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

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
What occured after the end of the Vietnam war was totally wrong. I don't ever want to see "peace activists" spitting on and beating up draftees ever again.

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.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned

During our revolutionary war, many continued to want to stay with the Crown. However, to say the least, their attitude was less than helpful if not downright treasonous.

How can supporting the government that you were formally be under be treasonous. Now i'm not saying the independence wars were wrong but I fail to see how not supporting it was an act of treason. Your basicly saying if you are on the losing side your a traitor.

Inavde Canada now, those treasonous gits

[MikeH]

Great counter trolling by Boris.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
We turned against the Vietnam war when it became clear that Johnson was lying to us and had no strategy for victory. All he offered us is an endless, bloody stalemate. Certainly, if a commander in chief so screws up, we should replace him. We replaced Johnson and Truman essentially because the people formed the considered opinion that our commander in chiefs had failed.

Look at the current situation -- the lack of WMD's, the climbing death toll, the refusal to send more troops, the refusal (until recently, and it's still tentative) to involve the UN at all, the cost of $1 billion/week (with a request for even more coming) -- look at all that and tell me Bush isn't acting exactly like the presidents you describe.

The people who were against war because they were on the other side, such as Jane Fonda, were never in the majority. However, their protests enormously influenced the North to continue the fight rather than to seriously negotiate.

Are you really dopey enough to be suggesting that the ongoing violence in Iraq is continuing because of lack of civilian support for the troops? Do you really imagine Iraqis are thinking, "My strength and motivation to continue fighting the American occupiers is derived from knowing that students at Antioch College don't want them here, either. If not for those precious Midwestern white kids with dreadlocks, I'd be at the negotiating table right now"?

During our revolutionary war, many continued to want to stay with the Crown. However, to say the least, their attitude was less than helpful if not downright treasonous.

Ditto anyone who supported North Vietnam during that ugly war.

This is an astonishingly lame analogy. First of all, while the number of citizens who opposed the war was significant, the number who expressed support for Saddam was practically non-existent (except, perhaps, as hobgoblins in the mind of the Fox News team). Second, remember that our Flight-Suit-Wearing AWOL-in-Chief has already declared the war over, so there is no equivalent here to the British or the North Vietnamese.

You want an analogy? Here's an analogy:

The Bush people...
imagined Iraq as if it would be the occupation of Japan;
sold it to the American public as if it would be the liberation of Paris;
planned it as if it would be the invasion of Panama;
and have ended up with Somalia.

But I guess we should keep quiet about that.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, you have to admit that many if not the vast majority who marched in opposition to the war were overwhelmingly anti-American. They viewed the United States as the problem, not Iraq's Saddam Hussein. President Bush was cast as the ultimate evil, while cute and cuddly Saddam and his lovably sons became the hope of anti-American world for their valiant stand against Imperialism. (Am I that far off?)

Good catch Ned !
There is some truth in that: the protestors saw the US as the reason of the war (since the US issued an ultimatum and then attacked Iraq, you could say there is some validity in it), and Bush was the focus, even the incarnation of this agressiveness, which led to sometimes mindless bashing of him.
When Saddam was mentioned (which happened much more rarely than Bush), he was booed on as well because nobody believed he was a good guy. Save a few pro-Arabs fanatics who'd have been bellicists if the balance of power was different

[Whaleboy]

Am I that far off?

Big time.

I think you will find nearly all who marched and nearly all who oppose(d) the way (including myself) would choose Bush over Saddam, would choose America over Iraq, would choose democracy over depotism. However, we argued that we didn't have to choose, and indeed such a choice is illogical.

[MikeH]

Yeah. This concept that being against the war meant you were anti-American was a little absurd. After all His Majesty King Tony was behind Bush the whole way and I was just as critical of him but no-one (other than perhaps a troll like Boddies) would say that made me anti-British.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by MikeH
Yeah. This concept that being against the war meant you were anti-American was a little absurd.

Its basically spin to discredit the pacifists... playing the emotive "patriotism" card, the fallacy that it is.

Originally posted by Hermann Goering
It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
We turned against the Vietnam war when it became clear that Johnson was lying to us and had no strategy for victory. All he offered us is an endless, bloody stalemate. Certainly, if a commander in chief so screws up, we should replace him. We replaced Johnson and Truman essentially because the people formed the considered opinion that our commander in chiefs had failed.

These were LIMITED WARS with limited aims. Our aim in both was the continuation of the non-communist regime we came in to help. 'Total' victyory, as Bezerker pointed out, was NOT and option, becuase 'total' victory meant the end. Which shows Ned that your "black or white" view of war is incorrect: wars are policy, and sometimes, policy is limited.

The people who were against war because they were on the other side, such as Jane Fonda, were never in the majority. However, their protests enormously influenced the North to continue the fight rather than to seriously negotiate.

What could have happened in SV is Congress cutting back on financial support while Johnson wanted to continue to fight. This may have resulted in a disaster. So much for "supporting the troops" while opposing the war.

The founding fathers made CONGRESS the true representative of the people's whishes. NOT the president, who is not even elected directly by them. You keep saying most Americans supported the war: if so, why would they continue to elect into office congresspeople that kept cutting back the budget for the war? It is congress that has the power to declare war, and hold's the pruse strings: congress is the true representative of the American people in the government. Th actions of congress, of the people's representatives during Vietnam speak counter to your claims.

During our revolutionary war, many continued to want to stay with the Crown. However, to say the least, their attitude was less than helpful if not downright treasonous.

As was pointed out, the traitors and rebels were the revolutionaries, not those that stayed LOYAL (hence the name loyalists)

Spiffor, you have to admit that many if not the vast majority who marched in opposition to the war were overwhelmingly anti-American. They viewed the United States as the problem, not Iraq's Saddam Hussein. President Bush was cast as the ultimate evil, while cute and cuddly Saddam and his lovably sons became the hope of anti-American world for their valiant stand against Imperialism. (Am I that far off?)

The last part is just an innanbe rant. Please find me the anti-war protest were Saddam came out as cuddly: sorry, but your slanted perceptions of the ant--war groups don;t equal reality. So yes, you are far off on the whole subject.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Sandman, I can hardly imagine a democracy starting an unjust war. Britain and the United States were both behind the war on Saddam. That should settle the issue of whether the war was "just."

An enourmous, gigantic, incomprehensibe mistake. By this logic, every policy that is popular is inherently right, since this is a dmeocracy, no? Anything that has the support of 60% of the people must be morally correct: so you must support first trimester abortions, since 60% of the people back those. This type of abortion is not immoral, but instead inherently just. Why? The Ned: "democracy is infalible so isten to the polls" test.

[Whaleboy]

GePap:

The democracy fallacy is shown thus!

If you are the pilot of an aircraft with a failing engine, do you take a poll of the passengers, asking whether you should continue or make a crash landing?

[Dinner]

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...

Oh, shut the hell up. Sometimes I get so tired of people talking out of their asses here.

[Boris Godunov]

I spoke not too long ago with a Vietnam vet who said he was spit on when he was brought back wounded from the war.

However, after his recovery, he was also quick to go and join anti-war protests, because he felt the war was morally wrong. A few extremists spitting on soldiers, while repugnant, didn't negate the truth, in his mind, of the war's folly. People should remember that the vast majority of anti-war protestors did no such thing, and a healthy number of anti-war people were veterans.

[st_swithin]

His name was John Custer, PFC.

[Whaleboy]

Oh, shut the hell up. Sometimes I get so tired of people talking out of their asses here.

At the risk of shattering your little fantasies, the man is right.

There were a few incidents granted, but that is the fault of the assaulters and in no way enough to even tarnish the name of the anti-war movement.