When I was in my late teens sweating out Nam and the draft

[MikeK]

"Like we didn't dishonor our Nation by eventually turning tail as we did?"

Exactly my point. And that decision was heavily influenced by protestors such as yourself.

"You are still talking about Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese on Vietnam's soil! Regardless of the motivation that was a civil war!"

Still wrong. South Vietnam was an independent nation formally recognized as such by many nations including the US. What part of that do you have a problem understanding?

"And please don't disregard the fact that the alternative was pursuit into Cambodia which would have triggered a full-scale hot war with China and the Soviet Union. So that idea is just thoughtless nonsense."

Wrong again (at least you're consistent).
Me and some of my closest friends during our "vacasion" in Cambodia May '70 (it was in all the papers):

And, no, neither the USSR nor the PRC came out to play any more than what the already were.

Maybe you think potentially escalating that unnecessary debacle into a possible nuclear exchange was a good idea but I don't. All I have to say to you is you are damn lucky you came out of Vietnam alive and intact.

What did we gain from all of it? And what did we lose? Do you actually believe you were defending America in Vietnam? In case you do I have news for you. For the vast majority of Americans you were an afterthought. And if it were not for the protest movement a hell of a lot more Americans, possibly including you, might not have made it home.

 

[there4eyeM]

Walter Cronkite, that well-known commie sympathizer, sided with those terrible protesters just to bring down America. Is that the conclusion?

What is the Tea Party doing but protesting against policies it feels are wrong and for what they want?

That is what half the country was doing during Vietnam. Those who chose to enter military service made that choice. It was one choice. There were other choices. Any American might have made his/her choice with the sincere feeling it was to improve and help America.

 

[The Gadfly]

"Like we didn't dishonor our Nation by eventually turning tail as we did?"

Exactly my point. And that decision was heavily influenced by protestors such as yourself.

"You are still talking about Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese on Vietnam's soil! Regardless of the motivation that was a civil war!"

Still wrong. South Vietnam was an independent nation formally recognized as such by many nations including the US. What part of that do you have a problem understanding?

"And please don't disregard the fact that the alternative was pursuit into Cambodia which would have triggered a full-scale hot war with China and the Soviet Union. So that idea is just thoughtless nonsense."

Wrong again (at least you're consistent).
Me and some of my closest friends during our "vacasion" in Cambodia May '70 (it was in all the papers):

And, no, neither the USSR nor the PRC came out to play any more than what the already were.

Maybe you think potentially escalating that unnecessary debacle into a possible nuclear exchange was a good idea but I don't. All I have to say to you is you are damn lucky you came out of Vietnam alive and intact.

What did we gain from all of it? And what did we lose? Do you actually believe you were defending America in Vietnam? In case you do I have news for you. For the vast majority of Americans you were an afterthought. And if it were not for the protest movement a hell of a lot more Americans, possibly including you, might not have made it home.

Oh, Good Lord, the hyperbole in that! First of all, there was little risk of any "nuclear exchange" ; the PRC COULDN'T do it, and the Soviets were not about to commit national suicide for Uncle Ho, so we could have done a LOT more; bringing up the "nuclear war" boogeyman in this instance is (and was) complete poppycock!

Yes, we know we are damn lucky; ANY soldier who comes out of ANY war alive and intact is damn lucky. In combat anywhere, anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing; trite but true.

As for defending America, I believe we did just that. What we did in Vietnam made other Soviet proxies think twice about engaging in "wars of national liberation", which not only set back the Soviet strategy of achieving global domination by such proxy wars, but probably saved other countries from South Vietnam's fate. My fellow vets and I are well aware that the majority of our fellow citizens, blissfully going on with life as usual at the time, did not give much thought to this, or care enough to support us. We were not fighting for glory or gratitude; we knew the job we were ordered to do, and we did it. As for being grateful to your little "movement", screw your "movement"-I did my full tour, and made it home, IN SPITE of people like you giving aid, comfort and encouragement to the enemy, NOT because of it! Do excuse me for not being grateful for your non-support.

