How did this thread become a referendum on John Kerry? Does it matter that Kerry was trying to call other soldiers to task for their actions in Vietnam? He was blowing the whistle, too. Or was there supposed to be a code of silence in place?

In Kerry's defense, I would like to know how many soldiers/marines came home with "war trophies," in particular, ears of the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese they killed. I personally saw slides of ear collections belonging to American GI's back in 1975 while visiting the home of an Army veteran and his wife. The soldier's wife asked me if I wanted to see pictures of "dead gooks." This was civilized behavior?

There were atrocities committed during the war in Vietnam. How widespread these atrocities were nobody on this forum really knows, and I do not know who would know outside this forum, either.

Regardless, I would not have condoned spitting on the troops coming home. It was unfortunate that anyone was spat upon, but not every soldier was spat upon, and not every so-called peacenik (read: anti-war protester) did the spitting.

As long as both sides keep trying to paint the other side with the same broad and misleading brushstrokes, there is little hope for mutual understanding or respect.

Isn't it time to chill out about Vietnam?

How many were actually “spit on” is debatable but they were certainly not welcomed as men who had served their country by most Americans – esp. the John Kerry crowd on the far left. Kerry actually left this crown in the end and the VVAW because they were too far left and anti American even for him.

Many vets felt they went to war, died or were otherwise wounded physically or psychologically for in a war so badly run it makes Iraq look like a masterpiece of planning, and when they got home they were ridiculed and ignored. They are right.

No, it's very different, and I'll tell you why.

If your claim to fame is "peace under every circumstance, no-war-ever", and you truly believe that, you're willing to get your rear kicked without the need for retaliation. I always found that kind of logic intriguing.

Using that logic, I should be able to knock a peace-activist to the ground, help him up, and knock him back down again. At some point, he's going to have had enough of a beating and finally fight back. And when he does, THAT is your pot calling the kettle black. What good is it to yell "down on war" when you yourself would attack someone back? Oh, defending yourself? That's declaring war against another person. What's the dif? Paladin?

It seems like a mindless philosophy either way you look at it.

Protest a war, fine.

Don't try and equalize, and then champion a message of superiority that none of you would be willing to truly live out and take it out on someone who is willing to fight. That's cowardice.


Why? It is repeating itself today.

Instead of Kent State, we have Cindy Sheehan.
And instead of Hendrix, we have Green Day.
And instead of calling the President dishonorable, we call him a murderer.
Same crap, louder rhetoric.

I think it's time we recognize that some wars are worth fighting, and some are not. But either way, the soldier does deserve merit and we should be proud of them.

Ted said:

Good point. The hippies were yelling "Baby Killer" and making soldiers afraid to wear their uniforms in public.

But SPITTING on a soldier? No way, that's just unbelievable, they'd never do THAT!

Or am I the only one who realizes how retarded that argument sounds?

Ah, where to begin?

First of all, who said that we weren't proud of the soldiers? My father and grandfather served honorably, Dad in WWII and Grandpa in the Spanish-American war. My Dad was fond of saying that our family wasn't drafted; they volunteered to serve.

Secondly, many of us are against unnecessary wars, and certainly against the atrocities committed by some bad apples in the military. There does come a time when there is no alternative but to fight; most of us recognize that. And you can be sure that I would take up arms if necessary to defend our country within its borders.

I don't know of any other poster in this forum azwhitewolf, who has been so willing to paint an entire group of people with such broad brushstrokes, evidence contradicting your attitude notwithstanding. I explained to you that Curmudgeon is a law-abiding citizen who did not spit on any soldiers, and he didn't curse them, either. Yet you persist in trying to vilify him for exercising freedom of speech and the right of self determination in how he dressed. That is enough for you to have an attitude about him, and somehow you feel it is totally all right to rationalize a member of the service treating him contemptuously when he had done NOTHING to deserve it. And yet you make a big deal about activists who treated soldiers contemptuously, because they were painting with broad brushstrokes the returning servicemen. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

Shame on you. You should apologize to Curmudgeon.

I have already made my position clear. I truly believe that "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven," and what it implies. Sometimes war is inevitable. That is when we pitch in and do what is necessary to defend our homeland. Sometimes war is ill-advised, and there are other times when it's damned foolhardy. Guess what Iraq was?

I did not demonstrate against the war in Vietnam, but if I had, it would have been for the same reason that I oppose the occupation of Iraq. Too many American lives are being spent in an untenable situation. This is a far cry from vilifying the troops, and certainly, while I would not hold a parade for them, I wouldn't call names or spit on them, either.



