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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai


That's an urban myth.

There are no documented cases of this happening, just lots of stories along the lines of my sister's brother's best friend's buddy heard...

Besides it doesn't make sense. Do you really think that a peace activist could be beat up someone trained for combat? And what do you think would happen to the spitter?

The peace movement during the Vietnam War wanted the boys brought home. The politicians were seen as the enemy while the vets, many of whom joined the peace movement, were not seen as the enemy.

Bull****. I saw spitting, thrown objects, shouted obscenities and general harassment firsthand as a kid with my brother before and after he did his tour in 'Nam.

And there was no monolithic "peace movement" during the war, and I saw firsthand extensive ostracism of military personnel and former personnel when I went to college in the beginning of 1976 and a lot of the later guys were still using the GI Bill.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin -

Berzerker, I would put more faith in your point of view if you had been there but since Sikander was and you weren't then it makes sense that he understood events as they happened before his eyes.

Hence my question: did he hear speeches from a bunch of people expressing hatred for their parents? I find that part of his description hard to believe - an overstatement. He might have heard a speech or two from people who were outraged that their parents supported the war while they didn't, but the vision of a bunch of people standing before a microphone announcing how they hate their parents is a bit too much to accept.

Ned -

Bezerker, Americans as a whole turned against Johnson's handling of he war, not because it was immoral in concept. It was immoral in execution. Johnson had no strategy for victory and could only promise us more of the same. Johnson and his Kennedy administration were full of themselves in sending "messages" with bombing halts and a fresh 50,000 additional troops.

Americans "as a whole" did not just wake up one day and oppose Johnson, he was ahead in Democrat primaries in '68 but dropped because a large minority were opting for his anti-war opponent. The anti-war movement began with a small vocal group, people you'd call "anti-American" and grew as more people saw what a quagmire we were in. The fact the majority couldn't see the immorality of the war is irrelevant.

We elected Nixon to fix this. He did.

He did? What changed? Did we launch a full-scale invasion with the intent of conquering the North? No, we escalated the bombing to bring the North to negotiations to end the war and it didn't work. The Vietnam War's origin began with the French following WWII, actually with the Japanese before WWII and the French before them. Vietnam was a French colony and nationalists wanted them out. The Japanese invasion of East Asia reduced the French influence but when Japan surrendered, the French tried to resume control and needed the blessing of the USA - a blessing it received. So the Vietnamese nationalists fought the French and drove them out and the US went in and successfully installed a puppet government in the South thereby dividing the country. So the nationalists tried to drive us out with the help of China and Russia. They succeeded and promptly thanked the Chinese and Russians and then told them to leave. In their eyes, the USA was just another colonial power trying to run their country - it wasnt about communism vs capitalism, it was about nationalists vs foreigners.

The protesters were led by and large by communists who were against the war because they were against the United States and in favor of North Vietnam.

The motives of some protestors are irrelevant - either they were right or they were wrong - and according to you, they were right to oppose Johnson. Trying to label everyone who vocally opposed an ongoing war as "anti-American" based on the motives of some critics is a generalisation.

Even if they were in the right in protesting Johnson, they were in the wrong when they protested Nixon - who was getting us out.

Nixon "got us out" after ~5 years and more people died under him than under Johnson! As I said in an earlier post, much of the protesting under Nixon was eliminated when the draft ended.

Every time Nixon did something to "protect the troops," the protesters became even more enraged. It was clear that they continued to protest because Nixon still wanted to win the war - albeit with ARVN and American airpower.

Nixon wanted to win the war without invading ground troops? C'mon! His goal was to bring the North to peace talks by dropping more bombs than Johnson. And claiming all these people protested because they wanted the North to win is ludicrous, the war couldn't be won without a massive invasion and that meant a huge loss of life.

Their alegiences were with communism, not with America.

Obviously some people were communists, but to make such a generalisation is uncalled for, and I'm sure you don't like it when liberals call conservatives names based on the actions of some conservatives.

Berzerker, the anti-war protesters were anti-American. They were largely communists.

You keep saying this and provide no proof.

When the protests first started, I attended and SDS meeting on campus to find out what their position was. The SDS was, I soon found out, a communist front.

And the SDS represented everyone opposed to the war?

Still, like Sikander said, there were a lot of ordinary Americans who joined the protests because they didn't like the idea of being drafted into a no-win war with a very good chance of being killed for nothing. As I said, Johnson's conduct of the war was plain immoral. That was clear to all.

Were those people "anti-American" too? You acknowledge Johnson's conduct of the war was immoral but you keep condemning opponents of his immorality.

[Ned]

Berzerker, you simply miss the point. The massive protests were organized by communist fronts like the SDS. Anyone who was there at time knew this. Still, a lot of ordinary folk joined them because of the hopeless strategy of Lyndon Johnson. We were constantly told that there was light at the end of the tunnel. Then came 'Tet in January '68. Even though we won, everyone was amazed that the communists could even mount such an offensive. This was not an enemy on its last legs.