 

[The Gadfly]

Walter Cronkite, that well-known commie sympathizer, sided with those terrible protesters just to bring down America. Is that the conclusion?

What is the Tea Party doing but protesting against policies it feels are wrong and for what they want?

That is what half the country was doing during Vietnam. Those who chose to enter military service made that choice. It was one choice. There were other choices. Any American might have made his/her choice with the sincere feeling it was to improve and help America.

No; I think that a lot of "journalists", Uncle Walter included, were far more concerned with making the news rather than just reporting it, and with selling ratings and winning prizes than with telling the truth. As for the protestors, many of them were avowed communists and wannabe communist revolutionaries (just ask Bill Ayers and his wife, self-declared communists to this day!), and many of the remainder were simply cowards, like Bill "My main purpose was to protect myself from physical harm..." Clinton. There's protest, and then, there's actively supporting an armed enemy of the United States, chanting enemy slogans, and waving the enemy flag-both were common among the anti-war movement, and are well-documented; don't even try to deny that, or claim "it's an urban myth" like so many on your side do now with regard to cursing and spitting on soldiers in uniform; those of us who witnessed it know better.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Spent a great deal of time over there with this song playing in my head:

 

[MikeK]

Walter Cronkite, that well-known commie sympathizer, sided with those terrible protesters just to bring down America. Is that the conclusion?

What is the Tea Party doing but protesting against policies it feels are wrong and for what they want?

That is what half the country was doing during Vietnam. Those who chose to enter military service made that choice. It was one choice. There were other choices. Any American might have made his/her choice with the sincere feeling it was to improve and help America.

No; I think that a lot of "journalists", Uncle Walter included, were far more concerned with making the news rather than just reporting it, and with selling ratings and winning prizes than with telling the truth. As for the protestors, many of them were avowed communists and wannabe communist revolutionaries (just ask Bill Ayers and his wife, self-declared communists to this day!), and many of the remainder were simply cowards, like Bill "My main purpose was to protect myself from physical harm..." Clinton. There's protest, and then, there's actively supporting an armed enemy of the United States, chanting enemy slogans, and waving the enemy flag-both were common among the anti-war movement, and are well-documented; don't even try to deny that, or claim "it's an urban myth" like so many on your side do now with regard to cursing and spitting on soldiers in uniform; those of us who witnessed it know better.

First, the more radical expressions of the anti-War movement did not arise until such events as the My Lai Massacre became publicized. A segment of the public were strongly offended at such things taking place in the name of America. You never saw those radical demonstrations, which represented the smallest segment of the Movement, before those absolutely insane events were reported. Not only was there no good reason for our presence in Vietnam, things like that were taking place. So don't blame the anti-War Movement for its reactive radicalism.

Last, there have been numerous in-depth inquiries, including one by the FBI, into the myth of Vietnam vets being spat on and the conclusion is it is totally unfounded. Bullshit, in other words.

Now, I'll ask you, were you ever spat on? If so, what did you do about it? Or did you ever see a vet being spat on? If so, what did you do about it?

The following is an excerpt from a book written by a sociologist who investigated the spitting myth:

Spitting on the Troops: Old Myth, New Rumors
By Jerry Lembcke:

The largest anti-war movement in American history emerged during the weeks leading up to the attack on Iraq. Capped by massive rallies in Washington, DC on January 18 and New York City on February 15, the movement spanned generations and united diverse political interests to degrees that surprised participants and pundits alike.

As the war against Iraq commenced, however, public opinion began to shift. The surprisingly favorable coverage given protests in the weeks leading to the bombing of Baghdad on March 19 gave way to evening news reports about the growing numbers of people turning out for demonstrations and vigils to "support our troops." The nightly-news footage of parents and neighbors distraught over their loved ones' deployment to the danger zone testified to the emotional wreckage left on the homefront when troops ship off to war. At the same time, whatever the intent and stated purpose of the public musterings for the troops, the reality was that they were viewed with skepticism by many observers as thinly-veiled pep rallies for the war policy of the Bush administration.

