? How do I know you were there? Again, because you say so?

Look, until you and the others who make these claims can properly back up your assertions, don't go making assumptions about how or why we aren't willing to give you pass-cards for your purported trauma.

Eut,

What Special Forces Group were you in? The 5th, my stepfather was in that one during Vietnam, he was an 18B.

You really are gullible, aren't you?

This "photo" of Kerry and Jane Fonda (what that has to do with anything, I don't know) is a FAKE. It was proven a fake immediately upon its release during the election.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp
(this shows the two pictures that were put together)

I would call this an urban myth, but it is really just dirty politics.


how dumb are you not to notice " I posted both sides "


again................... history did not start the day you were born.

again................... history did not start the day you were born.

uh, okay. Thanks for that (don't care to guess what I do for a living, do you?).

uh, okay. Thanks for that (don't care to guess what I do for a living, do you?).


like you care to guess what I do ?

again ........I do not have to look up anything ...I lived through it .



if by your challenge to .." guess what you do " you mean you are in some way an invloved in education...then answer this ..



Why is the GOOGLE pages so active with the " myth" of soldiers being spat upon ..since the " Book " or articles came out on the subject..

You being an academic type ...should be able to se through it ...or not ?

suddenly what I have witnessed is not fact because you cant "google" it ?:D :D :D :D :D


As soon as someone cares enough to go through acrhives on microfilm in the library that are from the 1967 to 1973 era you will have all , the proof ..aside from living and breathing proof that you need .

God help us all if YOU claim to be part of our teaching institutions .;)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been consistently maintaining all along that

1) there is no evidence from the time period of soldiers being spat upon by peace activists;

Except eye witness testimony. There is no reason to believe that there would be evidence other than eye witness testimony. People don't generally say, hey, check it out, I'm committing a crime. Cameras weren't as prevelant as they are now and not nearly as fast. Camera work was pretty much luck. But as a historian, you knew that right? It's pretty widely accepted that some soldiers killed children. Can you show me the photographic evidence, please?

2) this story did not gain circulation until after 1980;

Hmmm... yes, I noticed you have some trouble with math. 2006-1980 = 26. It gained circulation 26 years ago according to you.

It was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.

It was concocted only 15 years ago, according to you. How did it gain circulation 11 years before it was concocted? You're credibility as a 'historian' is falling fast. You're almost as reliable as a 'historian' who claims that military personnel are never scheduled to land at civilian airports and it's only done when the plane diverts and then they are shuttled out.

3) it is impossible to prove a negative, so it is possible that someone, somewhere was spat upon (although there is no evidence of it);

4) since this obviously was not a widespread or common occurrence the belief that it was is the urban myth.

Did I make it clear enough for you?

You flop all over the place. You insinuate that none were spat upon or you flat out say it. Then when someone presses you, you claim never said any such thing. Then you insinuate it again.

However, you're nailed. You plainly said that no one was spat upon.

You are not credible.

Again, if you had read the articles, you would notice that the author cited other studies, a couple of which back up his assertion that no vets were spat on.

You have provided not one shread of evidence that returning Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon.


It makes no difference to my general assertion that any spitting on soldiers by peace activist that might have happened was so rare that its elevation to the level of a perceived general truth is unwarranted.

And there goes the remainder of the credibility.

uh, okay. Thanks for that (don't care to guess what I do for a living, do you?).

Should we base our answer on your claims or your inability to address the obvious flaws in your 'evidence' that makes provably false claims while you make claims that don't match one another. I mean I had some history teachers that sucked, but come on, you can't even address the fact that your oh so reliable source doesn't know a damn thing about his claimed area of expertise.

Ultra, you just don't get it, so it is pointless to continue this "discussion," but let me give it one last try.

Let us agree for the sake of argument you were spit upon by someone 35 years ago when returning home from Vietnam. If you were, then it was an isolated event that did not typify most vets’ experience.

As I have said, a 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Data collected in 1971 for a U.S. Senate study indicated that 99 percent of Vietnam veterans polled described their homecoming receptions by close friends and family as friendly. Even more significant were the 94 percent of veterans who described as friendly their reception by people their age who had not served in the military.

If this hippy-spitting was so common as to be the norm then why did so many returning vets describe their homecoming in favorable terms? I can never prove that one person, somewhere in the continental United States wasn’t spit upon. It is almost impossible to prove a negative. However, I can demonstrate that there is no evidence that spitting on returning vets was common (because there is no evidence from the time period that it happened at all).

This I have done.

What more are you looking for? If you say this was common and typifies most peace activists response to returning vets then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of it.

Ultra, you just don't get it, so it is pointless to continue this "discussion," but let me give it one last try.

Let us agree for the sake of argument you were spit upon by someone 35 years ago when returning home from Vietnam. If you were, then it was an isolated event that did not typify most vets’ experience.

As I have said, a 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Data collected in 1971 for a U.S. Senate study indicated that 99 percent of Vietnam veterans polled described their homecoming receptions by close friends and family as friendly. Even more significant were the 94 percent of veterans who described as friendly their reception by people their age who had not served in the military.

If this hippy-spitting was so common as to be the norm then why did so many returning vets describe their homecoming in favorable terms? I can never prove that one person, somewhere in the continental United States wasn’t spit upon. It is almost impossible to prove a negative. However, I can demonstrate that there is no evidence that spitting on returning vets was common (because there is no evidence from the time period that it happened at all).

This I have done.

What more are you looking for? If you say this was common and typifies most peace activists response to returning vets then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of it.

Evidence for this Harris poll? We keep asking for it and you keep failing to provide it, yet you keep trotting it out like we're supposed to buy this bunk.

You haven't proved anything or even supported it. Your only source, the ONLY source, for what you claim is a widespread myth that is so easy to debunk is one that has provable false assertions just in the advertisement for the book offered by the author and you. You've not provided an ounce of evidence while the stories of many veteran's include tales of aggressive or disrespectful protesters.

We've had eye witness testimony within the thread an no evidence against it. You've provided claims, but those claims invariably have been supported by absurdities like the story becoming popular 11 years before it was 'concocted' or veteran's only landing on military bases unless diverted. Suppositions that are easily falsifed by anyone paying attention.

We've all heard the stories... Traumatized Vietnam Vets returning home to be spat upon by protesters.

This image of injustice is trotted out like clockwork whenever people argue against anti-war demonstrators.

Well... I've always thought this was pretty unlikely. In the zillions of pictures taken of war protests in the U.S. I have never seen a single instance of a veteran being spit on.

I have also never seen a documented account of any actual incident. In fact, it was until the 1980s that any of this vet-spitting was even mentioned - and that was in the wake of all the Rambo type Vietnam Vet movies that used this as a dramatic device.

I found a very interesting article that pretty much debunks the vet-spitting myth - you might like to read it:

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95

So basically, those times it was photographed, it didn't happen? Nice and convenient for you, isn't it?

Evidence for this Harris poll? We keep asking for it and you keep failing to provide it, yet you keep trotting it out like we're supposed to buy this bunk.

Jocabia, I have been the only person in this thread under the obligation to provide proof (even though YOU are making the argument that people were spat upon with absolutely none). I have not only provided you with a source and several reviews of that source, but I have made a very clear and simple argument that there is no evidence for the claim you are making (you have been unable to refute that with evidence from the time period).

I have told you before, if you want documentation for the Senate study or the V.A. commissioned Harris poll, you will have to buy the book, Spitting Image. It is endnoted and documented in the book.

But, you won't.

I have made my case, and made it damn well.

I leave the thread to you and the other believers in this myth to prove your case or not.

Jocabia, I have been the only person in this thread under the obligation to provide proof (even though YOU are making the argument that people were spat upon with absolutely none). I have not only provided you with a source and several reviews of that source, but I have made a very clear and simple argument that there is no evidence for the claim you are making (you have been unable to refute that with evidence from the time period).

