Not to derail this thread I want to post a few questions for debate here.

The first time I heard about people spitting on Vietnam veterans was in a Rambo movie. When answering the debate questions please cite actual examples, whether they were noted in the media or you personally witnessed them, and avoid statements like "I heard from a friend..."

Were Vietnam veterans spit on when they returned? If yes, how widespread was it?

Aquilla was a soldier in the Vietnam War, so if there was spitting, I'd say he'd be an expert in the matter and he says yes. Ergo, the answer is likely yes...unless Aquilla is fabricating (which I have no reason to suspect) or his case was an anomaly, which I also have no reason to suspect.

I do recall a classroom teacher who was a Vietnam war veteran . He was basically everyone's favorite teacher, a very quick-witted, interesting guy. He absolutely never spoke of his war days, so we were surprised when something happened that certainly made an impression on me.

The other teachers thought it would be fun to dress as Vietnam war protesters/hippies for a day....I can't remember the occasion (maybe Halloween? the reason escapes me...) There were only about five or six of them. They held up signs and marched from classroom to classroom. I was in his class when they knocked on our door. He gave them the soundest, most outstanding verbal smack-down I'd ever heard. They left with confused looks on their faces, and he tried to continue the lecture to our class. But he couldn't, and had to sit down and compose himself for a moment. There were tears in his eyes.

So, okay, it's all anecdotal and maybe just Aquilla and that highschool teacher experienced the 'hate' firsthand...but somehow I doubt it.

How do you know Aquilla witnessed any spitting? His post alludes to an incident(s):

I could interject a comment about rather having them there shopping than at an airfield spitting on returning soldiers and taunting them with cries of "baby killer" and "war criminal", [snip]

I could have written the same thing without experiencing it.


Are you assuming your teacher was spat on? Were the "hippie protestors" spitting on people?

He started a thread on this issue a while ago here



Yes, I'm assuming something rather tramatic happened to him to make him react that way. No, he didn't specifically say he was spat on. Few of us were there and your article discredits witnesses because they couldn't prove they were spat on. I find that premise dubious. I cannot prove that I was spat on nearly every day while riding the schoolbus in the year 1980, but I was. How the hell is anyone able to "prove" they were spat on by anonymous protesters nearly forty years ago? Pity cell phones with cameras wouldn't be invented for another thirty years.

Maybe they don't have to prove anything? Maybe they just have to come forward as witnesses instead of rely on hearsay. Odd how the same standard doesn't hold up with Iraq.

I guess at this point I would take issue with this statement from Aquilla in relation to the second half of my question: "It happened, and it happened all over the country". All over as in a dozen incidents spread out geographically, or hundreds, thousands of individual veterans were spit on?

If the latter we should should be able to back up this claim. We might not be able to prove you were being spit on, but if this was widespread...

I seem to remember seeing footage of peace protestors spitting on returning soldiers when I was in school. If I recall correct they also threw pigs blood and feces and screamed abuse at them, calling them baby killers &tc. I certainly saw interviews with soldiers who had experienced this, as well as former protestors looking back on it. I don't think its an urban myth. If my memory serves correct it was quite wide spread in Australia too and I also dimly recall a story about a British serviceman who returned from the first Gulf War to be spat upon by a woman in the airport.

Were Vietnam veterans spit on when they returned?

Yes


If yes, how widespread was it?

Who cares? I don't think they did any "scientific studies" on it and I sure didn't care "how widespread it was". It happened, it happened to me. So what? If that was the worse thing that happened to me at that time, I was one lucky dude. That was unimportant. What was important was that this country turned it's back on people that it DEMANDED (in many cases) go to war for it. Guys came back suffering from PTSD, and dying from Agent Orange exposure. My next door neighbor, a Marine died of brain cancer from Agent Orange in his mid-40's. Even when he was diagnosed he had to work a second job under the table so he didn't lose his disability "benefits" (benefits, what a fricking joke). Did he get spit on when he came home? I don't know, I never asked him. But you know what? He got spit on every day once he came back. You want to talk about something important, talk about that. This topic is nonsense. Either you believe it or not, and either way I don't care. It's not important.

Aquilla

What are you talking about? "Come forward as witnesses" to whom? Lesley's thread at ? There are first person accounts of this...just google spit and vietnam veteran. Whether you believe what they say or not is up to you. The article you linked to shows a personal account of it on television....that the author can't find the witness is his problem.