The difference is, I wouldn't "declare war" against him (i.e., kill him or take him as a prisoner) for it, but I would stop him from doing it again. In karate we were taught to respond in a manner proportional to the threat. You don't swat a fly with a sledgehammer; neither do you threaten or attack another if it isn't necessary. And that, I submit to you, is the difference between defending yourself and attacking a country that didn't attack YOUR country.

If I don't want to get hit, I don't haul off and hit someone else. In karate I learned from our sensei that the best way to win is not to fight in the first place. Makes sense to me.

Paladin,

First of all, war is not karate.

Second of all, when someone changes their story, it changes the ability to respond accordingly. I didn't think I should have to go redo my post because he forgot to add a few details later. But thanks for your opinion when the humor wasn't even directed towards you.

Third, don't tell me who to apologize to. I will apologize when I think it is necessary, and not until then. Had you actually read my talking points, which I was hoping you'd actually "discuss" instead of "correct", you'd see that I had already apologized to him.


ONE example by an opposing viewpoint is not "evidence contradicting".

Sounds like you got mad that I flamed a bunch of hippies (who I do believe DID spit on soldiers), and what, you dig hippies? Relate to hippies? It doesn't even matter. I completely and utterly reject the notion that they are doing anything REMOTELY close to helping the cause. They have all the free speech as you and I, and then some. Want REAL change? Vote for it.

Paladin, did you catch this when I asked Curmudgeon?
Woah! What's THAT?! I was actually expressing that he was a VICTIM of an UNFAIR ATTACK. I infered that the vet had no right to do that!

It's not about H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y, it's about reading it in C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

I guess when I said "Hippies suck", I was supposed to imagine that people who dressed "similar to hippies" would be imagined by veterans who'd imagine that some guy I never met or saw in my life named Curmudgeon was part of the same group of people who yelled at vets, and would then predictably knock coffee out of people's hands at 7-11 for no reason. Gee, why didn't I see that connection before he said it?

I'd like to think we got off on the wrong foot and that dialogue is still salvagable. But don't mistake that for me being passive. You're welcome to get up in my grill at any time, but don't think that if I perceive a misrepresentation, that it is going to go unanswered.

Paladin:

You're assuming, of course, that the "someone else" has the same standards, plays by the rules and wants the same end-result. Karate is organized, with a clear start point, and a clear winner in the end. And even a referee. That would totally make sense if only foreign policy played by the same rules!

It would make sense to me too, except for one thing: Nobody is playing by the rules because there are none.

Quarkhead:

Well shiver me timbers! That was incredibly dramatic, Quarkhead. Is there a dance that goes with that?

What is it with this thread?

You tell me. It was you who with one breath castigated the so-called spitters for generalizing the returning soldiers, and with the next, you generalized all "hippies" into one group and expressed your actual hatred for them all. How do you reconcile that? Perhaps instead of witty repartee you could help me out with something a little more substantive?

I generalized my hatred for them?

I generalized my disdain for them. I hold them in utter contempt. I think what they were doing was a waste of time, and productive to nothing. They're free to express their opinions all the want. They cross the line when they spit on soldiers and act out Civil Disobedience on the rest of us with their publicity stunts.

You held Aquilla in contempt for some supposed "brotherhood". I wouldn't say that that was any different, except that you actually believe that some soldiers were spit on. By actual hippies, and not making some nonsensical "government plant" conspiracy. For that, we can agree. That's a reasonable conclusion to reach.

I didn't even get into the "how widespead is it" debate until I talked to a few family members. And then posted the results without drawing some asanine, overdrawn "conclusions". So yeah, a "few" people got spit on. I doubt it was the government. Others disagree.

Okay. I supposed the "fact" that hippies called soldiers "baby killers" could be asked in a similar thread, and met with the same criticism. "It never happened".

How about the fact that I told Curmudgeon that I disagreed with a vet smacking him for no reason? He noted that he was actively opposing the war - that didn't make him a hippie, now, did it? That didn't make him a hippie in my mind (although, I endured Paladin's list of "no drugs", "two jobs" rant, which I got the first time when I read his post), but you sure wouldn't have figured that out by reading it.