I have told you before, if you want documentation for the Senate study or the V.A. commissioned Harris poll, you will have to buy the book, Spitting Image. It is endnoted and documented in the book.

But, you won't.

I have made my case, and made it damn well.

I leave the thread to you and the other believers in this myth to prove your case or not.


hmmm I am not in the book so i guess I do not exist...does that mean I dont have to pay taxes ????


Please say yes ...:D :D :D


WTF is it with all the naive boobs all of a sudden ?

hmmm I am not in the book so i guess I do not exist...does that mean I dont have to pay taxes ????


Please say yes ...:D :D :D


WTF is it with all the naive boobs all of a sudden ?

No, you don't. And ignore all your bills as well.

ps: I'm an American general. I killed approximately 100000000000003,3 gooks in nam. Everyone kissed my feet when I returned.

Eut,

What Special Forces Group were you in? The 5th, my stepfather was in that one during Vietnam, he was an 18B.





-LBI

Jocabia, I have been the only person in this thread under the obligation to provide proof (even though YOU are making the argument that people were spat upon with absolutely none).

Yep, except eye witness testimony by about a dozen posters that no one has refuted.

I have not only provided you with a source and several reviews of that source, but I have made a very clear and simple argument that there is no evidence for the claim you are making (you have been unable to refute that with evidence from the time period).

Hmmm... then why hasn't this 'myth' been exposed by ANYONE except a guy who couldn't even manage to get someone who read it before publishing to let him know that his basic claims are provably false? Why is it that only three people, your source, you and another poster, have been caught either contradicting themselves or simply basing their argument on false premises?

I can't provide picture of people throwing garbage at Marines leaving Camp 29 Palms, yet I clearly witnessed it regularly and any Marine who ever lived there would tell you the same. It's not a difficult task for most people who are in the military to believe that people would blame us for the actions of our government. You've seen people do it on this board. We've seen it in real life. I wasn't around during Viet Nam. I have no reason to doubt those who were. I've seen much to make it completely believable and nothing to refute the eye witness testimony of many, many military men and women.

Even your own ridiculous source claims that spitting on soldiers occurred however, apparently, it's only believable to those he agreed with.

I have told you before, if you want documentation for the Senate study or the V.A. commissioned Harris poll, you will have to buy the book, Spitting Image. It is endnoted and documented in the book.

If you can't prove the poll occurred, and you said absense of proof is proof of absense, then the poll doesn't exist.

I love how now I'm supposed to look for the source of YOUR statistics. If this poll occurred according to you evidence for it should abound.

But, you won't.

I have made my case, and made it damn well.

No, you didn't. You contradicted yourself and used a source that anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject can prove false. I don't know what you consider 'damn well', but I expect 'damn well' to include a source that can't be debunked by a cursory examination and common knowledge and to not include the basis of your argument getting ripped apart because you can't remember it.

I leave the thread to you and the other believers in this myth to prove your case or not.

Uh-huh. The typical reaction of trolls. They bring ridiculous evidence and when it gets debunked they ignore it. They keep trotting it out and once we really nail them, they 'leave the thread to [us]'.

Same old crap. Different subject.

Don't bother to refute any of the problems exposed in your argument or your source. Just keep making silly claims and getting pissed when we point out the flaws.

Quote, you said, "this is the question that comes up when i look through debunking sites that i dont know the answer to....


why were you landing at a civilian airport? did panam fly soldiers to and from vietnam?"

For someone allegedly interesting in researching to be able to debunk, you would think you would bother to read a bit....During the Vietnam War our government used commercial flights from Japan to Various West Coast Commercial Airports because it was cheaper to fly them from the west coast to Japan and then from our base on Okinawa, Japan by Military transport to their respcted duty locations in the South Pacific. They did this for duty rotations, TDY (Temporary Duty Assignment) missions, and Tour of Duty rotations, they did this both going in and out. McNamara is the one who came up with this brilliant idea, because it was cheaper to fly them commercial up to the point they were coming close to the conflict zone. The still do this for the military stationed along the DMZ in Korea. You wouldn't waste the expense of using the C-30's to haul them in and out for duty rotations, particularly the officers.

By the way, when I was a little girl we were waiting at the airport when my father came home from his third tour of duty in Vietnam and I saw him spat on, you little doubting, whiney #$% cockroach.
that was ME who asked that question

it was an honest inquiry to EUTRUSCA who, and he can correct me if i am wrong, said he took an civilian flight FROM VIETNAM to seatac.

all i asked for was a clarification.

now YOU Might want to be a bit more careful about who you are insulting and why.

This was supposedly a common occurance; so common that it is taken as a matter of faith by most Americans.


I'd really like you to support that.
Being common is not why americans take it on faith, rather, Americans generally understand the times and tensions that ran high then.

How many occurances of a vet being spat upon are you willing to grant before it is no longer "Urban Myth"??

2? 10? 50? 500? 40,000?

Fully grown men that can handle maiming, murdering, being maimed and murdered, but can't take saliva... :rolleyes:

You know, the spirits of those people at My Lai would LIKE to have been spat on, as opposed to what ACTUALLY happened to them.

And here you vets are, arguing (without evidence) that you were spat on, oh the pain, the PAIN! *sarcasm*

Grow. A. Set. Of. Balls.

Fully grown men that can handle maiming, murdering, being maimed and murdered, but can't take saliva... :rolleyes:

You know, the spirits of those people at My Lai would LIKE to have been spat on, as opposed to what ACTUALLY happened to them.

And here you vets are, arguing (without evidence) that you were spat on, oh the pain, the PAIN! *sarcasm*

Grow. A. Set. Of. Balls.

What a sound argument. Your logic is untouchable.

Those men were sent to do a job. They were misled. Be angry with our government if you like, but they are not responsible for the fact that they thought they were protecting people and were wrong.

The spitting has nothing, NOTHING to do with whether or not what they did was wrong. Amusingly, your arguments show just how angry people are and were with US soldiers. They'll sling anything they can at them. Empty accusations, garbage and if nothing else materializes, spittle isn't that hard to believe. You may not represent the majority, but you do represent the unfortunate lost souls who can't tell the difference between the liars and those lied to.

What a sound argument. Your logic is untouchable.

Those men were sent to do a job. They were misled. Be angry with our government if you like, but they are not responsible for the fact that they thought they were protecting people and were wrong.

The spitting has nothing, NOTHING to do with whether or not what they did was wrong. Amusingly, your arguments show just how angry people are and were with US soldiers. They'll sling anything they can at them. Empty accusations, garbage and if nothing else materializes, spittle isn't that hard to believe. You may not represent the majority, but you do represent the unfortunate lost souls who can't tell the difference between the liars and those lied to.

You missed the part in which I said they were also being maimed, etc, didn't you? The point is, PLEASE, grow some balls. Napalm hurts just a bit more than saliva, and I'm betting those 57,000 corpses would rather have to send their fatigues to the dry cleaner than, y'know, having gotten shrapnel through their skulls. People killed and died, and you can only find it in your hearts to discuss loogie-flinging? Please!

You missed the part in which I said they were also being maimed, etc, didn't you? The point is, PLEASE, grow some balls. Napalm hurts just a bit more than saliva, and I'm betting those 57,000 corpses would rather have to send their fatigues to the dry cleaner than, y'know, having gotten shrapnel through their skulls. People killed and died, and you can only find it in your hearts to discuss loogie-flinging? Please!

What does 'growing some balls' have to do with what we're discussing? If they'd had more balls would this be more true or false? That's what we're discussing.

Your venom embarrasses you and it's so important to you that you get a chance to express your hatred towards veterans that you don't care if the topic isn't about whether or not veterans deserved it or whether or not veterans could survive it, but whether or not it happened.

Amusingly, the best evidence for spitting being likely is the venom of people like you.