You do.


This country or its politicians? I certainly hope no one in Iraq believes they are there on my behalf.


Nah. I'm not the center of the universe. I was thinking more along the lines of media accounts, of which I've seen very few, except for the Hollywood variety.


Want to know what my first hit is? Have a look.

Here's the next one.

Third.

Here's another.


I'll concede Aquilla isn't fabricating a personal account. Whether it happened "all over the country" is up for debate.

Perhaps not so surprisingly, there is the first person account (you say you've been looking for) on that very first page!



Well, I'm sure you can sort through the reams of accounts you'll find on that google search...probably not as many on sites that are specifically designed to discredit those accounts though. It is the internet.

Yeah. That answers the first part of my question. Next?

As an aside, I find it patently hilarious, if not indicative of something more, that one of the vet haters is oh so hung ho today according to GI Joe's account.

This is a tough issue, really- because, like a rape victim, you have to call into credibility the accuser, and the behavior of the alleged rapist.

It is odd that we have no real evidence of this- but we have lots of invectives hurled at anyone that DARE question the honor and behavior of the politicians sending troops to die, as "spitting on the troops" - not "supporting the troops" etc by asinine talking heads that feed this garbage to people that want to believe in this war- even though it is a horrible waste- and, in that, we have Vietnam ending up being wrapped up in an Iraqi debate as well.

I have no doubt at all that SOME returning vets were spit on, just like I have no doubt that peaceful demonstrators were killed because national guard troops felt like killing kids that day in Ohio.

I was going to start a slightly different subject on this, based on a conversation held between several ex-current soldiers/friends/family- anyway- all of the men talking had "served" at one time or another.

At what point is the soldier reponsible for the atrocities or foriegn policy of his nation, just by his very enlisthing or being drafted and serving in that military?

We are pretty quick to condemn a homeowner for losing his house for taking a "risky loan"- but do we, or should we, condemn the soldier for fighting for a cause he does not believe in?

We did, after all, condemn those that had no direct role in killing Jews for "just following orders"- is a soldier to be held responsible for "just following orders" when he goes and kills innocent civilians, due to "friendly fire", even though he doesn't mean too?

Personal responsibility, personal anecdotes, morality of an illegal and ill advised war, etc etc gets cut off because anyone that addresses these issues is told they are "mistreating the troops" and "spitting on the veteran's service" for thier protestations, and, even perhaps, laying some culpability on the troops.

To even SUGGEST (much less prove, with overwhelming evidence) that the US foriegn policy is bad, very bad, to the point of evil- is "unpatriotic" and "you must hate America"- and then, of course "you don't support the troops" .

So, to make my point- I am willing to bet there were damn few spit-ees, I would bet far less than, oh, protestors assaulted by over-zealous LEO types, and I do not remember any organization actually KILLING troops the way the national guard was allowed to do to those "four dead in Ohio"

Tension ran high, it was a watershed moment in US history, and lots of bad behavior on both sides- but the whole "being bad to the troops" has been pretty trumped up over all, with the possible exception of certain "hot spot" protest areas.

I asked every Vietnam vet I have ever known personaly- not one to date has said he was "spit on"- and not one of them recall a story of being particularly treated bad at all.

I think if you stepped out of your bus in full dress greens in the middle of a protest rally, or in some "hot spot" like the Berkley or Kent campuses- well, spitting might have occured.

Otherwise, I believe it is rare, and overblown as a propaganda tool.

I do think it was still wrong, however, my own above questions I would have answered "the soldier bears little culpability for his nation's actions"

I spit on hippies.

And animal rights activists, for that matter.

I mean it. You lay down on my freeway and have one of your "die ins" like you did in San Francisco, and you'll have BF-Goodwrench along side "that flower in your hair...." "Sorry officer, I didn't see the entire sea of people laying down on the 202. I was texting while driving. My bad."

Soldiers are willing to die for you. The rest of us have to get to work. Just because your shift at Starbucks or the used bookstore is over (assuming you do something besides write songs about rainbows and animals and unicorns in your basement) doesn't mean you can go and interrupt everyone else's day just because you decided to care about something besides yourself.

It's a good thing military men (and women) are trained to hold their temperance. Had it been me, I would have grabbed one of those little wooden "peace sign" guitars from the closest, least smelliest hippie, and shoved so far up ****** expletive ****** .... that you could twang it through his nose, and he would need a spatula, a drain snake, and a vacuum cleaner to get it back out again.

I would argue that the soldiers are upstanding to the point where the fact that it makes the point: We have to ask if they were spit on SOLEY because there is NO record of some Pechuli-oiled buttcrack who got his head split open as a result of launching his odoriferous, halitosis-ridden spittle on a fella who hasn't seen a real bed in months. That's impressive temperance, indeed.

I'll toss my two cents in.

Here's a book on the subject:
Homecoming: When Soldiers Returned from Vietnam.

Here is a blog (click on 'show the rest') with reference to many newspaper reports of spitting incidents. These reports were given in the 60's and 70's.

It appears that Shafer based his story on a book in which the author claims that stories of spitting didn't start appearing until about 1980.

interesting AZ- I think that the reason that soldiers were mistreated, or seen as bad more and more in the Vietnam war was most likely because of folks like you- they do peacefully protest when the US is doing something bad- they get threatened with death or assault? Hmmm, so it is okay for citizens to kill other citizens for thier opposing viewpoints and thier civil disobediance as well?

Yes, it is okay to kill a war protester- but OMG treating a returning soldier is so much worse than murdering innocent civilians?

One thing is very well documented- protestors were beaten, killed and assaulted during thier protests- still, far, far,far worse than the "homecoming" of the soldiers- the soldiers certainly faced worse while "in country"- but the citizens of the US had to face evil at home- in the form of bullets, folks like AZ wolf wanting to literally kill them, and thinking it is okay- and fire hoses and attack dogs.

How many soldiers were faced with attack dogs and fire hoses by the city fathers again?

Overall- the really violent folks, that did horrible things- was our own goverment and "war supporters"- just like here in Alaska, where a guy took it upon himself as his "freedom of speech" to throw cold water on Quaker grandmothers in sub-zero weather as a form of protesting thier pickets.

For all the talk of violence and bad treatment- it is a crying damn shame that soldiers were treated badly upon return- and just plain wrong- but even worse was our goverment's behavior towards the war, the soldiers and the protestors.

You had rednecks all over the place that thought it funny to "string up a hippy"- and those rednecks that thought it a good idea to "lay a BF-Goodwrench along side "that flower in your hair...."

So, I can see, in objective terms, why soldiers, agents of the US goverment themselves, would be seen as just another arm of the evil that was Nixon and LBJ during those times.

Make no bones about it- our actions in Vietnam, as in, our policy towards it- was straight up bad, no way to excuse it- and, in context of the times, some personal responsibility to go to war instead of going to jail made you culpable, enabling the bad behavior of Nixon and LBJ.

I don't agree with that logic in any way- I think it is very easy to seperate the policies of LBJ and Nixon and a draftee.

But, what I have never seen is much evidence of widespread abuse of soldiers on the scale that the "hippies"- who, as it turns out, were 110% correct in everything they said, just as war protestors have been proven right today about Iraq- - while we do have clear and convincing evidence of mistreatment of the Vietnam war protesters, we have little real evidence, if any, of maltreatment of soldiers even close to anything of the scale that the protesters had to endure.

We don't have a single pic of a soldier getting spit on, not one home movie of a news clip or footage of soldiers getting spit on?

The way we hear it in society today- it sounds like soldiers had an assigned "spitter" so that everyone could stand at attention after getting off the plane or bus, get spit on, and move on, in a orderly, military-like fashion while not losing your military discipline.

No, AZ, it's just being tired of fighting. As I said earlier, if being spit on was the worse thing that happened to a nam vet. that was one lucky guy. It happened, it wasn't a very nice thing for our "kind and gentle peace lovers" to do in my opinion, but oh well. We certainly don't want to question their patriotism, love for country or motives now do we. They were just standing up for what was "right". Ok, they stood, they spat, and some of them even lied before Congress and ran for President.

Oh well, it was over 30 years ago, long time and people have moved on. If someone who wasn't even there wants to take issue with what happened and call me a liar, ok. I don't care. I've been called a lot worse.

Aquilla

Wow Aquilla, I didnt' know you thought GW was a liar.

Bad things were done on both sides. I don't think this country has healed, or learned it's lessons, and it is showing today- as we repeat the same mistakes. We "support" the soldiers- but with what? Like DTOM pointed out- a yellow ribbon as we go to the mall?

I am starting to wonder if the bad treatment was better for the soldier in the long run- at least, they got some attention from the population of US citizens, that generated SOME outrage at the poor medical and counseling and all that went with returning home from that crappy asian pseudo-war. Today, instead of maltreatment by society- we have really ignored them, in an odd fashion. We have ignored how long this war is going to last for the soldiers that have survived with such hienous injuries that they will need to be taken care of, extensively, for the rest of thier lives. Far more than returned from Vietnam, I am willing to bet. Injuries that weren't "survivable" then, are now life long, serious, disabilities.

What is going to happen in 10-20 years to these Vets, BTW? We will pretty much forget them? Is anyone going to spit on them today? No- but it makes them that much easier to forget 20 years down the line- when these 17-20 year olds have become 37-40 year old disabled vet?

I am willing to bet that the national sentiment and reality of action resembles something more along the lines of "we supported the troops when they came home, now they just have to deal with it" or some such.

Aquilla- I don't doubt your personal experiances- but as for the societal "urban legend" of this happening alot, well, evidence just doesn't show it.

YOu would have alot more official reports of retaliation, some pictures, some movie footage.

I put is this way- I believe it happened. I also believe Woodstock happened. But if everyone that claimed to be at woodstock were actually there- well, the entire population of the US, plus a couple other countries, would have had to be at that particular event.

I don't think of it as much of an "urban myth" as much as a "exageration used for political ends" .

There are some whom suggest the incidents of Vietnam veterans being spit upon are a urban legend or an rare and isolated event.

I don't know. I got in the military as Vietnam was winding down. I never ran into any soldiers that said it happened to them, but as high as emotions were at that time and as bitterly divided as the nation was, does it seem beyond the realm of possibility? Hardly.

The bitterness many Nam vets feel extends not only to how their countrymen never thanked them for their service and sacrifice, but also to how their government--Democrat and Republican alike--has ignored them and how Hollywood has painted them as drugged-out zombies and soulless killing machines (I bet Platoon isn't one of Aquilla's favorite flicks).

One thing I can say with total certainty, trying to explain Vietnam to someone who wasn't there and learned about it in history class is like trying to teach photography to a blind man.

I read this in a book today (no, really. Today).

I would like to confront the people who presume to judge me.

I would say: "You cannot imagine. Your experience is a thousand times more limited than mine."

"You are no better than I am, until you have faced the things that I have."

And this is so important, because there will be more wars.

And this will happen again.

This came from a graphic novel entitled "D-Day Dodgers". The title comes from a song Allied servicemen in Italy came up as a sarcastic reply to Lady Astor of the British Parliament who, during a World War II speech, first referred to the men of the 8th Army who were fighting in the Italian campaign as the "D-Day Dodgers". Her implication was that they had it easy because they were avoiding the "real war" in France and the future invasion.

No one who has never known war intimately, up close and personal has the right to judge anyone that has.

If a tree falls in a forest and no-one happens to be recording it at the time, did it make a sound?















Spitting on the military during the 60's and 70's appeared to be a past-time for some anti-war protesters.

Might there be some out there who were not actually, literally spit on? Sure. And what end would it serve a Vietnam Vet to say that one has been spit on when one hasn't? To illustrate that Vietnam Vets were not treated with respect upon the return home? Is someone going to deny that they weren't?

Vietnam Vets were spit on. Was it widespread? WHO CARES?! It was just one form of slap in the face that Vietnam Vets got.

There seems to be this belief that there was a conspiracy to fake spit. Did all these vets and these reporters get together and say, "You know... let's all tell the story that we were spat upon."

Now, I am vehemently opposed to the current war, but I tell you what... I meet someone who has served in this war, I shake his hand and thank him.

I looked about for anything which might shed some light on this for me, but information is certainly sparse. Frankly, if Aquilla says its so, then I'm inclined to believe him because I've never known him to make stuff up and I've known him a while now.

There seems to be though, as Lesly suggests, mostly anecdotal evidence of soldiers being spat on, on the internet. I distinctly remember seeing footage of protestors spitting and throwing feces on soldiers though, so now I wonder where that footage came from. I'm surprised I can't find any reference to it. I have however found plenty of stuff about modern 'peace protestors' and I have no doubt that soldiers returning home, from Iraq are often met with hatred and violence by the more extreme left wing 'peace protestors (those we called the Autonome in Europe). This soldier appears to have met with such incidents on several occaisions.

Here is an anti war protestor (current conflict) on You Tube asking other anti war protestors not to do to the troops today what people did to him when he came back from Vietnam. he appears to be confirming the spitting story.

Here is video, slightly related. At around 5½ mins it shows America's version of the Autonome beating up some of their own fellow 'peace' protestors for being christians.

On the whole, I don't think it matters so much what happened then, its been and done now. Its what happens now that counts, and judging by how many black block/Autonome type protestors there are in the US anti war protest now, I think people being spat on is the least of your worries. My country has just been witness to a year of rioting, squats and arson attacks by these Autonome types and given that they are more than willing to throw molotov cocktails at the police for no further reason than they want a place where they can hang out and play loud music (paid for by the same tax payers whose cars and shops the Autonome readily destroy) then I'd be more worried about what these fanatics might get up to.

It isn't surprising to me at all. Back then video footage was recorded and stored on large projection wheels. All of that video footage wasn't transferred at the advent of the internet. Home computers wouldn't exist for another twenty years, the internet wouldn't exist, for all practical purposes, for twenty-five to thirty. Try finding a specific Harris Poll dating back to 1960-1970. I couldn't do it. It might be on microfiche in the archives of some large library. Nearly every magazine that existed then doesn't exist now, nor were all of the old news clippings transferred to the internet. Furthermore, there were about two channels on television to watch, of which one daily hour comprised "the news". Although today we are addicted to reality shows covering the minutia of nearly every second of everyday life, it had to be at least somewhat newsworthy to make it on the air. Accounts of spitting on returning soldiers, while perhaps newsworthy today, weren't necessarily newsworthy events to warrant coverage in that hour...I'd say that would be the case IN PARTICULAR if they were frequent events.

There was an article written about my father in 'Men's world magazine' back in 1967. It was several pages long. At the time he was Lt Colonel Aebersold, and his plane was shot down in Vietnam (though he made it back). I'll tell you what, don't waste your time, you won't find it. Men's world magazine no longer exists (except as the title of a soft-core British pornography magazine, unrelated to the former). It was also covered in several papers, but you won't find that anywhere today either. Walter Cronkite interviewed him (I saw the black and white photos), and he was on the news...also something you won't be able to find. So I submit there is likely no way to know exactly 'how widespread the phenomenon of random spitting incidents were' looking backwards, unless there was some sort of direct study done on the issue (that is still in existence), which doesn't appear to be the case.

We have very few people participating in this forum who fought in the Vietnam war. I think three members in this forum participated in that war? Aquilla, Vladimir, and Nighttimer. At least one out of those three was spit on. That really an amazing coincidence for such a supposed anomalous phenomenon. Has anyone here stolen a Monet painting?

Mrs P. The footage I'm remembering was from a Danish school class room, anno 1988, so it was on VHS. It was a part of some social history lesson. I'm not sure if Americans are aware of it, but a lot of Europeans in my generation (not sure about today) were educated about the American civil rights movement, and as a natural consequence, the recent history of the USA. I think this is a big reason why so many Europeans in my generation actually have strong opinions on the USA. I know more about the civil rights movement in America than I do about Denmark's resistance movement to nazi Germany!

This film I recall distinctly. There was bad lighting and a lot of deep contrast as a result which gave the impression of something oppressive. It was at an airport. A line of soldiers all came off a commercial looking aircraft and at one point were walking past a group of protestors behind a chain link fence. There were also numerous interviews with both soldiers and demonstrators by an America journalist I've seen many times, but whose name I don't know. None of the interviewed many any efforts to deny the extreme methods (verbal abuse, spitting, pigs blood and feces) they were using. The programme, which was about resistance to the Vietnam war may have been Danish with additional American footage as this is quite common over here. I particularly remember it because I went to join the military not long afterwards but I knew in 1988 that Danes would never act like that.

I saw an Autonome banner calling our Danish troops in Afghanistan 'baby killers' not so long ago. So far I haven't heard of any of our soldiers being mistreated, but I have heard of this happening on more than one occaision in the UK, though tuth be told, these incidents were not carried out by peace demonstrators. Example. Example. Example.

Just wanted to add, since I just read this post and find it to be.... really nice.


Yes, indeed, 50 soldiers ended up in the hospital, many with broken bones, and they were injured before shots were fired. Just peace-lovin' folk. Talk about your historical re-write.



At the point that they commit atrocities by violating the LOAC. If going to war by Congressional authorization means they are committing an atrocity by serving their country and honoring their sworn obligation to us to serve the Constitution, well what does that make those who sent them? (that would be ALL OF US) If our troops should be spit on for serving, well, there should be something much more special reserved for all of us citizens who sent them. Make your outrage count! Smack your own face against a wall today!

Were Vietnam veterans spit on when they returned? If yes, how widespread was it?

I never witnessed this, but then I'm not God. Can't be everywhere at once. When vets tell me stories of this or similar mistreatement upon returning home, such as being shut out of the VA or getting really poor care, I figure it is probably exaggerated but has truth underlying it. It's the same for non-vets too. People like to tell stories and they get embelished along the way. We're all partly truth and partly fiction.

I do remember that this didn't become such a big deal until well after the Vietnam police action was over. Yep, they didn't officially call it a war while it was going on. Euphamism was the mark of the 1960s and 70s. Seems today that everything is a war, so it has swung around to hyperbole. Either way it is the stuff of bovines.

The worst thing that happened to returning Vietnam vets was probably being treated as if invisible. Oh, you're back? Take out the trash. Seems a repeat of this is happening or developing with returning Iraq vets. A big difference is that many of these vets are looking at returning again and again to Iraq or somewhere in the ME, and for freaking ever due to a contract clause.

Don't know if spitting on returning Vietnam vets ever happened, but if it did it was probably better than being ignored. It certainly was better than being redeployed against your will.

My sorrow for Vietnam vets is all used up. I'm sorry for Iraq vets. Nobody's spitting but it also seems that the worst punishment is being put on them. They are becoming armies of Mr. Cellophanes.

Regarding war protest, the only effective time for that is before the war. Once it starts, better figure out a way to survive it. Seems to me that marching around with banners and signs just attracts attention from authorities with guns, tasers and tear gas. Back in my senior year of high school I went to a Vietnam protest where an old guy asked me what good I was doing. Couldn't come up with an answer to that, so in college I didn't protest. Well, not in that way.

In the end it's better to be spat upon than not being seen at all, as if dead and forgotten.

New York TImes



Better to be spat on than forgotten? That's an interesting take on things.

Hmmm, it seems AM has conveyed the message better than I- in about the same manner I wanted too, only better. There were literally millions of protesters during the vietnam war. I can't remember exact number of total servicemen actually in the military at the time either. But the number I am sure is AT LEAST in the hudreds of thousands.

"Cellophane"- yep, now THAT is something all the vets I know, no matter which war, seem to talk about the most "served and now forgotten"- "we served, then lost everything upon return (divorce, financial problems due to extended deployments, injuries that prevent them from every holding a job etc) - that is the worst of the crimes, really, and a REAL problem.

Entspeak came up with a few examples- I have no doubt about thier veracity, no more than I doubt Aquilla- but once again, I see it as more of a propagandistic tool to beat up on those that ARE protesting peacefully, and have been against this war since the begining- to paint all protestors as "hating America, abusing the troops" etc etc- even though, it is a small minority of scumbags doing the "spitting" etc.

Take one very negative event- turn it into a justification for something totally not related.

The whole "spitting on the troops" incidents, how every many there were- were used to demonize all hippies and "peaceniks"- as if THEY were wrong about the war in Vietnam? Lets face it- the "peaceniks" were right, and those that "supported" the war were very, very wrong.

So how do the political forces that were pro-war save face? They deflect the argument to soldiers being spit on, and protesting the war= hate America, hate the troops.

I equate this entire debate to teh "hate speech" stuff - if we just prosecuted assault as assault, then we wouldn't need new laws.

What the "spitters" were doing was illegal - they should have been arrested and prosecuted for assault- and they weren't- that was and is the root of the problem, right there. Lack of prosecution - the "cellophane" issue. Don't want to deal with the actions of actual illegal behavior, for the "hassle" it would bring on them.

For those that experianced it- they are victims and are angry. For those that experianced violence on the protester side- they were victims are were angry about it-

it is almost as if it is still too "new" to even have a discussion about it- or, the Iraq war has brought it back up, or both.