Here, try this:

Paladin said:

Here what I actually said:

AZWW said:


I didn't say (or infer) "justified" reasons. *I* didn't say one was better than the other. I didn't even suggest that he got some sort of comeuppance. Why would I? I don't believe that. I simply noted that there was a difference from what was said, and what was added. Yet I'm "persisting" to "Vilify" him for exercising free speech?

Point me where I said any vw-driving, bearded, long haired Boston-Band-Member-look-alikes should get a beat down because VW-driving, longhaired hippie types DESERVE a beat down? I said their tendencies to disrupt the lives of everyone else around them for their little pet issue is intolerable, and noted that had I been a soldier, I don't think *I* personally would have put up with it. Followed by "they're better off being used for speed bumps", to which all hell broke loose.

My actual point was you can have free speech all you want. However, "free speech" doesn't mean that the rest of us are going to treat you with kindness and rice-krispy treats. Regardless of what you're wearing, what side you're on, and what you look like... but yeah, I"m "vilifying".

I didn't villify Curm's free speech at all. He described HIMSELF as the "Town Clown" who was vocal and whose picture was in the paper. Because I didn't "point blank" disagree doesn't mean I called him a town clown or supported the vet; in fact, I said what the vet did was wrong.

He must know that his opinions aren't popular, and I'm somehow "hateful" and an "enemy of free speech" because one generalization some vet assumed about Curm-the-individual is compared with my opinions of the uselessness of hippies-in-general. That's imagination run overtime. Of course I painted with a broad brush. That's what a generalization IS.

I guess if you can show where hippies, as a group, have made a contribution to the betterment of society where the American soldier, as a group, has not, I would be very interested. But yeah, let's ridicule our own military for the actions of the government engaging in a war we shouldn't be in. Yeah, THAT solves the problem! I don't disagree that the War in Iraq is a mess, Paladin. My point is blaming soldiers is a poor excuse for making that point, and that's where the activists cross the line.

As much as I disagree with her general attitude, Cindy Sheehan and her Caravan of Grief at least set out to confront Bush. I don't think that was a silly gesture - I would have certainly lent an ear for the answer! But at least she's putting the blame where it belongs, and put a plan into action that was neither destructive, or assaulted the rest of us with inconvenience. That was activism that at least was pointed at the source of the problem, not the result of the problem. It's not dissent or personal disagreement that I have a problem with, asmuch as the method of delivering it at the expense of others - particularly those not involved.

Substantive enough?

Well Aquilla, I'm calling you a liar. I also served at that time, for eight years in fact from 1969-1977, and A, I was never spat upon and B, never did I hear of anyone being spat upon. Such an event would have created quite a news story, no doubt a national one, had it ever been reported. Yet I recall no such story. I accuse you of pretending that this apocryphal event, so cherished in neofascist mythology, happend to you. Most likely you, like so many right-wing ideologues, find the idea that this ever happened so compelling -- it fits in so well with contempt of war opponents -- that wish to give it credence here. So many things happen in the movies or get talked about by Paul Harvey and subsequently people believe they actually happended. At best you have one of those memories that confuses what a person once dreamed about with what actually happened.

If indeed there was any spitting, it happened to so very, very few people that the odds of one of them being a frequent contributor here are infinitescimal. So, in my book, you're a liar. No such thing was in any way characteristic of what returning veterans could expect.

I defy anyone to produce here credible evidence that anyone in a U.S. uniform was spat upon in the United States. Anyone besides Lembke, that is. Look at this:

"For example, on October 6, 1967, John F. Geyer and Bill Bowers, two sailors in uniform on a ten-day leave before shipping out, were accosted and taunted by a group of about ten young men while leaving a high-school football game in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Bowers heard one of them say, 'We're going to get a couple of sailors.' Then one of the band of attackers spat at Geyer, hitting both Geyer and Bowers. Geyer, who was a former high-school football lineman, swung at his attacker. The attacker then stabbed Geyer in the side with a knife. After two hospital stays, Geyer fully recovered. In January and February, 1968, Geyer's 18-year-old attacker was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to a reformatory. All this is laid out in a series of stories in the local newspaper, the Bucks County Courier Times."

I mean, if that ever actually happened, it was a fight between rowdies after football game, for crying out loud. And this Lembke clown offers it as evidence of the proverbial spitting? Ridiculous. Allentown of all places, a regular hotbed of anti-war activism and "hippie" culture. And at a high school football game, to boot. Rah-rah, go team, peace now! Give me a break. Also I am very curious to know how the Bucks County Courier Times is "the local newspaper" of Allentown. Especially since Allentown isn't in Bucks County, it's in Lehigh County. The local newspaper is the Allentown Morning Call.