Eugene McCarthy's campaign then took off. He nearly beat Johnson in New Hampshire. Then Kennedy announced that he was running for president. Johnson got on TV, and in a major surprise to everyone, essentially resigned.

But, in the presidential campaign that followed, it came down to Johnson's VP against Nixon. Nixon was elected, narrowly, because of the war. Humprhrey never could distance himself from Johnson.

But what Nixon did was to begin withdrawing the troops and turning combat over to the ARVN. At the same time, he tried to negotiate with the North. But like Johnson before him, Nixon was largely unsuccessful until he went to China in '72. This effectively outflanked the NV's and placed them in a precariious position vis-a-vis an invasion. It was at this point that Nixon bombed Hanoi and Haiphong. The North agreed to peace.

Nixon was re-elected in a tremendous landslide in '72. Contrast his re-election with the humiliation of Johnson. The people overwhelmingly approved of Nixon's handling of the war.

So that brings us to to protesters in the Nixon era. What were they protesting? The fact that we were now winning?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ned:

1) The SDS was not a communist front. It was a radical student organization. There's a difference.

2) The election of '72 was a repudiation of McGovern, not an endorsement of Nixon. This is why Nixon's people wanted McGovern to get the nomination to begin with.

3) Nixon handling of the war included the secret bombings of Cambodia and military incursions into neutral Laos, both of which reinvigorated the protests. And why shouldn't they have? In a just world, Nixan and Kissinger would have found themselves at the Hague, on trial for war crimes.

4) There is no inconsistancy between Nixon's re-election and his opponent's increasing vehemence. If anything, the former fueled the latter. As a point of comparison that should resonate with your conservative politics, you might want to consider how the re-election of Bill Clinton didn't silence his critics but instead pushed them over the edge until they were rabidly using every means at their deranged disposal to try to drive him from office.

[Berzerker]

Ned -

Berzerker, you simply miss the point.

It was at this point that Nixon bombed Hanoi and Haiphong. The North agreed to peace.

And the fall of Saigon was a result of that peace?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ned -

And the fall of Saigon was a result of that peace?

Do you remember the old Saturday Night Live routine?

Baba Wawa: Dr. Kissinger, what would you say was the high point of your career to date?
Kissinger: That would be in 1972, when I received the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Vietnam War.
Baba Wawa: And what about the low point?
Kissinger: That would be in 1975, when the war ended.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's been hours yet Tinkai and Elijah are no where to be seen.

Sleep, work, girlfriend, a typhoon hitting Hong Kong. Some of us have lives beyond Apolyton.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Oh, well. At least I squashed them in one thread.

In your dreams, mate.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
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.

You miss the point. All of the links you posted are about people saying they were spat upon 30 years after the fact.

During the war, there no reports of vets being attacked, no photos, no letters to the editors. Nothing. These tales begin to told years after the war.

The stories that do get told years later lack credibility.

Here's a story from your first link that one vet tells
We landed in San Francisco, Ca and were told we had to go to Travis AFB to get further military flights. I was in civilian clothes and walking out of the front of the terminal behind a Army Sgt in uniform using crutches as he had lost one leg. As he stepped through the door he had tomotoes and egges thrown at him and was called baby killer and other insults. He was hit twice before me and two others were able to get in front of him. We all walked together from there to a taxi while the Airport Security Guards just looked on an grinned. There were about 60 to 70 people in the crowd outside the airport

So according to this guy, the security guards just stood around smiling while people were throwing eggs and tomatoes at people coming out of the airport terminal. Does that sound credible to you? Do you really think that the airport officials would allow this to happen.

60-70 protesters outside an airport and there are no cops?

And this story gets repeated time and again by different people. If it was true then SF airport would have been covered with tomatoes and eggs, and yet there are no news reports from the time.

Go to this link

http://www.dailyillini.com/nov02/nov11/news/stories/news_story09.shtml

University academic adviser Joe Miller served in the Navy during the Vietnam era and has been an organizer for Vietnam Veterans Against the War since the 1970s. His father served in World War II.

Another myth is that hippies spit at and mistreated Vietnam veterans. He said that although some people might have mistreated the veterans, the general population didn't.

History professor John Lynn said the idea that Vietnam veterans were spat on and World War II veterans were treated like heroes is misleading.

"There was no press coverage, no pictures and no movies of (people spitting on Vietnam veterans)," Lynn said. "Not to say it didn't happen, but it didn't widely happen — that is an image that comes later."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You miss the point. All of the links you posted are about people saying they were spat upon 30 years after the fact.

During the war, there no reports of vets being attacked, no photos, no letters to the editors. Nothing. These tales begin to told years after the war.

The stories that do get told years later lack credibility.

So now eye witness accounts don't matter? BTW you must be on crack if you think there wasn't any refrences in the period media. There were tons including people who told there stories both as spitters and spitties. I'm sorry Tinkai, but, as I've already gone through before Mr. Lembcke is a politically driven historical revisionist who plays the same game the Halocaste deniers do. He runs his mouth and says there's no evidience and then demands people provide him with evidience. No matter what he's given, no matter which eye witnesses come forward, no matter which period reports of photos are provided he will never admite the truth.

Face it. Lembcke is extreamly biased and can't be trusted. All the major media outlates have had the same take on events for 30 years and now we're supposed to believe that everyone is wrong except Lembcke just because a raving left wing ideologue says so? No thanks. I have more faith in journalism then that.

So according to this guy, the security guards just stood around smiling while people were throwing eggs and tomatoes at people coming out of the airport terminal. Does that sound credible to you? Do you really think that the airport officials would allow this to happen.

60-70 protesters outside an airport and there are no cops?

Yes, it does make sense. Often times these protests went on every day for an entire month and secruity was no where near as tight in the 60's and 70's as it is today. I doubt any department is going to spare a large number of officers for an entire month and just ignore all their regular patrols. More likely they just have one guy patroling the scene and he can't be every where at once.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW you must be on crack if you think there wasn't any refrences in the period media.

Odie, you made this claim yesterday, we asked for some proof, you haven't provided any. If there are tons of material from the Vietnam war period then post some links.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Mr. Lembcke is a politically driven historical revisionist who plays the same game the Halocaste deniers do.

There's no comparison. The Holocaust is documented with photos, films, official documents, and extensive documents from the war years.

You have provide no documents to support your claim that peace activists beat up Vets. The only thing you have posted are stories from decades after the event.

Originally posted by Oerdin
No matter which period reports of photos are provided he will never admite the truth.

Post the photos. Post the reports.

You're going around screaming "there are photos, there are photos, there are reports, there are reports."

Well post em.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Often times these protests went on every day for an entire month and secruity was no where near as tight in the 60's and 70's as it is today. I doubt any department is going to spare a large number of officers for an entire month and just ignore all their regular patrols. More likely they just have one guy patroling the scene and he can't be every where at once.

So what you're saying is that dozens of protesters would block the doors to major airports, throw garbage at people, and the airport officials would do nothing.

Hey Odie, I've got this real nice bridge in Hong Kong for you. Real cheap.

[Dinner]

Please! Like I'm really going to go to the library and pull them up. Well, maybe if you give me a research grant.

Until then I'm going to trust the real media and you can stick with Lembcke is you want to. Thousands of eye witnesses who had it happen to them can't all be lying but maybe one man (Lembcke) is.

[Whaleboy]

OK, Elijah. I normally ignore you because I find your teenage rantings to be not worth my time, but, I'll tell you what I'll do. So that we don't spam up this thread I will start a new thread where you can "prove" you're claims that liberals always use logic, reason, and thought in their positions where as conservatives only use hate and fear. That was the quote you said you could back up wasn't it?

You will note I said my position was SIMILAR and not identical. Nonetheless, feel free to open the thread . My position is that those capable of using greater logic and reason tend to be liberals, the intellectuals for example, and that conservatism is an easier position frequented often by brainless idiots and abusive word-wasters, simply because it needs less thought.

Teenage rantings? Lets take a straw poll: Who thinks I use teenage rantings? Who has the more consistent argument here? Who has become the laughing stock of apolyton, both left and right!

Atleast you've finally come around and admited that I was right and that spitting upon soldiers is disgraceful.

That was my position all along, if you would care to read my posts. You should find it easier than reading your own, I make an effort to be concise...

In fact I've taken great pains to show that it was a minority but that it never the less did occur and on a fairly regular basis.

Thankyou for responding to my request that you clarify your position. Nonetheless, thus far, just skimming the thread earlier, you have not shown that this was a regular occurance. Perhaps you can provide some statistics for the proportion of spitee's among the veterans, as well as monthly figures for the time following the war. Such would be required to suggest that was a common occurance, and not a selection of isolated incidents.

That's when your friend Tinkai showed up and said it was a myth which NEVER occured.

I never heard of Tingkai before this thread . To both him and you, I say, it occured (and to you, I say you have to show it is a regular occurance), but so what?

I have proven my position and you have now agreed.

See above

In the future it would be nice if you would respond to what other people say and not what you wish they said and maybe you could actually stop intentially lying about what they said. Misrepresenting the other side doesn't help you at all, instead, it makes you look foolish.

I think its time for me to bring out a new jig... "The Hypocrisy Dance"...

[Dinner]

A hypocrate like you would know it best Elijah.

[Whaleboy]

Are you actually critiquing my arguments?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Thousands of eye witnesses who had it happen to them can't all be lying but maybe one man (Lembcke) is.

It is not that they are lying, but rather their memory has changed.

A classic experiment is the Neisser's study of how people remembered the Challenger explosion. The day after the explosion, he had 100 university students write down exactly where and how they had heard about the explosion. About three years later, he interviewed 44 and asked them to remember that day. Only three people were able to provide the same answers to what they had written the day after the explosion.

About 10 of the students gave completely different answers, and even when shown their original answers, they couldn't remember it. In other words, new memories had replaced what actually happend.

Neisser tells how he has vivid memories of hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbour while listening to a baseball game. But of course that's impossible given the attack happened in December.

Kind of scary when you think about it. How accurate are our life memories? Not very it seems.