There is still another layer to the pro-troop rhetoric that has escaped commentary, however. Implicit in it is the assumption that someone doesn't support the men and women in uniform. Behind that supposition lurk the myths and legends of homefront betrayal that have bedeviled American political culture since the Vietnam War, and which have been resuscitated recently by rumors of hostility toward military personnel.

By early April, stories were circulating in several US cities about uniformed military personnel being spat on or otherwise mistreated. In Asheville, North Carolina, two Marines were rumored to have been spat upon, while in Spokane, Washington, a threat to "spit on the troops when they return from Iraq" was reportedly issued. In Burlington, Vermont, a leader of the state National Guard told local television, "We've had some spitting incidents," and then claimed one of his Guardswomen had been stoned by anti-war teenagers.

Upon further investigation, none of the stories panned out - the Spokane "threat" stemmed from the misreading of a letter in the local paper promising that opponents of the war would not spit on returning soldiers - and yet, in each case the rumors were used to stoke pro-war rallies.

Many of the current stories are accompanied by stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans. The recent story of spitting in Asheville, for example, was traced to a local businessman who says he is a veteran who was also spat upon and called a "baby killer" when he returned from Vietnam. An Associated Press story of April 9 reported stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans surfacing in several cities including Spicer, Minnesota whose mayor said he was spat upon in the San Francisco airport while coming home from Vietnam in 1971.

Similar stories became quite popular during the Gulf War of 1991 which raised my curiosity about where they came from and why they were believed. There is nothing in the historical record - news or police reports, for example - suggesting they really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men - some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of.

The facsimiles of spat-upon veteran stories that are surfacing now confuse the public dialogue surrounding the war. Debate about the war itself and the politics that got us into it is being displaced by the phony issue of who supports the troops. Everyone supports the troops and wishes them a safe and speedy homecoming. It's the mission they have been sent on that is dividing the nation and it is the mission that we have a right and obligation to question.

The "support the troops" symbolism also comes with a hidden agenda, a subtext that is about the anti-war movement. Understandably, the war brings a lot of emotion to the surface and some of that feeling stems from frustration with the economy, a sense of helplessness in the face of large-scale social and technological change, and fear that cherished American values are being lost. For some people, the real war is the war at home and the enemy coalition comes bundled for them in the anti-war movement. The redirection of their legitimate anger about the deteriorating quality of life in America onto peace activists is shortsighted scapegoating that won't solve problems.

The truth is that nobody spat on Vietnam veterans and nobody is spitting on the soldiers today. Attempts to silence opponents of the war with those figments of hostility are dishonest and should, themselves, be banished from our discourse.

Jerry Lembcke is the author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998). Jerry is the New England contact for VVAW. He is also an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts and can be reached at 508-793-3050 or [email protected].

 

[9thIDdoc]

Anybody think these assholes would draw the line at spitting?
------------------
Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...another rally was planned for May 4 to continue the protest of Nixon's expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia. There was widespread anger, and many protesters issued a call to "bring the war home...
a group of students watched a graduate student burning a copy of the U.S. Constitution while another student burned his draft card
Trouble exploded in town around midnight when people left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at cars and breaking downtown store fronts. In the process they broke a bank window, setting off an alarm.
By the time police arrived, a crowd of 120 had already gathered. Some people from the crowd had already lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and transient people. A few members of the crowd began to throw beer bottles at the police, and then started yelling obscenities at them
City officials and downtown businesses received threats while rumors proliferated that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university.
A large demonstration was already under way on the campus, and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building[11] was burning. The arsonists were never apprehended and no one was injured in the fire.[
More than a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered its burning. Several Kent firemen and police officers were struck by rocks and other objects while attempting to extinguish the blaze. Several fire engine companies had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[13
a National Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, striking one campus Patrolman and forcing the Jeep to retreat.[Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When most of the crowd refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some launched a second volley of rocks toward the Guard's line, too distant to have any effect, to chants of "Pigs off campus!" The students lobbed the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen, who wore gas masks.