A liar and a neo-facist? Whoa, I am crushed to the core.

But hey, what the heck, Vlad, ole buddy ole pal. You did your time, 1969-1977 was it? Long stretch at a rough time to be in the military. Thank for your service to this country.

Now, let's talk about ears. How many you got? How many "trophies" did you cut off the heads of a dead VC? What did you do with them anyway? Hang them on the wall in your den? I've heard (pure heresay, not documented anywhere) that Oak is the best way to mount Charlie's ears. Nice contrast with the colors doncha know. And, after you tell us all about your ears maybe you can tell us how many Vietnamese women you raped and babies you killed.... John Kerry said it happened, and you don't dare call him a liar....



Must have happened, huh? No "urban myth" there. Happen with you? Let's ask John Kerry.....



"Day to day"? Not isolated incidents. Must be true because if you take issue with that testimony before Congress you get called a liar.

All I have is my own anecdotal account of what happened to me. Take it or leave it. But, Vlad, old buddy. Do tell us about your ear collection.

Aquilla

1) You're confusing Jerry Lembcke (the guy whose poor research skills led him to believe spitting was an urban myth) with Jim Lindgren (the guy who found all the examples in contemporary press accounts).

2) You're correct that Allentown is in Lehigh County. But it appears to be less than ten miles from Bucks County, so it's hardly a stretch to call a Bucks County paper "local."

3) Jim Lindgren found plenty of other examples, including first-hand reports in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post of protesters spitting on soldiers. These were not recounted years later, but reported the next day.

Vladimir, I'm glad you were never spat on. But I've provided plenty of "credible evidence that anyone in a U.S. uniform was spat upon in the United States." I won't ask you to apologize to Aquilla (I take it that's a spousal prerogative in the case of PE and Mudge), but I do think you're out of line calling him a liar.

Edited to improve an awkward sentence in item 3.

Yes, I had the names confused. But you can tell a great deal about Lindgren's objectivity from his taking what, if true as reported, was obviously bad misbehavior by some rowdies after a high school football game and conflating it with war protest. By report, this was an incident of roughhousing and ultimately stabbing, hardly of spitting. By this standard, anytime a drop of saliva landed on a service member beween 1965 and 1975, it confirms the myth.

Here is Lembcke's rejoinder to Lindgren at Slate, which is persuasive and worth reading: http://www.slate.com/id/2159470/sidebar/2159648/ .

I will continue to regard Aquilla as a liar (or just possibly a severly deluded person) for the simple reason that so very, very few troops -- if any -- would have been spat upon that the odds of one of them being a habitual poster here are infinitescimal.

Here is what one commentator said at the "Volokh Conspiracy," which bears reading:

"Jim Lindgren says that a commenter at Countercolumn says that Bob Greene says that veterans say they were spit on. The beauty of blogging is that because bloggers link their sources, we can get down from quadruple hearsay to "only" double.

I just looked up the Lembcke book on Google Boock Search. He cites a 1995 study by Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks, available on JSTOR. They, in turn, looked at a sample of contemporary newspaper reporting on Vietnam protests, examining the specific articles to see whether they described "anti-protester" words or actions. Their conclusion was generally "no," and they found no accounts of protesters spitting on troops in their sample."

So, Jobius, show me some of these New York Times and Washington Post stories.

Oh, and here is another quotation from Lindren himself:

"One of the more amazing stories of protester abuse of veterans (and one veteran's violent response) were the attacks on Congressional Medal of Honor winners. In a March 14, 1968 column in the Bucks County Courier Times (and elsewhere), the head of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, WWII Medalist Thomas J. Kelly, reveals that even Medal of Honor winners have been abused and spat upon as 'monsters.'"

Again with the Bucks County Courier Times! And moreover, the report is heresay, and from a source no doubt well disposed to believe in the tale he was telling.

I may have been wrong about the Washington Post. Lindgren mentions a piece by Carl Bernstein on May 7, 1970, but it describes a protester spitting at a policeman, not a soldier. The New York Times piece was by James Reston, ran on the front page October 23, 1967, with the headline "Everyone Is a Loser; Washington a Sad and Brooding City In Wake of Antiwar Demonstration The Peace Protest: Everyone a Loser." You can find it by searching nytimes.com archive (1851-1980)n for this quote: "“It is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander."