"I am behind the troops, but.." = "I am not racist, but..."

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


BS? The protesters did not appear to be concerned about American involvement in that war as they were concern about a North Vietnamese victory.
Kent State had nothing to do with US policy. Kent State was a violent antiwar protest about the attack on the NVA bases in Cambodia. The protesters were not concerned about the welfare of our troops, but the welfare of North Vietnam.

Come on man, this is almost Fezzian in nature. Did you ever speak to any anti-war protestors? Or are your invidual prejudices the only source you have?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem is Oerdin, you have not shown one single article or personal diary or anything in which someone describes an incident of being spat upon by war protestors while returning from vietnam.

That's the whole point. I don't have to. Why, because Tinkai is contending that 30 years of journalism and reporting by the mainstream media is incorrect so the burden of proof is on him. He needs to come up with a creditable source which isn't interested in historical revisionism simply to justify their political stance.

Everyone who's not interesting in rewritting history and who actually lived these events have gone on with their lives and it's not like I'm going to hunt them down. All I have contended is that a minority of people did spit and that they were wrong to do so. Then I have a meat head come out and claim that no spiting ever happened.

Thanks, but he's the one making the absolute statements which controdict what the period media reported. He's the one who has to prove his position not me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's the whole point. I don't have to. Why, because Tinkai is contending that 30 years of journalism and reporting by the mainstream media is incorrect so the burden of proof is on him. He needs to come up with a creditable source which isn't interested in historical revisionism simply to justify their political stance.

You don't have too??? Personally, I have not ever seen a single peice on this issue. If you are trying to discredit his absolutst claim, all you have to do is provide a single old article refereing to it. Given that you say there are 30 years wrth of credible reports on it, wouldn't it take just a couple of minutes on Google followed by cut and paste?

Again, you call the source not credible, but your only contention pof it is his politics, not his reseacrh and writing techniques..which again, is not what proes whether something is slanted. After all, as I have said, I have never seen a single piece that is about this issue alone, and nopt one that gives me a single person account of it, nor have I spoken to any veterans who have told me so. Given all that, why should I trust your word, given that evryone in Poly is politically biased? (unless trust goes beyond agreeing with politics into wehther someone is geenrall truthfull, and that difference vary in intepretation, not 'facts')

[Dinner]

http://www.voy.com/283/2/1397.html

Unfortunately the statement that Vietnam Veterans were spat upon is true. When myself and three other recently returned Vets were on their way home we did get spit at in O'hare airport Chigago. It was a rather ugly scene and one I will never forget. It is perhaps why for 25 years I never spoke of my war experiences, it seemed that they were mine alone for me to deal with. I developed an isolation pose on the war and never let anyone in to my memories. That changed ever so slowly after Desert Storm when I finally saw that Vets were once again revered.
Fortunately when I did get back to my home town that type of behavior did not occurr, but a rather indifference to what I had done in the name of my country was the public stance. Now after 30 years I have come to cherish the experience, the comradery, and what I did so many years ago as what I had to do and if now judged wrong , so be it, my motives then were pure.

HERE's a site where Native American war veterans write their tails

Earl Crow Ghost, Lakota, remembered the protesters from his days in the military during 1967-68. “I am just trying to support our troops. What I don’t like right now is the protesters. It is like back in the sixties,” Crow Ghost said with a faraway look. “When I got back they spit on me and everything. I still remember that, I was 21 years old. I still remember that stuff. These people who are protesting now are young, I don’t know, maybe they read books about what happened before. I just don’t know. That is all I have to say.”

Another quote from the same site.

But now even though there are people who don’t like this war, there is more support for the President and the troops. They won’t get the same terrible homecoming we did.”

HERE is a web site written by black war veterans.

I felt like I did what
I was supposed to and I ... came back, but I didn’t expect to get spit on either ...

Here's a Narration by Lt. Col. William Babcock, a Vietnam vet, who says several of the soldiers under his command complained of being spit upon and hassled by anti-war protesters.

There's more all you have to do is google for it. It did happen and it was anti-war protesters who did it. The protesters called the conscripts baby killers, they spit upon them, and several got beat up by angry anti-war mobs. Was it an every day thing? Nope. Did it happen? Yep, and it was just one or two times it. Alot of people got treated this way and I say it's wrong. Just like the historical revisionists who want to lie and deny historical facts are also wrong.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tingkai


You're still swayed by the myth.

The real shame from the Vietnam War is that American soldiers answered their call for duty and when they returned, they were treated like garbage by the government and other veterans.

Far too many of the older veterans treated the Vietnam vets like a bunch of long-haired, drugged out losers. What really pissed off the vets from other wars were the anti-war Vietnam vets. Now I'm not saying all the vets from other wars did this, but a hell of a lot of them did.

The US government flew troops back to America and dumped them back into civilian life. The wounded were put into vet hospitals where they received sub-standard care.

As a result of this shoddy treatment, the Vietnam vets formed their own veterans association.

The crap that the Vietnam vets had to put up with over there from other vets and the US government is the story we all need to remember, not some stupid myth.

I guess we're talking about two different situations -- I was referring to contemporary Iraq-involvement, but I agree with you that Vietnam vets had a hostile welcoming in the 1970's.

[Dinner]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewdispatc/calendar/tribune-review/news/s_151690.html

Ray Anthony was just 19 years old when he returned stateside in a wheelchair from a tour of duty with the U.S. Army in Vietnam.
Despite his injuries, his reception was far from a hero's welcome.

"I was spit on," the Connellsville man said Sunday. "I came back in a wheelchair, and I was spit on."

Anthony was in a guard tower in Vietnam when it was blown up. He tumbled out as the tower fell and was crushed under the wreckage.

