The modern day police officer has become the old Vietnam vet

[xband]

1974, asshole. I went to Westpac twice and Commander 7th Fleet came to see me, once. The Admiral had to ride a helo and our Guided Missile Destroyer didn't have a helo deck.

So something spat on you after the Vietnam War was over.... um, yeah, okay.

Less credibility all the time.

The Vietnam War didn't officially end until 1975 when Gerald Ford was President, Democratic Congress was helpless and still is.

 

[JoeB131]

You have less credibility than anyone here and certainly have never put your life on the line like the people you are dishonoring.

I served for 11 years, thanks. I still am slightly deaf in one ear from a training related issue.

But the whole spitting thing is a bunch of lies, it never happened.

Now, I get why some Vietnam vets are bitter, they never got the appreciation that WWII vets got. (Or Gulf War vets, for that matter.)

Do you even have a conscience?

More of one that you do. I just don't let cheap emotions trump fact.

The irony here is, you are the real baby killer, along with the DNC who wants me to pay for killing babies in the womb to add insult to injury.

Uh, fetuses aren't babies. If you guys were serious about less fetuses being killed, you'd support single payer health care and paid family leave.

 

[JoeB131]

The Vietnam didn't officially end until 1975 when Gerald Ford was President, Democratic Congress was helpless.

It didn't end for the Vietnamese until 1975. We were out of there by 1973.

 

[JoeB131]

A total lie and hardcore Leftist/Communist propaganda. I was there. I saw and experienced the spitting and much worse. The left simply would like to rewrite history in an attempt to look a little less like the anti-American pro-communist traitors many of them were at this time.

Really? Where is the contemporary news reports. Are you trying to tell me that there were all these supposed spitting incidents, and no one wrote a news story or captured a picture, not even once?

I was an American soldier; not some kind of war monger. I served because my Country called on me to do so. I believed it to be my duty as an American citizen to serve if called. Still do.

So did I, but that's not the point being argued here. The point was that Vietnam Vets were not disrespected by the anti-war movement, they were just as likely to be PART of that movement when they got back. The whole "spitting" lies came about in the 1980's when the right wing promoted a "Stabbed in the Back Myth", about as pernicious as the Nazis claiming that Germany was stabbed in the back in WWI.

The ironic thing is, the Vietnamese are more over the Vietnam War than we are.

The many sniveling cowards who ran off to become Canadians were just like those who order big expensive meals but vanish when it's time to pay the check. All take; no give. And those traitors like Jane Fonda and John Kerry who actively worked for the enemy during time of war should have faced a firing squad and continue to deserve to.

Um, okay, let's look at that list.

Geo. Bush- Got a cushy assignment in the TX-NG
Dan Quayle - Got a cushy assignment in the Indianan NG
Rush Limbaugh - Medical exemption for a cyst on the ass.
Newt Gingrich - Marriage exemption
Donald Trump - fake medical exemption for Bone Spurs
Dick Cheney- Student and Marriage exemptions.

The people who served were brave, but so were the people who said, THIS IS WRONG.

John Kerry was both, and you are still angry with him. (Not that I defend Kerry, he did do some shitty stuff, like take Purple Hearts for minor injuries and making a show of throwing away someone else's medals.)

 

[xband]

You have less credibility than anyone here and certainly have never put your life on the line like the people you are dishonoring.

I served for 11 years, thanks. I still am slightly deaf in one ear from a training related issue.

But the whole spitting thing is a bunch of lies, it never happened.

Now, I get why some Vietnam vets are bitter, they never got the appreciation that WWII vets got. (Or Gulf War vets, for that matter.)

Do you even have a conscience?

More of one that you do. I just don't let cheap emotions trump fact.

The irony here is, you are the real baby killer, along with the DNC who wants me to pay for killing babies in the womb to add insult to injury.

Uh, fetuses aren't babies. If you guys were serious about less fetuses being killed, you'd support single payer health care and paid family leave.

I brushed my teeth with Agent Orange.

 

[JoeB131]

Contrary to protesters' claims, then and now, the Vietnam War did not begin without good reasons. It was a direct result of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill agreed to abandon the Vietnamese (who had helped defeat the Japanese in World War II) and give all of Indo-China back to the French. Despite U.S. economic support and military advisers, the French lost the ensuing Vietnamese independence struggle and withdrew from all of Indo-China. Vietnam ended up divided.

Actually, there was never a question during the war about the colonial possessions. They were going to be returned to their respective empires. The only Country that got any special consideration was India, because ethey had contributed so many troops to the British War Effort.

We need to remember that it was the South Vietnamese government that lost their war, not the much-maligned American soldier. American service members did not suffer defeat, even though most of us felt defeated. Policy and politics out of Washington had failed, not the military.

No, guy, the problem was that the people in the Pentagon knew that the people we were propping up were corrupt, and that Ho Chi Mihn was considered a national hero for defeating the French. The Pentagon papers proved that the government knew this before the war even started, but kept it going anyway.

Vietnam vets were raised in a society that honored veterans. Despite Sirota's contentions, Vietnam vets were a bit crushed coming home. We were not honored, but were treated as the face of an unpopular war.
I am not aware of many Vietnam vets who were not subjected to some disrespect, either personal or from the culture that called us "baby killers." We were shamed and embarrassed. My car (with a military base sticker) was "egged." I bought a wig to hide my military haircut.

Oh, noes... an "egg". What a horrifying experience. He must have been scarred for life.

But Lembcke is refuted by many other sources, including Jim Lindgren, a Northwestern University law professor who cited news accounts that documented many spitting incidents. One example: A 1967 Bucks County Courier Times article reporting that two sailors were spat on outside a high school football game by a gang of about 10 young men. One of the sailors was stabbed.

Do you have a link to that article? that sounds awfully vague.

Links to contemporary accounts... or you have nothing.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I was a sailor and got spit on and called baby killer inside LAX wearing Dress Blues by a group of hippies. I was alone and of course that started a spitting contest and I bared my fists. A Marine Officer came running running wanting to kick all their I said no sir I'm going home on leave.

Sure you were, buddy. Sure you were.

So when did this happen? Was there documentation. Because at that time, people didn't go through the airports in uniform. They returned to bases and then were dispatched in civilian clothing.

Because at that time, people didn't go through the airports in uniform.

Bullshit.

I enlisted in '69, and the only time I wore civvies was while I was home on leave.

Any travel, any time off, was spent in uniform.

(unless involved in athletic events)

What is sad is, the Left dishonored Vets coming home from the war by mistreating them, and now they are doing it today by calling Vets liars for saying they were mistreated. I reckon Vets can't die fast enough to cover the history of it for them.

Disrespect for Vietnam vets is fact, not fiction - StarTribune.com

BARRIE MAGUIRE – NEWSART


TEXT SIZE
EMAIL

PRINT
MORE
Counterpoint
I am a combat-disabled Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1968-69. I was infantry, in the field, fighting the most misunderstood and unpopular war in American history. I've studied the history, and I've lived it.
And David Sirota is wrong about the history and policies of that war and about the treatment of returning military men and women ("The myth of the spat-upon war veteran," June 8).
Contrary to protesters' claims, then and now, the Vietnam War did not begin without good reasons. It was a direct result of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill agreed to abandon the Vietnamese (who had helped defeat the Japanese in World War II) and give all of Indo-China back to the French. Despite U.S. economic support and military advisers, the French lost the ensuing Vietnamese independence struggle and withdrew from all of Indo-China. Vietnam ended up divided.
In the era when the North Vietnamese invaded the South, the world was facing Russian colonialism, the spread of communism, nuclear arms, the Cuban missile crisis and other threats to world peace. We fought to "contain" communist aggression and adopted the "domino theory," believing that if one country in a region fell, the rest would. Although the history of the past 50 years is complex, it's fair to observe that the spread of communism has been contained.
We need to remember that it was the South Vietnamese government that lost their war, not the much-maligned American soldier. American service members did not suffer defeat, even though most of us felt defeated. Policy and politics out of Washington had failed, not the military.
Vietnam vets were raised in a society that honored veterans. Despite Sirota's contentions, Vietnam vets were a bit crushed coming home. We were not honored, but were treated as the face of an unpopular war.
I am not aware of many Vietnam vets who were not subjected to some disrespect, either personal or from the culture that called us "baby killers." We were shamed and embarrassed. My car (with a military base sticker) was "egged." I bought a wig to hide my military haircut.
The spitting on veterans was just a small part of the overall feeling of lost honor, but it was real, contrary to Sirota's article, which appears to borrow heavily from a review of a book written by socialist and war protester Jerry Lembcke.
In his purported study, Lembcke's sampling was not random, it was statistically insignificant, and he stated that stories of spitting first surfaced in the 1980s. And he espouses that post-traumatic stress disorder was an invention of the government to garner support for the war.
But Lembcke is refuted by many other sources, including Jim Lindgren, a Northwestern University law professor who cited news accounts that documented many spitting incidents. One example: A 1967 Bucks County Courier Times article reporting that two sailors were spat on outside a high school football game by a gang of about 10 young men. One of the sailors was stabbed.
Others:
• In October 1967, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter James Reston's front page article in the New York Times described his eyewitness account of protest behavior so vulgar that spitting was the least of the transgressions.
• Even Medal of Honor recipients were abused and "spat upon as 'monsters'," according to the head of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, WWII medalist Thomas J. Kelly. Kelly recounted how about 200 anti-war protesters showed up one year to harass the Medal of Honor recipients at their annual dinner. WWII Medalist James Conners was unable to avoid a particularly obnoxious man yelling, "Killer, killer, killer." Conners decked him.
• Other spitting incidents were reported by Pulitzer Prize winners Max Frankel in the New York Times (November 1969) and Carl Bernstein in the Washington Post (May 1970).
Lembcke is an avowed socialist and has tried to use incomplete or dishonest research to lend credence to his government-as-pro-war conspiracy theories, to use the 9-million-plus Vietnam-era veterans as anti-war pawns.
Let's all stop listening to those who refuse to consider the facts. Our Vietnam experience ended more than 40 years past, and it deserves to be judged by history.
I do not wish to have my record of service dishonored again.

My brother in law was a US Army cannon cocker, both 105 and 155..

 

[9thIDdoc]

Contrary to protesters' claims, then and now, the Vietnam War did not begin without good reasons. It was a direct result of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill agreed to abandon the Vietnamese (who had helped defeat the Japanese in World War II) and give all of Indo-China back to the French. Despite U.S. economic support and military advisers, the French lost the ensuing Vietnamese independence struggle and withdrew from all of Indo-China. Vietnam ended up divided.

Actually, there was never a question during the war about the colonial possessions. They were going to be returned to their respective empires. The only Country that got any special consideration was India, because ethey had contributed so many troops to the British War Effort.

We need to remember that it was the South Vietnamese government that lost their war, not the much-maligned American soldier. American service members did not suffer defeat, even though most of us felt defeated. Policy and politics out of Washington had failed, not the military.

No, guy, the problem was that the people in the Pentagon knew that the people we were propping up were corrupt, and that Ho Chi Mihn was considered a national hero for defeating the French. The Pentagon papers proved that the government knew this before the war even started, but kept it going anyway.

Vietnam vets were raised in a society that honored veterans. Despite Sirota's contentions, Vietnam vets were a bit crushed coming home. We were not honored, but were treated as the face of an unpopular war.
I am not aware of many Vietnam vets who were not subjected to some disrespect, either personal or from the culture that called us "baby killers." We were shamed and embarrassed. My car (with a military base sticker) was "egged." I bought a wig to hide my military haircut.

Oh, noes... an "egg". What a horrifying experience. He must have been scarred for life.

But Lembcke is refuted by many other sources, including Jim Lindgren, a Northwestern University law professor who cited news accounts that documented many spitting incidents. One example: A 1967 Bucks County Courier Times article reporting that two sailors were spat on outside a high school football game by a gang of about 10 young men. One of the sailors was stabbed.

Do you have a link to that article? that sounds awfully vague.

Links to contemporary accounts... or you have nothing.

No, guy, the problem was that the people in the Pentagon knew that the people we were propping up were corrupt, and that Ho Chi Mihn was considered a national hero for defeating the French. The Pentagon papers proved that the government knew this before the war even started, but kept it going anyway.

More communist propaganda. More bullshit piled higher and deeper. During WWII Good ole "Uncle Ho" received aid from the Allies in his fight against the Japanese. The area was then known as Indochina or considered part of China, or part of Japan, or part of France depending on political persuasion. After WWII the French attempted to reoccupy France and Indochina and Uncle Ho was one of the rebel leaders that opposed them and eventually drove them out. At that time he was allied with, and supplied by, the communists while the US considered France an ally as we had during WWII. Ho might have considered himself a "National Hero", but there was in fact no Nation to be a hero of, nor is there any evidence that he was widely liked by the people of the area. When the area-by international treaty- divided into the two separate Countries of North Vietnam and South Vietnam (as Korea had been) the people were given a time period to move to the Nation they prefered. Hundreds of thousands of the people left everything they owned, and that their ancestors left them, behind and voted with their feet and moved to South Vietnam rather than be governed by Uncle Ho and his communist butt buddies. This was not the action of people that were very fond of their potential new leader. The US soldier did not fight for a corrupt government (except maybe our own) but in an effort to protect the South Vietnamese people from annihilation by the communists who had every intention of ruling the world which made their defeat in our best interests also. You think Ho's government was any less "corrupt" than the South Vietnamese government? If so think again.

 

[9thIDdoc]

1974, asshole. I went to Westpac twice and Commander 7th Fleet came to see me, once. The Admiral had to ride a helo and our Guided Missile Destroyer didn't have a helo deck.

So something spat on you after the Vietnam War was over.... um, yeah, okay.

Less credibility all the time.

The Vietnam War didn't officially end until 1975 when Gerald Ford was President, Democratic Congress was helpless and still is.

It was actually the US Congress that ended the war when they stopped all US support while N. Vietnam continued to be rearmed and supplied by China and the USSR. Guns don't work well when you're out of bullets and your enemy isn't.

 

[sparky]

How does the Left look at this picture?

record sales in 'save the planet' LED's ???

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

More communist propaganda. More bullshit piled higher and deeper. During WWII Good ole "Uncle Ho" received aid from the Allies in his fight against the Japanese. The area was then known as Indochina or considered part of China, or part of Japan, or part of France depending on political persuasion. After WWII the French attempted to reoccupy France and Indochina and Uncle Ho was one of the rebel leaders that opposed them and eventually drove them out. At that time he was allied with, and supplied by, the communists while the US considered France an ally as we had during WWII. Ho might have considered himself a "National Hero", but there was in fact no Nation to be a hero of, nor is there any evidence that he was widely liked by the people of the area.

I think you are a little confused on the history. Vietnam was part of French Indo-China, but it also had a national Identity. It wasn't technically a 'colony", it was a protectorate, with an Monarch who was a French puppet. The French never technically "lost" Indochina, they in fact continued to administer it through the Vichy Regime. The Vietnamese Monarch abdicated at the insistence of Ho after the Japanese surrenders.

When the area-by international treaty- divided into the two separate Countries of North Vietnam and South Vietnam (as Korea had been) the people were given a time period to move to the Nation they prefered. Hundreds of thousands of the people left everything they owned, and that their ancestors left them, behind and voted with their feet and moved to South Vietnam rather than be governed by Uncle Ho and his communist butt buddies.

Actually, that was slightly inaccurate. The people who fled to the South were Vietnam's Catholic minority, because the Church told them they would get better treatment under the regime of Diem than under the Communists. We are only talking about hundreds of thousands out of a population of millions. Far more people in South Vietnam joined the Viet Cong to attempt to dislodge first the Diem regime, and then the regime we propped up.

Let's take a minute to talk about the political situation. The aforementioned Emperor was a guy named Bao Dai. He was part of the Nguyen Dynasty, which had ruled Annam (Vietnam) since 1802, long before the French showed up. He was deposed by Ho in 1945 when he declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, but the French tried to prop him up in the South. He was deposed again by Diem with his corrupt Catholic clique and Diem himself was deposed after JFK gave a wink and a nod to the South Vietnamese military. Most of those guys were HATED by the Vietnamese people because they had gotten their military training being French collaborators. They were also as corrupt as all shit, and probably stole most of the aid we sent to the place.

The US soldier did not fight for a corrupt government (except maybe our own) but in an effort to protect the South Vietnamese people from annihilation by the communists who had every intention of ruling the world which made their defeat in our best interests also. You think Ho's government was any less "corrupt" than the South Vietnamese government? If so think again.

Yeah, actually, they were the worst kind of corrupt, the kind of corrupt that would sell their country out to foreigners to get rich. In most of the world people who do that are considered traitors. Ky and Theiu just jumped from the French to us, diverting the aid we sent to their offshore bank accounts. Theiu ended his life living in a nice mansion in Massachusetts.

It was actually the US Congress that ended the war when they stopped all US support while N. Vietnam continued to be rearmed and supplied by China and the USSR. Guns don't work well when you're out of bullets and your enemy isn't.

I doubt they fired every last bullet they had.

Here, I'll fix it for you.

Guns don't work well when the people handling them don't want to fire them and the enemy does.

We got in the middle of someone else's civil war, and we backed the wrong side.

 

[9thIDdoc]

More communist propaganda. More bullshit piled higher and deeper. During WWII Good ole "Uncle Ho" received aid from the Allies in his fight against the Japanese. The area was then known as Indochina or considered part of China, or part of Japan, or part of France depending on political persuasion. After WWII the French attempted to reoccupy France and Indochina and Uncle Ho was one of the rebel leaders that opposed them and eventually drove them out. At that time he was allied with, and supplied by, the communists while the US considered France an ally as we had during WWII. Ho might have considered himself a "National Hero", but there was in fact no Nation to be a hero of, nor is there any evidence that he was widely liked by the people of the area.

I think you are a little confused on the history. Vietnam was part of French Indo-China, but it also had a national Identity. It wasn't technically a 'colony", it was a protectorate, with an Monarch who was a French puppet. The French never technically "lost" Indochina, they in fact continued to administer it through the Vichy Regime. The Vietnamese Monarch abdicated at the insistence of Ho after the Japanese surrenders.

When the area-by international treaty- divided into the two separate Countries of North Vietnam and South Vietnam (as Korea had been) the people were given a time period to move to the Nation they prefered. Hundreds of thousands of the people left everything they owned, and that their ancestors left them, behind and voted with their feet and moved to South Vietnam rather than be governed by Uncle Ho and his communist butt buddies.

Actually, that was slightly inaccurate. The people who fled to the South were Vietnam's Catholic minority, because the Church told them they would get better treatment under the regime of Diem than under the Communists. We are only talking about hundreds of thousands out of a population of millions. Far more people in South Vietnam joined the Viet Cong to attempt to dislodge first the Diem regime, and then the regime we propped up.

Let's take a minute to talk about the political situation. The aforementioned Emperor was a guy named Bao Dai. He was part of the Nguyen Dynasty, which had ruled Annam (Vietnam) since 1802, long before the French showed up. He was deposed by Ho in 1945 when he declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, but the French tried to prop him up in the South. He was deposed again by Diem with his corrupt Catholic clique and Diem himself was deposed after JFK gave a wink and a nod to the South Vietnamese military. Most of those guys were HATED by the Vietnamese people because they had gotten their military training being French collaborators. They were also as corrupt as all shit, and probably stole most of the aid we sent to the place.

The US soldier did not fight for a corrupt government (except maybe our own) but in an effort to protect the South Vietnamese people from annihilation by the communists who had every intention of ruling the world which made their defeat in our best interests also. You think Ho's government was any less "corrupt" than the South Vietnamese government? If so think again.

Yeah, actually, they were the worst kind of corrupt, the kind of corrupt that would sell their country out to foreigners to get rich. In most of the world people who do that are considered traitors. Ky and Theiu just jumped from the French to us, diverting the aid we sent to their offshore bank accounts. Theiu ended his life living in a nice mansion in Massachusetts.

It was actually the US Congress that ended the war when they stopped all US support while N. Vietnam continued to be rearmed and supplied by China and the USSR. Guns don't work well when you're out of bullets and your enemy isn't.

I doubt they fired every last bullet they had.

Here, I'll fix it for you.

Guns don't work well when the people handling them don't want to fire them and the enemy does.

We got in the middle of someone else's civil war, and we backed the wrong side.

So you are still trying to sell the idea that Ho's North Vietnamese communist government which was known to slaughter it's own civilians when they found it expedient to do so was less corrupt than the South Vietnamese government. That plainly makes you an idiot. The VC-which were essentially annihilated during Tet '68- were always largely covert NVA and almost entirely after Tet. Any sympathy S. Vietnam civilians had for Ho and his N. Vietnam was replaced by the many massive and brutal atrocities committed by the VC/NVA. Massacre at Huế
South Vietnam's Army proved itself both willing and able to defend itself as long as we were willing to continue to rearm and resupply them in similar fashion to what the communists were doing for the North Vietnamese aggressors. North Vietnamese Army's 1972 Eastertide Offensive
S. Vietnam was simply betrayed by the US Congress just like many US troops were betrayed by some of the US people. That should be a source of shame for all Americans.

 

[Rigby5]

Does anyone remember or ,learned of the time when Vietnam Vets would come home to the states after the war in the 1960s, only to be spit on by the Left in their own country? Can you imagine fighting a war in the jungles of Vietnam having just surrendered years of your life or lost buddies during the conflict that became closer than family, a war where you came back after being exposed to Agent Orange only to find out that the government would deny you health care, along with the myriad of soldiers who committed suicide because they could no longer live with the demons created in the minds of these poor Vets during that horrific war? You are then confronted to a society that has learned to hate you because the media only reported instances where Vietnam Vets may have committed a war crime, mind you all wars have war crimes. It does not matter the war or races involved. But in the minds of many in the public, all Vets became baby killers. What is ironic today is, the Left loves real baby killers as they openly embrace abortion on demand.

I was listening to Dennis Prager today and he said something very profound. He speculates as to why the Left hated the Vietnam Vet as well as the modern day police officer. His theory is that the Left hates those that fight evil because Leftism is based upon an evil premise. Just look at the author of the Left, Karl Marx, who was also a racist. (I realize those on the Left don't care that he was a racist, which speaks volumes as well as to their love of evil). It is a man whom Marxist despots throughout time have murdered hundreds of millions of people, and those were the lucky ones who died because they did not have to live in a society that was stripped of all hope and freedom.

Now I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether the US should have gotten into the Vietnam war. After all, there is evil all over the globe, it consumes it, but does that mean the US should get into a war in all those instances? No. However, there is little debate, that is for those with a knowledge of history or personal experience, that communism is evil. Just look at the US involvement in Korea. Half the country, after being divided after the war, is free and the other slaves living in misery.

And so it goes, police officers are also there to fight evil. However, this is a duty of the US government, to fight evil within it's own borders. Without this duty being fulfilled, government has no purpose.. You might even say that as the Left continues to wage war on the police, whether it be constantly accusing them of racism, or whether it be defunding them, or whether it be causing many police to quit their jobs or cause others not to want the job, the Left is causing government to have less and less legitimacy every day. In fact, as they attack the police, that is those who can use deadly force to defend you against deadly force, they want to also take away your guns. Have they even wondered how they will take away everyone's guns without a police force? LOL.

So as we see the Jane Fonda's of the world in the press spit on the very foundation that gave them wealth, that lets them live in peace, etc., just remember that the Left hates those that fight the very evil in the world that would take all those things from them.

View attachment 486210

Nonsense.
There were no significant cops before around 1900.
That is because they are not needed and cost too much.
The only reason they popped up after 1900 in such numbers is they found a revenue source, traffic citations and parking tickets.
We were better off without them, and I wish they would just go away.
Police are how every dictatorship takes over.

 

[Rigby5]

I was a sailor and got spit on and called baby killer inside LAX wearing Dress Blues by a group of hippies. I was alone and of course that started a spitting contest and I bared my fists. A Marine Officer came running running wanting to kick all their I said no sir I'm going home on leave.

Sure you were, buddy. Sure you were.

So when did this happen? Was there documentation. Because at that time, people didn't go through the airports in uniform. They returned to bases and then were dispatched in civilian clothing.

1974, asshole. I went to Westpac twice and Commander 7th Fleet came to see me, once. The Admiral had to ride a helo and our Guided Missile Destroyer didn't have a helo deck.

But almost half the Vietnam war protestors were vets, so it is not likely people would see vets as more then just victims of the draft.

 

[Rigby5]

More communist propaganda. More bullshit piled higher and deeper. During WWII Good ole "Uncle Ho" received aid from the Allies in his fight against the Japanese. The area was then known as Indochina or considered part of China, or part of Japan, or part of France depending on political persuasion. After WWII the French attempted to reoccupy France and Indochina and Uncle Ho was one of the rebel leaders that opposed them and eventually drove them out. At that time he was allied with, and supplied by, the communists while the US considered France an ally as we had during WWII. Ho might have considered himself a "National Hero", but there was in fact no Nation to be a hero of, nor is there any evidence that he was widely liked by the people of the area.

I think you are a little confused on the history. Vietnam was part of French Indo-China, but it also had a national Identity. It wasn't technically a 'colony", it was a protectorate, with an Monarch who was a French puppet. The French never technically "lost" Indochina, they in fact continued to administer it through the Vichy Regime. The Vietnamese Monarch abdicated at the insistence of Ho after the Japanese surrenders.

When the area-by international treaty- divided into the two separate Countries of North Vietnam and South Vietnam (as Korea had been) the people were given a time period to move to the Nation they prefered. Hundreds of thousands of the people left everything they owned, and that their ancestors left them, behind and voted with their feet and moved to South Vietnam rather than be governed by Uncle Ho and his communist butt buddies.

Actually, that was slightly inaccurate. The people who fled to the South were Vietnam's Catholic minority, because the Church told them they would get better treatment under the regime of Diem than under the Communists. We are only talking about hundreds of thousands out of a population of millions. Far more people in South Vietnam joined the Viet Cong to attempt to dislodge first the Diem regime, and then the regime we propped up.

Let's take a minute to talk about the political situation. The aforementioned Emperor was a guy named Bao Dai. He was part of the Nguyen Dynasty, which had ruled Annam (Vietnam) since 1802, long before the French showed up. He was deposed by Ho in 1945 when he declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, but the French tried to prop him up in the South. He was deposed again by Diem with his corrupt Catholic clique and Diem himself was deposed after JFK gave a wink and a nod to the South Vietnamese military. Most of those guys were HATED by the Vietnamese people because they had gotten their military training being French collaborators. They were also as corrupt as all shit, and probably stole most of the aid we sent to the place.

The US soldier did not fight for a corrupt government (except maybe our own) but in an effort to protect the South Vietnamese people from annihilation by the communists who had every intention of ruling the world which made their defeat in our best interests also. You think Ho's government was any less "corrupt" than the South Vietnamese government? If so think again.

Yeah, actually, they were the worst kind of corrupt, the kind of corrupt that would sell their country out to foreigners to get rich. In most of the world people who do that are considered traitors. Ky and Theiu just jumped from the French to us, diverting the aid we sent to their offshore bank accounts. Theiu ended his life living in a nice mansion in Massachusetts.

It was actually the US Congress that ended the war when they stopped all US support while N. Vietnam continued to be rearmed and supplied by China and the USSR. Guns don't work well when you're out of bullets and your enemy isn't.

I doubt they fired every last bullet they had.

Here, I'll fix it for you.

Guns don't work well when the people handling them don't want to fire them and the enemy does.

We got in the middle of someone else's civil war, and we backed the wrong side.