What does 'growing some balls' have to do with what we're discussing? If they'd had more balls would this be more true or false? That's what we're discussing.

Your venom embarrasses you and it's so important to you that you get a chance to express your hatred towards veterans that you don't care if the topic isn't about whether or not veterans deserved it or whether or not veterans could survive it, but whether or not it happened.

Amusingly, the best evidence for spitting being likely is the venom of people like you.

Yo! Can you READ? I'm not entering the merit of them deserving or not! I'm pointing out how idiotic it is to turn the discussion of an event in which lots of people (BOTH sides here) lost their LIVES, and all you can discuss is loogie-flinging. Or you think the 57,000 dead would like to see spit discussed, as opposed to their sacrifice?

Yo! Can you READ? I'm not entering the merit of them deserving or not! I'm pointing out how idiotic it is to turn the discussion of an event in which lots of people (BOTH sides here) lost their LIVES, and all you can discuss is loogie-flinging. Or you think the 57,000 dead would like to see spit discussed, as opposed to their sacrifice?

Yes where would anyone get the idea of venom from your posts about napalm and maiming people.

The men you talk about made a grave sacrifice dead or alive. That sacrifice should be honored and spitting or hurling garbage or insults are as much a reflection on those that sacrificed their lives as those who were fortunate enough to survive.

Yes where would anyone get the idea of venom from your posts about napalm and maiming people.

The men you talk about made a grave sacrifice dead or alive. That sacrifice should be honored and spitting or hurling garbage or insults are as much a reflection on those that sacrificed their lives as those who were fortunate enough to survive.

Oooh, I'm sorry that I offended your sensitiveness in pointing out that being burned alive by napalm is more painful than getting spat on... :rolleyes:

Will you ever forgive me?

Jocabia, I have yet to accept anyone's 'eye-witness' testimony in this thread. While that in and of itself is not a refutation, neither is it a concession. Eyewitness accounts on an anonymous internet forum are utterly without meaning.

This is getting circular and absurd. Now, either I'll be pointedly ignored for another few pages, or someone will call me a moron for not accepting that they are actually Kaiser Wilhelm and further that they were personally pelted by teenagers maliciously popping zits at them on the tarmac on their return home.

Jocabia, I have yet to accept anyone's 'eye-witness' testimony in this thread. While that in and of itself is not a refutation, neither is it a concession. Eyewitness accounts on an anonymous internet forum are utterly without meaning.

This is getting circular and absurd. Now, either I'll be pointedly ignored for another few pages, or someone will call me a moron for not accepting that they are actually Kaiser Wilhelm and further that they were personally pelted by teenagers maliciously popping zits at them on the tarmac on their return home.

Most people have actually met people who were there and experienced various levels of negative reactions. I was in the military when there were still men who had served in Viet Nam.

Which is harder to believe, that everyone here is

lying and everyone we ever encountered is lying or the person who wrote that book that advertised premises that are provably false (and given his background he would have to know better) is actually correct and just happened to be the first one to expose it DECADES later.

I agree that I, for example, could be virtually anyone. But Forrest pretty much gave everyone here enough information to find out just about anything about him if we were so inclined to do so.

Meanwhile, almost none of us have to rely on the testimony of Forrest or others. Most of us have encountered people in our lives with experiences similar to Forrest's. I told you I witnessed directly people hurling garbage at Marines during peace time when the military was fairly popular. Is it so hard to fathom that in such a tumultuous time that people lost their heads? And given then, aren't we obligated to give the eye witnesses the benefit of the doubt in the absense of more credible information?

Oooh, I'm sorry that I offended your sensitiveness in pointing out that being burned alive by napalm is more painful than getting spat on... :rolleyes:

Will you ever forgive me?

One has nothing to do with other and if you'd set aside your venom you'd see that. I'm not offended. I pity you.

One has nothing to do with other and if you'd set aside your venom you'd see that. I'm not offended. I pity you.

Oh, do relax, I also think, as I stated repeatedly but you chose to ignore, that getting hit by shrapnel, bullets, etc, as happened to the 57,000 that actually died, is a tad worse than getting spat on as well.

So, no, you don't get to paint me as a vet-hater. Just as a guy that believes spit to be less harmful than death. So there.

aren't we obligated to give the eye witnesses the benefit of the doubt in the absense of more credible information?
Not when the eye witnesses are notable for refusing to countenance an opposing point-of-view for no reason other than it is a point-of-view which runs counter to their own, and going so far as to publicly castigate those with contrary opinions. It does not lend itself to greater credibility, nor does it oblige me to grant it the benefit of doubt.

To paraphrase No. 2: "We want information". No sale.

Oh, do relax, I also think, as I stated repeatedly but you chose to ignore, that getting hit by shrapnel, bullets, etc, as happened to the 57,000 that actually died, is a tad worse than getting spat on as well.

So, no, you don't get to paint me as a vet-hater. Just as a guy that believes spit to be less harmful than death. So there.

Those that died had they found out their friends were being spat upon would likely have been upset about it as well. They all offered the same sacrifice. Some were taken. Some were not. If you wish to honor them, don't just honor the dead. THeir difference wasn't in effort or willingness, it was in outcome.

Those that died had they found out their friends were being spat upon would likely have been upset about it as well. They all offered the same sacrifice. Some were taken. Some were not. If you wish to honor them, don't just honor the dead. THeir difference wasn't in effort or willingness, it was in outcome.

Could you perhaps save a little bit of that honor for the victims as well?

Not when the eye witnesses are notable for refusing to countenance an opposing point-of-view for no reason other than it is a point-of-view which runs counter to their own, and going so far as to publicly castigate those with contrary opinions. It does not lend itself to greater credibility, nor does it oblige me to grant it the benefit of doubt.

To paraphrase No. 2: "We want information". No sale.

You may not like Forrest and he has a gift for hyperbole, but the obvious chip he has on his shoulder for protesters suggests to me something actually did happen to him. His view of them borders on obsession and I've seen few so staunch and venomous without a fear of what they can do or have done.

Meanwhile, he's not the only eyewitness accounts being offered and many are more credible than his. I'll tell you what, go anywhere and find a Marine that studied electronics in the service. Guaranteed, he lived at Stumps for a while and guaranteed he saw various things hurled at Marines at one time or another.

The evidence that these stories are more than likely is there if anyone chooses to look. The fact that even the link in the OP references people spitting on vets just, by happy coincidence, the people spitting were the people he didn't like and the people spat up were the people he did.

There are two sides to this issue and there is really only credible evidence for one side that I've ever seen. Feel free to search around for some on your own. Not on the net. Look around for servicemen and women and find out if they suffered any verbal or physical abuse at the hands of 'pacificists'. Ask people. Real people.

My father fought in Vietnam. Two tours. He was army recon, 4th Infantry, a combat medic. He fought at the Siege of LZ Oasis. Has two Purple Hearts. He doesn't say much about what happened after he came back. Though it clearly was not pleasant. I remember in particular how he said that they told him he couldn't wear his uniform in public, because it was too 'dangerous'. There are few things that I, as an American am more ashamed of than our treatment of our soldiers during and after Vietnam.

As to whether or not Vets were ever spit on, I don't know for certain, but I have little doubt it happened. I sincerely hope our soldiers in Iraq won't have to go through all that crap. They deserve better. The Vietnam vets deserved better.

Could you perhaps save a little bit of that honor for the victims as well?

These men were victims. I find it amusing you pretend you're not insulting them, then you refer to them as if they aren't victims. There was a reason there was a draft. These men were just begging to go and kill some 'gooks'.

These men were victims. I find it amusing you pretend you're not insulting them, then you refer to them as if they aren't victims. There was a reason there was a draft. These men were just begging to go and kill some 'gooks'.

Ah, so, by daring to mention that these paladins killed people, I'm making them victims - as opposed to, y'know, the people that got killed. Gotcha.

My father claims to have been hitchhiking in his uniform and having a van full of hippies pull over to spit on him and call him a baby killer, but my dad is a bit of a drama queen, so I'm really not sure if it actually happened to him or not.

My father claims to have been hitchhiking in his uniform and having a van full of hippies pull over to spit on him and call him a baby killer, but my dad is a bit of a drama queen, so I'm really not sure if it actually happened to him or not.

And the "Neither a here nor a there" post award goes to...

We've all heard the stories... Traumatized Vietnam Vets returning home to be spat upon by protesters.

This image of injustice is trotted out like clockwork whenever people argue against anti-war demonstrators.

Well... I've always thought this was pretty unlikely. In the zillions of pictures taken of war protests in the U.S. I have never seen a single instance of a veteran being spit on.

I have also never seen a documented account of any actual incident. In fact, it was until the 1980s that any of this vet-spitting was even mentioned - and that was in the wake of all the Rambo type Vietnam Vet movies that used this as a dramatic device.

I found a very interesting article that pretty much debunks the vet-spitting myth - you might like to read it:

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95

yes they were,and if i wasn't a kid when the boys came home,i would have done worse then spit on the cowardly hippie twits...being used by the communist's..laughable.

they may have had apoint,like sheehag,but you lose me at disparaging innocent victims...soldiers...and applauding asshole losers like abby hoffman...i would choke that pos as soon as spit on him.

it is 1 thing to disagree with a policy of a government..which i did,but to take it out on innocent boys that did their duty is beyond cowardly...and he fanned the flames to boot...

i hope he is rotting in some form of hell.

it is easy to smoke weed and burn your card...but some knew no better and thought they were doing right..and for this pos to play it so he could get laid/make money and be a pop culture figure is beyond the pale...

he is a worthless carpet bagger..nothing more,nothing less...and some may have believed they were doing the 'right thing'

they may have..but were also..being used by a snake oil salesman,out for his own benifit.

funny how history repeats itself.

Not when the eye witnesses are notable for refusing to countenance an opposing point-of-view for no reason other than it is a point-of-view which runs counter to their own, and going so far as to publicly castigate those with contrary opinions. It does not lend itself to greater credibility, nor does it oblige me to grant it the benefit of doubt.

To paraphrase No. 2: "We want information". No sale.


You must be joking or nuts

notable for refusing to countenance an opposing point-of-view for no reason other than it is a point-of-view which runs counter to their own,

might as well close the forum because you must be describing almost everyone on it .

Ah, so, by daring to mention that these paladins killed people, I'm making them victims - as opposed to, y'know, the people that got killed. Gotcha.

WHo said you're making them victims? Not I. I said they are victims. All of them. Do you think the only trauma one can face is death? Some who survived wished they'd died or technically did since they never really returned. War is a hard thing and if you think anyone ever fought face to face with another soldier and both weren't victims then you don't know anything about war. It's not as if most war veterans remember it like summer camp or kindergarten. It's a trauma that none should have to endure. Yes, in comparison being spit on is a small thing in comparison, but considering they were being spit upon the people they thought they were serving, well, it's just another trauma to heap on the stack.

Your lame excuses for venom is similar to suggesting rape victims aren't victims because they didn't die, or that the abuse they get in the court room or in public after they report it should be ignored because it's nothing compared to the rape itself or to be killing.

These men didn't deserve our abuse. They did what they had to in a bad time for our country. You can't honor the men who died and hurl insults and those that did not for the only difference between the two is how accurate the enemy was.

EDIT: Hyperbole suits you. I guess they can only be Paladins or beasts, huh? All I'm saying is they don't deserve to be assaulted for following the law of our country and honoring the draft.

Ah, so, by daring to mention that these paladins killed people, I'm making them victims - as opposed to, y'know, the people that got killed. Gotcha.


No actually you are just being a common asshole .

WHo said you're making them victims? Not I. I said they are victims. All of them. Do you think the only trauma one can face is death? Some who survived wished they'd died or technically did since they never really returned. War is a hard thing and if you think anyone ever fought face to face with another soldier and both weren't victims then you don't know anything about war. It's not as if most war veterans remember it like summer camp or kindergarten. It's a trauma that none should have to endure. Yes, in comparison being spit on is a small thing in comparison, but considering they were being spit upon the people they thought they were serving, well, it's just another trauma to heap on the stack.

Your lame excuses for venom is similar to suggesting rape victims aren't victims because they didn't die, or that the abuse they get in the court room or in public after they report it should be ignored because it's nothing compared to the rape itself or to be killing.

These men didn't deserve our abuse. They did what they had to in a bad time for our country. You can't honor the men who died and hurl insults and those that did not for the only difference between the two is how accurate the enemy was.

You compare me to a person that excuses rape, yet I have yet to see any compassionate remark from you regarding the actual, documented photo of a nine-year old Vietnamese girl with napalm burns all over her body, that was living peacefully in HER country when she had to run naked for her life while screaming in pain. And you keep weeping about how the soldiers were "spat upon".

No actually you are just being a common asshole .

Why? Because soldiers are such a teflon-coated species now that we have to discuss the possibility of them having been spat on, but can't discuss the fact that many of them were dead and that many attrocities took place, including, but not limited to, ones caused by them?

Why? Because soldiers are such a teflon-coated species now that we have to discuss the possibility of them having been spat on, but can't discuss the fact that many of them were dead and that many attrocities took place, including, but not limited to, ones caused by them?


go find another hole to troll in ...we already have taken into account both the nature of the war and the horror of it...and those that waged it and lived through it suffered more than you can imagine on both sides .

whats it have anything what so ever to do with how soldiers sent off to war are treated when they return home ?

You compare me to a person that excuses rape, yet I have yet to see any compassionate remark from you regarding the actual, documented photo of a nine-year old Vietnamese girl with napalm burns all over her body, that was living peacefully in HER country when she had to run naked for her life while screaming in pain. And you keep weeping about how the soldiers were "spat upon".

We aren't talking about her. But since you brought her up. She's a VICTIM. She ALSO does not deserve to be spit on. Start a thread about her and I'll tell you all about how she didn't deserve it.

Start a thread on Viet Nam and I'll tell you all about how I think we shouldn't have been there or how screwed up our government was/is. In fact, I've said that much in this thread.

However, soldiers, drafted soldiers, are not the government. They were requried by law to perform a duty and they did it. They were coerced and they were lied to. That little girl has nothing to do with whether or not these men were also victims. Keep trying to change the subject. It doesn't help your case.

You are excusing rape. According to you, if a party happened where a hold bunch of people (the governments) set it up so that hald the party got killed and the other half got raped that if I got mad at someone for spitting on the rape victim I am somehow forgetting that people died. People died. People were maimed. People suffered many traumas and some of the survived and some of them did not. And the governments involved should be ashamed. The soldiers are NOT the government.

Keep arguing. With each post, you make it more and more evident that you don't know the difference between the government and its soldiers

These soldiers endured many indignities and many of them did it thinking they would be honored when they returned home because up until that war we were all told that serving your country was a service to all its citizens. And they returned home to find that those they thought they were serving were hurling abuses, garbage, spittle at them. The men, any of those men, that suffered such abuse for a war they didn't start or encourage deserve to be outraged. And those that hurled such abused should be ashamed of themselves.

You on the other hand aren't even someone willing to stand at the gates and face those soldiers while hurling your abuses. You do it in the comfort of your chair, in your parents' house.

Why? Because soldiers are such a teflon-coated species now that we have to discuss the possibility of them having been spat on, but can't discuss the fact that many of them were dead and that many attrocities took place, including, but not limited to, ones caused by them?

That's not the topic of the thread. Hijacking is against the rules, so please attempt to stay on topic.