How much longer must I keep quoting this stuff before some of you admite you were wrong and that Lembcke is a lair and a historical revisionist?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
You don't have too???

That's right. Read up about the burden of proof and how the guy who's making the outlandish new claims which are contrary to the mainstream has the burden of proof.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
Kent State had nothing to do with US policy. Kent State was a violent antiwar protest about the attack on the NVA bases in Cambodia. The protesters were not concerned about the welfare of our troops, but the welfare of North Vietnam.

Oh, so your saying it was alright to kill them because those "evil pinko Commies" did't agree with your rightist BS? how fascist of you.

Those soldiers got spit on because they where too wussie to dodge an immoral draft for an immoral war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's right. Read up about the burden of proof and how the guy who's making the outlandish new claims which are contrary to the mainstream has the burden of proof.

Mainstream does not equal correct, anymore than popular equal correct. correct=correct. And you did provide evidence, so my work on this is done.

[Dinner]

It's been hours yet Tinkai and Elijah are no where to be seen. They make absurd claims and sling mud at people then when their claims are proven to be garbage they slink off without saying a word.

It's like the end of To Kill a Mocking Bird when all the bigots just slink out of town and don't say they're sorry for wanting to hang and an innocent man. Elijah and Tinkai don't admite they're wrong they just run and hide only to reappear in another thread spouting the same nonsense.

Oh, well. At least I squashed them in one thread.

[Nubclear]

(Note: I haven't read the thread)

And guess what?

THEY ARENT EVEN ONLINE!!!!

[Whaleboy]

It's been hours yet Tinkai and Elijah are no where to be seen. They make absurd claims and sling mud at people then when their claims are proven to be garbage they slink off without saying a word.

It's like the end of To Kill a Mocking Bird when all the bigots just slink out of town and don't say they're sorry for wanting to hang and an innocent man. Elijah and Tinkai don't admite they're wrong they just run and hide only to reappear in another thread spouting the same nonsense.

Elijah was busy writing articles and getting drunk (though not necessarily in that order ). And I assure you, I am most certainly not done.

Classic Elijah. When he can't beat the arguement he misrepresents it

Well, asides from accusing me of using a strawman (a strawman + ad hominem in itself), would you do me the honour of actually refuting my argument, instead of switching to Fez mode?

The soldiers got spit on by a few idiots who should have been arrested because the war become chronically unpopular, unsupported and ultimately revealed as the fallacy it was, like all wars. You cannot use the actions of a few thugs to tarnish an entire movement, and more importantly, the ideology behind hit, the latter being a philosophy that is applicable in more situations than that specific case, as indeed we saw this year.

don't say they're sorry for wanting to hang and an innocent man

I suppose you're the innocent man?

Instead of using rhetorical BS, perhaps you would be so kind to provide us with a real arugment? I would be happy to provide you with some basic pointers in critical thinking and analysis if you PM me. I happen to be a student of critical theory, so personally speaking, I find accusations of ad hominems and strawmen somewhat nonsensicle. Of course, you weren't to know that .

Oh, and by the way, burden of proof means that the person making a claim (for example, x number of soldiers were spat on) needs to back up the claim, established or otherwise. Any claim has to be backed up. This serves as evidence, which can then be evaluated, and you can use to support your conclusion, whatever that was (please remind me, I tire easily of trying to find gems of logic on the sands of BS). A (claim, backed up) + B (claim, backed up) = C (conclusion, referring to previous evidence which is sufficient to justify the claim of the conclusion).

Nonetheless, after the previous requests, you have backed it up (credit where credit is due), so can you please use these unfortunate incidents to show whatever it is you are trying to show? From what I have seen thus far, it is woefully inadequate, but perhaps you would enlighten me, instead of flaming the left?

You guys should really reexamine your sources. Running a quick search on Amazon finds that Jerry Lembcke also wrote such books as "Recapturing Marxism ", "Capitalist Development and Class Capacities", and "Race, Class and Urban Change". If the reader reviews are anything to go by then these books are pretty much one sided affairs and ideologically driven.

Face it. Lembcke has a very stilted view point and he most certainly has a major political bias in his work. We should have more reputable sources then this before we reject the main stream reporting and eye witness accounts from period sources. Lembcke is just like the haulocaste deniers who demand people give them "proof" that the Jews were really killed. Thanks but we already have the facts.

The concept in your mind you must drop now if you are to have any success in logic-based debates, is the notion that attacking the arguer is synonymous with attacking the argument. It is not, there is no logical connection. Instead of attacking the man for having a particular ideology (one, incidentally, I disagree with), perhaps you would attack his position, his arguments, using logic. We are all intelligent people here, I'm sure in an intellectual discussion, we respond best and most appreciatively to rationality and good logical structure.

(Spelling Nazi: Holocaust)

The Holocaust is a far different case to discussions of minor criminal incidents that are of little significance. One is history for which there is solid evidence, one is history for which the evidence presented thus far is patchy and conflicting. This, unlike the holocaust deniers, leaves room for debate. As for the holocaust deniers, I personally take great pleasure in hearing their arguments, and refuting them using only logic and canonical history.

[Whaleboy]

THEY ARENT EVEN ONLINE!!!!

Don't worry, I wont be here long. Wine means I cant sleep, so researching an article on "speed and the state of rest" seemed like a good way to bore me to unconsciousness .

Then I found Oerdins post....

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by elijah


Don't worry, I wont be here long. Wine means I cant sleep, so researching an article on "speed and the state of rest" seemed like a good way to bore me to unconsciousness .

Then I found Oerdins post....

YOU ARE HERE!!

[Whaleboy]

Indeedy!! I was otherwise engaged while gone. Sleep is for the weak, as is college which starts tomorrow morning .