So you are still trying to sell the idea that Ho's North Vietnamese communist government which was known to slaughter it's own civilians when they found it expedient to do so was less corrupt than the South Vietnamese government. That plainly makes you an idiot. The VC-which were essentially annihilated during Tet '68- were always largely covert NVA and almost entirely after Tet. Any sympathy S. Vietnam civilians had for Ho and his N. Vietnam was replaced by the many massive and brutal atrocities committed by the VC/NVA. Massacre at Huế
South Vietnam's Army proved itself both willing and able to defend itself as long as we were willing to continue to rearm and resupply them in similar fashion to what the communists were doing for the North Vietnamese aggressors. North Vietnamese Army's 1972 Eastertide Offensive
S. Vietnam was simply betrayed by the US Congress just like many US troops were betrayed by some of the US people. That should be a source of shame for all Americans.

Nonsense.
Ho Chi Minh was the hero of all Vietnam due to his defeat of the French and liberating the whole country.
There was no one significantly against Ho in all of Vietnam.
Otherwise Diem would not have had to use the military to take over by force.

There were no brutal atrocities by the north, compared to the US napalming villages, with free fire zones and agent orange.
And the idea the US Congress betrayed the South Vietnamese is a joke.
We were paying them to fight and when we stopped paying them, they stopped fighting.
That is not exactly a struggle for freedom.

Go back and look at the Paris Peace Accord.
The US had no right or authority to even be there, and they were just supposed to have a national plebiscite we prevented. That is not how democracy works.

 

[JoeB131]

So you are still trying to sell the idea that Ho's North Vietnamese communist government which was known to slaughter it's own civilians when they found it expedient to do so was less corrupt than the South Vietnamese government. That plainly makes you an idiot.

Governments slaughter people all the time. Especially in wartime. Point is- the North Vietnamese took on the French, Japanese and American Empires and ultimately defeated them all. Then they fought China to a standstill.

The VC-which were essentially annihilated during Tet '68- were always largely covert NVA and almost entirely after Tet. Any sympathy S. Vietnam civilians had for Ho and his N. Vietnam was replaced by the many massive and brutal atrocities committed by the VC/NVA.

Uh-huh. And when we stopped backing them up they were defeated in 55 days.

Massacre at Huế
South Vietnam's Army proved itself both willing and able to defend itself as long as we were willing to continue to rearm and resupply them in similar fashion to what the communists were doing for the North Vietnamese aggressors. North Vietnamese Army's 1972 Eastertide Offensive

Uh, you realize that the Tet Offensive is when Americans realized that the government had been lying and support for the war dropped, right?

S. Vietnam was simply betrayed by the US Congress just like many US troops were betrayed by some of the US people. That should be a source of shame for all Americans.

Nope. South Vietnam were a bunch of fucking Quislings, and their own people turned on them the minute we left.

 

[surada]

Your premise that American soldiers killing people in Vietnam allows the Jane Fonda’s of the nation the freedom to speak out, is flawed. Their killing and destroying only benefits the wealthy oligarchy, but does great harm to the rest of us. It doesn’t protect us or allow us to live in peace.

This in no way approves of the treatment of Vietnam veterans by some Americans, when they returned home. They were merely pawns in the game.

I don't know of anyone who spat on Vietnam veterans. I have never even heard of such behavior second hand.

 

[gipper]

Your premise that American soldiers killing people in Vietnam allows the Jane Fonda’s of the nation the freedom to speak out, is flawed. Their killing and destroying only benefits the wealthy oligarchy, but does great harm to the rest of us. It doesn’t protect us or allow us to live in peace.

This in no way approves of the treatment of Vietnam veterans by some Americans, when they returned home. They were merely pawns in the game.

I don't know of anyone who spat on Vietnam veterans. I have never even heard of such behavior second hand.

I worked with a decorated Vietnam vet. He rescued down pilots during the war. The guy was very successful in our business and a great guy to work with. He told me of several experiences he was aware of. Spitting probably wasn’t common but verbal abuse certainly was. It happened to many Vietnam veterans. Most stopped wearing their uniforms to prevent this.

 

[surada]

Your premise that American soldiers killing people in Vietnam allows the Jane Fonda’s of the nation the freedom to speak out, is flawed. Their killing and destroying only benefits the wealthy oligarchy, but does great harm to the rest of us. It doesn’t protect us or allow us to live in peace.

This in no way approves of the treatment of Vietnam veterans by some Americans, when they returned home. They were merely pawns in the game.

I don't know of anyone who spat on Vietnam veterans. I have never even heard of such behavior second hand.

I worked with a decorated Vietnam vet. He rescued down pilots during the war. The guy was very successful in our business and a great guy to work with. He told me of several experiences he was aware of. Spitting probably wasn’t common but verbal abuse certainly was. It happened to many Vietnam veterans. Most stopped wearing their uniforms to prevent this.

What a shame, but then I live in the South and while many didn't support the war in Vietnam, they did support the troops.

 

[9thIDdoc]

More communist propaganda. More bullshit piled higher and deeper. During WWII Good ole "Uncle Ho" received aid from the Allies in his fight against the Japanese. The area was then known as Indochina or considered part of China, or part of Japan, or part of France depending on political persuasion. After WWII the French attempted to reoccupy France and Indochina and Uncle Ho was one of the rebel leaders that opposed them and eventually drove them out. At that time he was allied with, and supplied by, the communists while the US considered France an ally as we had during WWII. Ho might have considered himself a "National Hero", but there was in fact no Nation to be a hero of, nor is there any evidence that he was widely liked by the people of the area.

I think you are a little confused on the history. Vietnam was part of French Indo-China, but it also had a national Identity. It wasn't technically a 'colony", it was a protectorate, with an Monarch who was a French puppet. The French never technically "lost" Indochina, they in fact continued to administer it through the Vichy Regime. The Vietnamese Monarch abdicated at the insistence of Ho after the Japanese surrenders.

When the area-by international treaty- divided into the two separate Countries of North Vietnam and South Vietnam (as Korea had been) the people were given a time period to move to the Nation they prefered. Hundreds of thousands of the people left everything they owned, and that their ancestors left them, behind and voted with their feet and moved to South Vietnam rather than be governed by Uncle Ho and his communist butt buddies.

Actually, that was slightly inaccurate. The people who fled to the South were Vietnam's Catholic minority, because the Church told them they would get better treatment under the regime of Diem than under the Communists. We are only talking about hundreds of thousands out of a population of millions. Far more people in South Vietnam joined the Viet Cong to attempt to dislodge first the Diem regime, and then the regime we propped up.

Let's take a minute to talk about the political situation. The aforementioned Emperor was a guy named Bao Dai. He was part of the Nguyen Dynasty, which had ruled Annam (Vietnam) since 1802, long before the French showed up. He was deposed by Ho in 1945 when he declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, but the French tried to prop him up in the South. He was deposed again by Diem with his corrupt Catholic clique and Diem himself was deposed after JFK gave a wink and a nod to the South Vietnamese military. Most of those guys were HATED by the Vietnamese people because they had gotten their military training being French collaborators. They were also as corrupt as all shit, and probably stole most of the aid we sent to the place.

The US soldier did not fight for a corrupt government (except maybe our own) but in an effort to protect the South Vietnamese people from annihilation by the communists who had every intention of ruling the world which made their defeat in our best interests also. You think Ho's government was any less "corrupt" than the South Vietnamese government? If so think again.

Yeah, actually, they were the worst kind of corrupt, the kind of corrupt that would sell their country out to foreigners to get rich. In most of the world people who do that are considered traitors. Ky and Theiu just jumped from the French to us, diverting the aid we sent to their offshore bank accounts. Theiu ended his life living in a nice mansion in Massachusetts.

It was actually the US Congress that ended the war when they stopped all US support while N. Vietnam continued to be rearmed and supplied by China and the USSR. Guns don't work well when you're out of bullets and your enemy isn't.

I doubt they fired every last bullet they had.

Here, I'll fix it for you.

Guns don't work well when the people handling them don't want to fire them and the enemy does.

We got in the middle of someone else's civil war, and we backed the wrong side.

So you are still trying to sell the idea that Ho's North Vietnamese communist government which was known to slaughter it's own civilians when they found it expedient to do so was less corrupt than the South Vietnamese government. That plainly makes you an idiot. The VC-which were essentially annihilated during Tet '68- were always largely covert NVA and almost entirely after Tet. Any sympathy S. Vietnam civilians had for Ho and his N. Vietnam was replaced by the many massive and brutal atrocities committed by the VC/NVA. Massacre at Huế
South Vietnam's Army proved itself both willing and able to defend itself as long as we were willing to continue to rearm and resupply them in similar fashion to what the communists were doing for the North Vietnamese aggressors. North Vietnamese Army's 1972 Eastertide Offensive
S. Vietnam was simply betrayed by the US Congress just like many US troops were betrayed by some of the US people. That should be a source of shame for all Americans.

I was a sailor and got spit on and called baby killer inside LAX wearing Dress Blues by a group of hippies. I was alone and of course that started a spitting contest and I bared my fists. A Marine Officer came running running wanting to kick all their I said no sir I'm going home on leave.

Sure you were, buddy. Sure you were.

So when did this happen? Was there documentation. Because at that time, people didn't go through the airports in uniform. They returned to bases and then were dispatched in civilian clothing.

1974, asshole. I went to Westpac twice and Commander 7th Fleet came to see me, once. The Admiral had to ride a helo and our Guided Missile Destroyer didn't have a helo deck.

But almost half the Vietnam war protestors were vets, so it is not likely people would see vets as more then just victims of the draft.

Total bullshit.