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

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm not sure how people connect mainstream war protests with hatred of war veterans just because a very small number of losers have attacked individual war veterans.

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.

[Whaleboy]

Tingkai: Agreed, nobody deserved that treatment, but it is a folly to blame a few isolated incidents on the anti-war movement, then and now, as Oerdin suggests.

[Chemical Ollie]

Isn't there a lot of pissed off veterans from Gulf War 1 who suffer some strange decease, possibly caused by inhaling dust containing depleted uranium?

[Tingkai]

Maybe the US government's position has changed, but for years they said there was no problem, the vets were just imagining things. Typical crap.

[Whaleboy]

Governments lie, cheat, steal, deceive.

[Ned]

One of the things I never fully understood about the antiwar movement during the Vietnam war was why the protests continued after Nixon announced his policy of the Vietnamization and began withdrawing troops in large numbers. Rather then applauding Nixon's move, the protests grew larger.

For example, when Nixon authorized the assault on the NVA bases in Cambodia, the antiwar movement held massive demonstrations across the United States. Why? Clearly, taking out those NVA bases was intended to protect our troops from surprise attacks and bring to war to a quicker end. The protesters didn't seem to care about our troops. They always seem to care more about North Vietnam.

It was this kind of protest that caused Johnson not to go after those NVA bases in the first place. His failure to do so resulted in the deaths of thousands of American lives. This is a direct result of the antiwar protests.

[Odin]

Originally posted by elijah
Governments lie, cheat, steal, deceive.

Especially populist conservatives like Bush.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
One of the things I never fully understood about the antiwar movement during the Vietnam war was why the protests continued after Nixon announced his policy of the Vietnamization and began withdrawing troops in large numbers. Rather then applauding Nixon's move, the protests grew larger.

Here is why the protestors hated Nixon:
Mai Lay(sp?) Massacre
Kent State

Quit with your revisionist BS.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You're the one claiming peace activists spat on vets, but you provide no proof.

And the only thing you can provide is a book written by a left wing extremist who writes crap claiming that Liberals always use logic and reason while Conservatives use fear and hate. Sorry, but when someone writes crap like that then they can't be taken seriously.

Besides how come ALL of the mainstream media disagrees with you? The only person you have on your side is a left wing idealogue with a history of making bogus claims. You're the one who's claiming that 30 years of main stream reporting is wrong so it's up to you to provide creditable evidience. So far you have provided NONE.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You're still swayed by the myth.

You must listen to alot of Pacifica radio ro some other far left source. Don't you realize they're just like Fox only biased towards the left instead of the right? That book is junk.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by elijah
Tingkai: Agreed, nobody deserved that treatment, but it is a folly to blame a few isolated incidents on the anti-war movement, then and now, as Oerdin suggests.

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

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
For example, when Nixon authorized the assault on the NVA bases in Cambodia, the antiwar movement held massive demonstrations across the United States. Why? Clearly, taking out those NVA bases was intended to protect our troops from surprise attacks and bring to war to a quicker end. The protesters didn't seem to care about our troops. They always seem to care more about North Vietnam.

Because in doing so Nixon expanded the scope of the war by brigning in a new country into the fight, or at least as a battlefield. (and these attacks in some ways helped the Khmer Rouge along). nThe last part is just crap..Ned, do you even accept the possibility that toher may disgaree with your point of view, or is the notino too farfetched for you?

It was this kind of protest that caused Johnson not to go after those NVA bases in the first place. His failure to do so resulted in the deaths of thousands of American lives. This is a direct result of the antiwar protests.

Seeing how the ati-war protestors did not stop johnson from balloning the forces in Vietnam to 500,000, your statement has to be taken with an immense grain of rock salt. And of coruse, had Johhnson not done so, or gtten out, all those tens of thousands of people would not have died either.

[Dinner]

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.

[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. The other books lemek wrote are irrelevant, speically if they happen to be well researched and substantiated with cource credits. A political bias is NOT enought to discredit a source. You have to show a pattern of misbehavior when giving accounts, or in stillting acounts beyond what reasonable discretion call for.

For example, the Wall Street jopurnal has a clear political bias (look at the ditorials), But in general I would not questyion a news source becuase while it has a bias, it also has jorunalisticn integrity. So to prove Lemke is a bad source, you must do more than just prove the man has opinions (OH my GOd, opinions!!!). you must show his reasearch method flawed or his use of sources disingeneous.

And it would be nice for you to stop simply saying "this was SO!!" and give a single source. I don;t care either way, but if you want to make your point, back it up.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


Here is why the protestors hated Nixon:
Mai Lay(sp?) Massacre
Kent State

Quit with your revisionist BS.

BS? The protesters did not appear to be concerned about American involvement in that war as they were concern about a North Vietnamese victory.

Mi Lai had nothing to do with US policy. Our policy under Nixon was withdrawal. This should have satisfied the protesters. It did not.

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.