The dead and the maimed are not the subject or we would have to point out that many of the soldiers who returned home WERE maimed.d

You may not like Forrest and he has a gift for hyperbole, but the obvious chip he has on his shoulder for protesters suggests to me something actually did happen to him. His view of them borders on obsession and I've seen few so staunch and venomous without a fear of what they can do or have done.

Meanwhile, he's not the only eyewitness accounts being offered and many are more credible than his. I'll tell you what, go anywhere and find a Marine that studied electronics in the service. Guaranteed, he lived at Stumps for a while and guaranteed he saw various things hurled at Marines at one time or another.

The evidence that these stories are more than likely is there if anyone chooses to look. The fact that even the link in the OP references people spitting on vets just, by happy coincidence, the people spitting were the people he didn't like and the people spat up were the people he did.

There are two sides to this issue and there is really only credible evidence for one side that I've ever seen. Feel free to search around for some on your own. Not on the net. Look around for servicemen and women and find out if they suffered any verbal or physical abuse at the hands of 'pacificists'. Ask people. Real people.

outstanding!

We aren't talking about her. But since you brought her up. She's a VICTIM. She ALSO does not deserve to be spit on. Start a thread about her and I'll tell you all about how she didn't deserve it.

Start a thread on Viet Nam and I'll tell you all about how I think we shouldn't have been there or how screwed up our government was/is. In fact, I've said that much in this thread.

However, soldiers, drafted soldiers, are not the government. They were requried by law to perform a duty and they did it. They were coerced and they were lied to. That little girl has nothing to do with whether or not these men were also victims. Keep trying to change the subject. It doesn't help your case.

You are excusing rape. According to you, if a party happened where a hold bunch of people (the governments) set it up so that hald the party got killed and the other half got raped that if I got mad at someone for spitting on the rape victim I am somehow forgetting that people died. People died. People were maimed. People suffered many traumas and some of the survived and some of them did not. And the governments involved should be ashamed. The soldiers are NOT the government.

Keep arguing. With each post, you make it more and more evident that you don't know the difference between the government and its soldiers

These soldiers endured many indignities and many of them did it thinking they would be honored when they returned home because up until that war we were all told that serving your country was a service to all its citizens. And they returned home to find that those they thought they were serving were hurling abuses, garbage, spittle at them. The men, any of those men, that suffered such abuse for a war they didn't start or encourage deserve to be outraged. And those that hurled such abused should be ashamed of themselves.

You on the other hand aren't even someone willing to stand at the gates and face those soldiers while hurling your abuses. You do it in the comfort of your chair, in your parents' house.

You have no evidence that they were spat on other than old Rambo movies. All I pointed out is that it seems very, VERY moot to me to complain about "getting spat on" with everything ELSE of horrible that happened in that war. But you decided to interpret it like it suits you: Whining about how I'm a "vet-hater". Very well. You're lying, and you know that, but very well. I'll not try to have a rational discussion with you anymore, I learned my lesson, you don't argue with doors. I'm leaving.

Fully grown men that can handle maiming, murdering, being maimed and murdered, but can't take saliva... :rolleyes:

You know, the spirits of those people at My Lai would LIKE to have been spat on, as opposed to what ACTUALLY happened to them.

And here you vets are, arguing (without evidence) that you were spat on, oh the pain, the PAIN! *sarcasm*

Grow. A. Set. Of. Balls.

i take offence to your flippant attitude.

i will there fore spit in your face..but i bet you aint got the balls to fight in the jungle,then come home to being spit upon by those you lost friends with defending...your a little twerp...go have sex with your proffessor...if you buy his shit..you may pass!

oh..mai lai was a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the little kids blowing up the troops,that were forced to by the noble communists..lol..and of coarse...troops over ract and commit a massacre...and were court martialed for it...yea,thats the same as the daily dose of of terror perpetrated by the v.c.

grow up!please!

You have no evidence that they were spat on other than old Rambo movies. All I pointed out is that it seems very, VERY moot to me to complain about "getting spat on" with everything ELSE of horrible that happened in that war. But you decided to interpret it like it suits you: Whining about how I'm a "vet-hater". Very well. You're lying, and you know that, but very well. I'll not try to have a rational discussion with you anymore, I learned my lesson, you don't argue with doors. I'm leaving.

As I pointed out earlier. The trolls always pull the "I'm leaving because you won't accept me" card. I'm unimpressed. You're not even the first one to pull that card tonight... in THIS thread. "Quick, he's starting to catch on and nail me on my crap. What do I do? .... I know. I'll tell him I'm leaving."

Yes, there was lots of things that went on in that war. The men we are discussing were forced to endure and bear witness to much of it and for their troubles got to face the likes of you, spewing venom and, at times, saliva because you were not clearminded enough to focus your venom at the actual culprits rather than more of the victims. It's a common problem, but I don't have much patience for it.

I like how you put a term in quotes that no one ever used as if you're quoting something someone called you. You, however, did insinuate that the vets who lived were not victims, an obvious falsehood. You did insinuate that what that girl went through is the fault of all of these veterans, an obvious falsehood. Your agenda is clear.

Meanwhile, I have a lot of evidence. I have met veterans who were victims verbal and physical assault. I have met many eye witnesses. I have seen with my own two eyes civilians hurling garbage at Marines at a time where things between civilians and the military were MUCH less tense. All evidence I have seen supports the idea of spitting and you're obvious inability to seperate the soldiers from the government shows that there are people all too ready to hold soldiers at fault for the actions of their government. Thank you for being the best evidence I could ever present.

There you go. Don't like the facts? Ignore them.

Those aren't facts, they're an author's opinion.

i take offence to your flippant attitude.

i will there fore spit in your face..but i bet you aint got the balls to fight in the jungle,then come home to being spit upon by those you lost friends with defending...your a little twerp...go have sex with your proffessor...if you buy his shit..you may pass!

oh..mai lai was a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the little kids blowing up the troops,that were forced to by the noble communists..lol..and of coarse...troops over ract and commit a massacre...and were court martialed for it...yea,thats the same as the daily dose of of terror perpetrated by the v.c.

grow up!please!



yeah I'd like to see just half of the people in hear talking shit even ATTEMPT to go up agiasnt a VietCong without shitting in thier pants.... I bet they are the kind of people who like to sit behind desks, with nice chairs, and their "climate control"... they have no idea what real problems are like until they have to use another human beings body as "bullet control" when that body was once their living, breathing best freind.

yeah I'd like to see just half of the people in hear talking shit even ATTEMPT to go up agiasnt a VietCong without shitting in thier pants.... I bet they are the kind of people who like to sit behind desks, with nice chairs, and their "climate control"... they have no idea what real problems are like until they have to use another human beings body as "bullet control" when that body was once their living, breathing best freind.

Listen up to see if you perchance can understand it. If you don't know what "perchance" means, get a dictionary. I would not go against a Vietcong because I feel no need to go attack people in a random country to fight illusionary threats. And using other people as bullet shields is the kind of things that terrorists would do. Are you really comparing soldiers to terrorists now?

As I pointed out earlier. The trolls always pull the "I'm leaving because you won't accept me" card. I'm unimpressed. You're not even the first one to pull that card tonight... in THIS thread. "Quick, he's starting to catch on and nail me on my crap. What do I do? .... I know. I'll tell him I'm leaving."

Actually, repeating a point to see if you get it gets boring after a while, and it was 2 AM here.

Yes, there was lots of things that went on in that war. The men we are discussing were forced to endure and bear witness to much of it and for their troubles got to face the likes of you, spewing venom and, at times, saliva because you were not clearminded enough to focus your venom at the actual culprits rather than more of the victims. It's a common problem, but I don't have much patience for it.

You ignored, for the Nth time, my pointing out that what the SOLDIERS THEMSELVES went through is also worse than saliva.

I like how you put a term in quotes that no one ever used as if you're quoting something someone called you. You, however, did insinuate that the vets who lived were not victims, an obvious falsehood. You did insinuate that what that girl went through is the fault of all of these veterans, an obvious falsehood. Your agenda is clear.

It's funny how you accuse me of something I never said here, then claim I should not act as if you had called me things you did insinuate I am.

Meanwhile, I have a lot of evidence. I have met veterans who were victims verbal and physical assault. I have met many eye witnesses. I have seen with my own two eyes civilians hurling garbage at Marines at a time where things between civilians and the military were MUCH less tense. All evidence I have seen supports the idea of spitting and you're obvious inability to seperate the soldiers from the government shows that there are people all too ready to hold soldiers at fault for the actions of their government. Thank you for being the best evidence I could ever present.

Go use someone else as your argumentative crutch. I said nothing of the kind you claim I did. But it's understandable: You LACK evidence, and thus decide to twist my words in an attempt to produce some.

i take offence to your flippant attitude.

i will there fore spit in your face..but i bet you aint got the balls to fight in the jungle,then come home to being spit upon by those you lost friends with defending...your a little twerp...go have sex with your proffessor...if you buy his shit..you may pass!

My "flippant attitude"? Cute, but not only I'm pointing out that the vets went through more serious stuff than saliva, you also just showed you have no idea what "flippant" means. Go have sex with your mother. And I have no need of ever having relations with my professors to pass, but you probably had. That was me upping the ante on claims about sex lives.

oh..mai lai was a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the little kids blowing up the troops,that were forced to by the noble communists..lol..and of coarse...troops over ract and commit a massacre...and were court martialed for it...yea,thats the same as the daily dose of of terror perpetrated by the v.c.

grow up!please!

My Lai was an example. I could also point out the 57,000 dead people as an example of atrocity they went through, and I DID point that out. You chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your views.

Actually, repeating a point to see if you get it gets boring after a while, and it was 2 AM here.

Especially when your having trouble logically supporting it.

You ignored, for the Nth time, my pointing out that what the SOLDIERS THEMSELVES went through is also worse than saliva.

Really? So you didn't imply the SOLDIERS are not victims. Let's see if you did or didn't.

Could you perhaps save a little bit of that honor for the victims as well?

Ah, the magic of the quote function. Since we were talking about SOLDIERS, you certainly couldn't be saying that the soldiers we were discussing were also victims. I didn't say you were a 'vet-hater'. You just made that up. You seem to very much respect the ones that died. However, according to you if you were lucky enough to live you don't deserve the modicum of respect it takes not to be spit upon. And if you were spit upon, we shouldn't care becuase some people had it worse. Bullocks.

It's funny how you accuse me of something I never said here, then claim I should not act as if you had called me things you did insinuate I am.

I never once accused you of being a vet-hater. I said you were full of venom, something that can be found in many of your posts. What is one supposed to think when the first thing that pops out of your mouth when we talk about the veterans, the ones who lived, you bring up napalm and how people suffered because of it and directly blame it on those veterans? What is one supposed to think when you keep saying how they aren't victims? You very clearly say in those statements that you think the veterans deserved it. Try and pretend otherwise, but if you were trying to say something other than that, you have a great deal of difficulty communicating.

Example:
Jimmy: Do you think John deserved to die?
Joe: He tortured and maimed children.
Jimmy: I can't believe you think John deserved to die.
Joe: I NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Go use someone else as your argumentative crutch. I said nothing of the kind you claim I did. But it's understandable: You LACK evidence, and thus decide to twist my words in an attempt to produce some.

Ha. Twist your words. I'll tell you what. No 'twisting'. I'll just use that quote function.

Those that died had they found out their friends were being spat upon would likely have been upset about it as well. They all offered the same sacrifice. Some were taken. Some were not. If you wish to honor them, don't just honor the dead. THeir difference wasn't in effort or willingness, it was in outcome.
Could you perhaps save a little bit of that honor for the victims as well?

Oooh, I'm sorry that I offended your sensitiveness in pointing out that being burned alive by napalm is more painful than getting spat on...

Will you ever forgive me?

Fully grown men that can handle maiming, murdering, being maimed and murdered, but can't take saliva...

You know, the spirits of those people at My Lai would LIKE to have been spat on, as opposed to what ACTUALLY happened to them.

And here you vets are, arguing (without evidence) that you were spat on, oh the pain, the PAIN! *sarcasm*

Grow. A. Set. Of. Balls.

You compare me to a person that excuses rape, yet I have yet to see any compassionate remark from you regarding the actual, documented photo of a nine-year old Vietnamese girl with napalm burns all over her body, that was living peacefully in HER country when she had to run naked for her life while screaming in pain. And you keep weeping about how the soldiers were "spat upon".

Why? Because soldiers are such a teflon-coated species now that we have to discuss the possibility of them having been spat on, but can't discuss the fact that many of them were dead and that many attrocities took place, including, but not limited to, ones caused by them?

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

Oh, just drop it already. You haven't persuaded anyone, Jocabia. Oh, and incidentally - I've personally known veterans from the First and Second World Wars, Korea, and had childhood friends who served and were injured in Bosnia-Hercegovina - and not a one of them - mark my words, Jocabia, not a one - tries handing young people a great big fat Hemingwayesque line that fighting in a war is some sort of an ennobling, hetero-male-bonding group encounter experience, unlike some fatuous bastards with ludicrous post counts are noted for on these fora.

Uniformly, and across multiple generations of veterans I have known personally, comes this one message: armed conflict has never been, nor should it ever be, considered over diplomacy as a viable or even reasonable solution to differences of opinion or policy.

That being said, I can't back up my assertions that this is indeed the point-of-view of... let's see now - nine veterans in all - but seeing as you're so heavily into vouchsafing on behalf of third parties, Jocabia no doubt you'll accept the views of the veterans I've known as truthful.

And further, were you to take the time to get to know veterans - not these frothing-at-the-mouth types who feel hard done by for not being elevated above the likes of their fellow citizens three decades ago, not the people who, mysteriously enough, soft-sell the horrors of warfare in some utterly fucked-up bid to persuade (recruit?) youth as to the virtues of promulgating war as a viable means to resolving conflict, perhaps you'd find that far from being hardened warriors, these men value peace above all - and would move Heaven and Earth to try to dissuade youngsters from taking up arms, Jocabia. They didn't fight and sacrifice in their time in order to see their children and grandchildren throw away their lives in defense of scraps of cloth. They did it because they felt constrained to do so by the events of the time - something that seems to be lost on the self-aggrandizing veterans who haunt this place.

Why do American veterans of the Vietnam war of decades past seek to damage future generations of young Americans with their self-serving lies in the present-day?

I've personally known veterans from the First and Second World Wars, Korea, and had childhood friends who served and were injured in Bosnia-Hercegovina - and not a one of them - mark my words, Jocabia, not a one - tries handing young people a great big fat Hemingwayesque line that fighting in a war is some sort of an ennobling, hetero-male-bonding group encounter experience, unlike some fatuous bastards with ludicrous post counts are noted for on these fora.

Never said it was ennobling. Just said that I quite enjoyed it. And it is a male bonding experience for all the soldiers I've known.

Not a one of the ones I've known (including my father who fought in Korea, and others I've known from the Vietnam War, and all the ones I've served with) thought that war is something that should be avoided at all costs. Most think it's a necessary thing from time to time, and there must be people willing to step up and do it. A fair number of the people I served with in the 1991 Gulf War have gone back for at least one stint as private security contractor - they really enjoy the work, whether it's providing actual armed force or training Iraqi police, or guarding high level Iraqi politicians.

No, it's nothing like the movies - no strains of the Star Spangled Banner playing over the sound of automatic weapons fire - but it isn't something that "all" soldiers find as something to avoid.

So instead of a noble fight for a cause and belief, it's something to do because they like feeling self-important and the ability to shoot at stuff.
Today's war has been brought to you by - warhawks, starting pointless shit since 1801.

So instead of a noble fight for a cause and belief, it's something to because they like feeling self-important and the ability to shoot at stuff.

No, because they enjoy the bonding you feel with people who are under fire with you.

Some of them feel they're doing good, too. But not in the sense that they're saving the world. Just doing good.

Since Katganistan posted in this thread round about page 7 or thereabouts, we have had lots of gems, including (but not limited to!)...

Seeing as most liberals and anti-war protesters are nothing but a bunch of childish pricks who have no idea what the real world is like and have no respect for, well, anyone, I find the spit-stories extremely easy to believe.
You can call anything you like bullshit, but where I'm from, calling a man a liar to his face will usually result in immediate and severe bodily harm. You, unfortunately, are protected by the Internet.
Hey dumbass! What part of "eyewitness testimony" DON'T you understand???
You know what? Whether you, or any of the other idiots on here "trust" me or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. The only reason I even got into this damned "discussion" was to protect the honor of my brothers. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about any of you morons. Your opinions of me, my brothers, the Vietnam War, Iraq, the American military, or virtually anything else rank so far down my list of priorities as to be virtually invisible, somewhere below watching pond scum form.
I think you would very much like to believe it never happened, because you desperately want to go spit on a soldier now.
By the way, when I was a little girl we were waiting at the airport when my father came home from his third tour of duty in Vietnam and I saw him spat on, you little doubting, whiney #$% cockroach.
No actually you are just being a common asshole .

Let's see a show of hands, who wants this thread to die and a stack of weekend forum bans handed out?

I do not ask you to show respect to each other, but you will show tolerance.

Conceptually, the OP should have known that it would enrage quite a few people. And I therefore should not have responded at all.

So I am chilling out...

Since Katganistan posted in this thread round about page 7 or thereabouts, we have had lots of gems, including (but not limited to!)...


Let's see a show of hands, who wants this thread to die and a stack of weekend forum bans handed out?

I do not ask you to show respect to each other, but you will show tolerance.
Oh come on, while Kimchi's reply was childish and some sort of fallacy or other, it was pure gold, Johhny, gold!

It's just that no-one has to go all the way to 'asshole' and 'cockroach' to make it obvious they don't agree with someone's perceptions. People disagree with each others' politics all the time here, I certainly do, but I tend to go for put-downs a bit more subtle than comparisons to pond scum.

Aim higher. ;)

It's just that no-one has to go all the way to 'asshole' and 'cockroach' to make it obvious they don't agree with someone's perceptions. People disagree with each others' politics all the time here, I certainly do, but I tend to go for put-downs a bit more subtle than comparisons to pond scum.

Aim higher. ;)

*Shrugs*

I was one of the most polite here, yet people keep saying completely crazy stuff at me.

For the record: I still think that, when you come home sans an arm, being spat upon is at a very low place in the priority list. But, hey, that's just me being, y'know, sane.

For the record: I still think that, when you come home sans an arm, being spat upon is at a very low place in the priority list. But, hey, that's just me being, y'know, sane.

Unless being spat upon means that everything that you thought to fight for was a lie. Yeah, I'd say that telling that person they lost their arm for nothing via spittle is pretty harsh indeed. By your logic, spitting on someone isn't a big deal as long as the person you're spitting on has something worse to worry about. Of all the people and all the times to spit upon someone, spitting on someone who is already suffering is friggin' low. Stop pretending like you're really being sensitive to their larger problems. I believe what you told them to do was "grow.some.balls."

My Father once told me that at the University of Oregon (where he went in the late 70s) no military men would dare wear their uniforms on the campus.

I asked why?

My dad told me. Because they were beat up.

He mentioned this to me after seeing ROTC students in uniform on my college campus.

I don't think this is a myth, people have treated vets very badly, they don't quite understand that we owe our freedom to people who are willing to fight for our freedom.

Unless being spat upon means that everything that you thought to fight for was a lie. Yeah, I'd say that telling that person they lost their arm for nothing via spittle is pretty harsh indeed. By your logic, spitting on someone isn't a big deal as long as the person you're spitting on has something worse to worry about. Of all the people and all the times to spit upon someone, spitting on someone who is already suffering is friggin' low. Stop pretending like you're really being sensitive to their larger problems. I believe what you told them to do was "grow.some.balls."

Actually, I believe I told YOU to do it, as I'm fairly certain most veterans that came home in wheelchairs worried more at the time about running out of limbs than about the reactions of the people, including but not limited to via spittle. If they got more worried about spit than about what they did, wouldn't that tell they cared more about spit than about what they did? And since caring is assigning importance, would it really be a nice thing to say about soldiers that they care more about being spat on than about shooting at people or being shot at? Losing limbs or causing loss of limbs? Do you REALLY think the vets cared more about the reaction of others than about this? Your country, yout culture, but it's still really, really strange.

My Father once told me that at the University of Oregon (where he went in the late 70s) no military men would dare wear their uniforms on the campus.

I asked why?

My dad told me. Because they were beat up.

He mentioned this to me after seeing ROTC students in uniform on my college campus.

I don't think this is a myth, people have treated vets very badly, they don't quite understand that we owe our freedom to people who are willing to fight for our freedom.

I am against attacking soldiers. That said: Like Iraq, Vietnam was not a grandiose fight for freedom, and it's about time some people stopped pretending it was.

I am against attacking soldiers. That said: Like Iraq, Vietnam was not a grandiose fight for freedom, and it's about time some people stopped pretending it was.

Who is pretending that it was? No one. What it was and wasn't about has nothing to do with the amount of respect a soldier deserves. If you want to talk about what that war was, focus your ire on the government.

Can you please tell me who has been treating Vietnam like a gradiose fight for freedom? Who is this massive group of people you are trying to correct? I haven't met them.

Can you please tell me who has been treating Vietnam like a gradiose fight for freedom?
I haven't met them.
Presumably, the people who were surprised to find that on the homefront, no-one was buying into the idea that the soldiers fighting in Vietnam were doing so in order to safeguard Americans or protect the Consitution of the United States.

*edit: and I thought you didn't need to meet them to show them your unswerving, erm... 'respect', Jocabia.

Actually, I believe I told YOU to do it, as I'm fairly certain most veterans that came home in wheelchairs worried more at the time about running out of limbs than about the reactions of the people, including but not limited to via spittle.

Hmmm... really? Perhaps you should ask them. They will tell you that the reaction of the people often took the last thing they had left to cling to. Nothing we could have done after the fact could give them back their limbs. However, we could have let them have our respect and their own. Instead people hurled insults, garbage and the occasional loogie.

If they got more worried about spit than about what they did, wouldn't that tell they cared more about spit than about what they did? And since caring is assigning importance, would it really be a nice thing to say about soldiers that they care more about being spat on than about shooting at people or being shot at? Losing limbs or causing loss of limbs? Do you REALLY think the vets cared more about the reaction of others than about this? Your country, yout culture, but it's still really, really strange.
Who said anything about more? It's not the topic here. Those men have to deal with what went on in Nam for the rest of their lives. If they lost friends, limbs, etc. there is nothing they can do to change that. However, they're not on here bragging about how wonderful killing and maiming people was, but people are here telling them that what they endured when they got home didn't happen and insinuating they deserved it. That's why we're talking about this. You want to change the subject to anything but simply being straight about what you're saying. And what you're saying is clear no matter how much try to obscure it.

Seriously, you're ridiculous. So if some conservative spit on people at a funeral for a gay man and one of those people were talking about it angrily, what would you say? "Grow.Some.Balls. A man died. What kind of priorities do you have that you care about getting spit on?"

Absurd, thy name is Heikoku.

Presumably, the people who were surprised to find that on the homefront, no-one was buying into the idea that the soldiers fighting in Vietnam were doing so in order to safeguard Americans or protect the Consitution of the United States.

*edit: and I thought you didn't need to meet them to show them your unswerving, erm... 'respect', Jocabia.

We're not talking about then. We're talking about now. Who is arguing now that Vietnam was a fight to protect our freedom or our constitution?

it's about time some people stopped pretending it was.

Unless that's a quote from 35+ years ago, I'm pretty sure he was saying that people still think it today.

Oh, just drop it already. You haven't persuaded anyone, Jocabia. Oh, and incidentally - I've personally known veterans from the First and Second World Wars, Korea, and had childhood friends who served and were injured in Bosnia-Hercegovina - and not a one of them - mark my words, Jocabia, not a one - tries handing young people a great big fat Hemingwayesque line that fighting in a war is some sort of an ennobling, hetero-male-bonding group encounter experience, unlike some fatuous bastards with ludicrous post counts are noted for on these fora.

Yes, I said it was enobling. Well, unless, you read what I said. It's not some group bonding experience. It's a horror. I believe I said exactly that. Let's check.

These soldiers endured many indignities (EDIT: Note how I said they suffered. I didn't romanticize conflict) and many of them did it thinking they would be honored when they returned home because up until that war we were all told that serving your country was a service to all its citizens. And they returned home to find that those they thought they were serving were hurling abuses, garbage, spittle at them. The men, any of those men, that suffered such abuse for a war they didn't start or encourage deserve to be outraged. And those that hurled such abused should be ashamed of themselves.

Yeah, that matches up with your claims. Let's see what else I said.

Some who survived wished they'd died or technically did since they never really returned. War is a hard thing and if you think anyone ever fought face to face with another soldier and both weren't victims then you don't know anything about war. It's not as if most war veterans remember it like summer camp or kindergarten. It's a trauma that none should have to endure. Yes, in comparison being spit on is a small thing in comparison, but considering they were being spit upon the people they thought they were serving, well, it's just another trauma to heap on the stack.

Yeah, perhaps next time you should actually read what I said. I actually said it wasn't like male-bonding experience in the above quote. I put as traumatic and awful. But, hey, perhaps if you call people fatuous bastards, that will help your argument. Certainly, logic isn't supporting it.

Uniformly, and across multiple generations of veterans I have known personally, comes this one message: armed conflict has never been, nor should it ever be, considered over diplomacy as a viable or even reasonable solution to differences of opinion or policy.

What does that have to do with the point? I said this was a terrible war. Find me, anywhere, suggesting war is a better solution to diplomacy? You suck at this. I never defended the government. I defended the soldiers. I said the government deserves peoples' ire. I'm pretty sure I said it explicitly. But, again, you're not actually reading my posts, so....

That being said, I can't back up my assertions that this is indeed the point-of-view of... let's see now - nine veterans in all - but seeing as you're so heavily into vouchsafing on behalf of third parties, Jocabia no doubt you'll accept the views of the veterans I've known as truthful.

Nine veterans? Wow, that's a lot. And all of them told you that they never saw anyone mistreating a veteran? That's the topic. You didn't mention their opinion on the subject. Ask them if they think these events were likely or if the soldiers deserved the treatment.

And further, were you to take the time to get to know veterans - not these frothing-at-the-mouth types who feel hard done by for not being elevated above the likes of their fellow citizens three decades ago, not the people who, mysteriously enough, soft-sell the horrors of warfare in some utterly fucked-up bid to persuade (recruit?) youth as to the virtues of promulgating war as a viable means to resolving conflict, perhaps you'd find that far from being hardened warriors, these men value peace above all - and would move Heaven and Earth to try to dissuade youngsters from taking up arms, Jocabia. They didn't fight and sacrifice in their time in order to see their children and grandchildren throw away their lives in defense of scraps of cloth. They did it because they felt constrained to do so by the events of the time - something that seems to be lost on the self-aggrandizing veterans who haunt this place.

Golly, I should take some time to get to know a few veterans. Eight years in the military and I didn't encounter a single one, I suppose. Two years at the VA. My father. My grandfather. My uncles. My brother. Me. Gosh, I better go out and find myself nine. I don't believe that soldiers should get special rights. I don't think you deserve to be spit upon either. And in threads like the one arguing for people to not be allowed to protest soldier's funerals I said explicitly that soldiers do not deserve special rights. They do deserve to not bear assault because people are mad at the government. In another thread recently I said that the amendment to ban flag-burning is an assault on rights. You need to keep your posters straight or perhaps only reply to what they actually say. This nonsense is embarrassing for both of us. You for writing it and me for being arsed to reply to this drivel.

Why do American veterans of the Vietnam war of decades past seek to damage future generations of young Americans with their self-serving lies in the present-day?
Wow, that's quite a rant. Has nothing to do with the topic or what I said, but, hey, don't let that get in your way.

Seriously, you're ridiculous. So if some conservative spit on people at a funeral for a gay man and one of those people were talking about it angrily, what would you say? "Grow.Some.Balls. A man died. What kind of priorities do you have that you care about getting spit on?"

Absurd, thy name is Heikoku.

Actually, if the guy had died in the hands of neocons that walked after the trial and people whined - years after the funeral - about him being spat on in it, yes, my reaction would be: What kind of priorities do you have that you care about getting spit on, as opposed to the murder and trauma?

If you think it absurd, suit yourself.

Who is pretending that it was? No one. What it was and wasn't about has nothing to do with the amount of respect a soldier deserves. If you want to talk about what that war was, focus your ire on the government.

Can you please tell me who has been treating Vietnam like a gradiose fight for freedom? Who is this massive group of people you are trying to correct? I haven't met them.

KKK: " they don't quite understand that we owe our freedom to people who are willing to fight for our freedom."

I was answering HIM, but, since you ask...

Since Katganistan posted in this thread round about page 7 or thereabouts, we have had lots of gems, including (but not limited to!)...

Let's see a show of hands, who wants this thread to die and a stack of weekend forum bans handed out?

I do not ask you to show respect to each other, but you will show tolerance.

*raises her hand*

i dont want a stack of forum bans handed out since everyone here is a big boy and hasnt been mortally insulted.

but i sure would like this thread to die. its gone way past its topic and has degenerated into "you said", "nu-uh", "did too", "did not" over and over again.

KKK: " they don't quite understand that we owe our freedom to people who are willing to fight for our freedom."

I was answering HIM, but, since you ask...

They are willing =/= every war is about freedom or even that war is about freedom.

Most soldiers join up in wartime out of a willingness to stand for our ideals and to protect freedom. Whether they actually do end up doing that is another story, but that's generally the selling point. That fits perfectly in with the quoted statement, while it does not indicate anything like what you tried to bastardize it into.

Still waiting for you to show where anyone said THAT war was a 'grandiose battle for freedom'. Shouldn't take you long.

Actually, if the guy had died in the hands of neocons that walked after the trial and people whined - years after the funeral - about him being spat on in it, yes, my reaction would be: What kind of priorities do you have that you care about getting spit on, as opposed to the murder and trauma?

If you think it absurd, suit yourself.

We're not talking about individual events, so such things are unnecessary. Many attrocities were committed during that war. Assaulting soldiers for honoring the draft as they return home as a result of misplaced blame is one of them and it's not worthy of ignoring despite your nonsense. As is often said, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. There seems to be a near complete agreement that Vietnam was a mistake. There is no need to argue that at this point. However, people keep on repeating the mistakes that lead to soldiers not only suffering on the battlefield but assaulted upon returning home. You may think soldiers be assaulted because they honored their legal duty in the draft is something we should remember in hopes of not repeating again.

When you show that a discussion about Vietnam being a mistake goes on for a few dozen pages with the majority of posters acting like it's good that people died or that the government made such a collosal mistake then I'll be there too arguing that. But right now all I see is a bunch of posters telling veterans to 'Grow.Some.Balls' and suggesting they deserved to be spat upon, all the while calling them liars.