The main thing now is though- bad guys are "pimpin" the soldiers that WERE abused for thier own political means, and to scapegoat those that are against this current cluster-you-know-what.





Um, spat on, or spat near the ground? HUGE difference, don't ya think?



Actually- that is kind of my point- we, as a nation, have supported a horrendous foriegn policy for a long time, and really act as if we are suprised when people outside the US "hate us"- and you ask why- why do we get blamed for our goverments and politicians actions, even we, as individuals, may not support those actions?

I believe that Bikerdad or someone started a thread on this- but it does go a bit to American's ability to state that "individuals need to show some self responsibility for thier actions"- but, the person saying this has the caveat of "well, except me, I am a victim, and need some special consideration"-

I believe, in the 60s, the "greatest generation" had instilled some personal responsibility in the baby boomers cultural awareness, and those protestors gave more responsibility to the soldiers, as well as the politicians, and then "forgave" thier own bad behavior in reaction to this lack of personal responsibility on thier own part.

From my point of view, growing up as a child, I saw adults behaving badly, on both sides, during that time, and damn little personal responsibility for anyone.

I believe I am consistant (as much as one individual can be) of mitigating circumstances for those at the bottom of the economic-social rungs of our society- which, in Vietnam, were the majority of the draftees. So, I believe the Vietnam soldiers that served, served with honor and don't deserve the scorn they were given. As I believe home owners today losing thier house deserve a bail out more than a corporation. As I believe that we should stop taxing waiters and waitresses tips, that I believe the death penalty ought to apply to folks like Ken Starr first, and rich people that murder for money.

I would spit on a Tobacco company executive and feel good about it- I would do the same to Rumsfeld or Cheney or GW- but I would NEVER even think about it to a soldier that has been merely serving his country.

So yeah, to me, the whole country should be smacking thier head up against the wall for voting for whom they have been voting for lately- but it ain't likely to happen, is it Mrs P?

Spitting is never nice. It was ugly when Roberto Alomar spit on an umpire and it was equally offensive, when Terrell Owens spit on an opponent in the end zone to celebrate a touchdown.

I don't know how many soldiers endured this indignity, but even one is too many.

I liked most of what you wrote but especially liked this video, as gross and offensive as it was. The best part was 'the opprresive fascist dump truck', I got a big chuckle out of that.

I only decided to post because I was chatting with a biker who happens to be Veitman Veteren. He was telling me about the times he rode out with Patriot Guard Riders to protect the families from protesters at the funerals of fallen servicemen. I don't really know to what lengths the war protesters in the Vietnam era went to but you can bet it was ugly and excessive. I don't have a problem with protesters but there are limits.

Not to be a sticky booger, but...does this mean you remember personal accounts of spitting "back in the day"? To "discredit the peaceniks" or otherwise? Because a lot of the basis for counter-argument (particularly in the cited article) relies on the premise that such accounts only started in the 80s, and were therefore fabricated.



Yes and no. Don't you remember the general elections of 2006? The Democratic Party won a majority of the state governorships and U.S. House and Senate seats. Seems to me the voters are speaking, albeit slowly. Our system offers the option to cast off our current government without revolt or betrayal or fighting in our streets...just vote the idiots out. It's definitely inefficient compared to authoritarian rule but vastly preferable I think.

Some protesters went too far, calling returning vets names and spitting at them; I cannot support violence or intolerance for any goal. Some soldiers in Vietnam killed innocent people knowingly, endangered their fellows by getting smacked out in-country, and even perhaps murdered their own officers. Neither group deserves to be pigeon-holed and then condemned based on the actions of the few morons.

Protesters spitting on vets are in the same category as the "swift Boat" folks - and those who bought their drivel - they are throwing mud on honorable men for imaginary reasons. In my opinion, as long as Aquilla - or anyone else - believes the Swifties and continues to falsely attack Kerry, they are doing no better than the protesters they revile; they are spitting on honorable soldiers.

On a broader scope, we need to be sure and not fall for propaganda. The importance of what happened in Seattle in 1999, for example, has been dismissed due to the propagandistic focus on the few 'black flag' participants. This is nothing new; people-based movements almost always get attacked this way, all the way back to Sacco and Vanzetti, back to Haymarket, and farther. Authoritarians and status quo supporters will always use these tactics to marginalize mass movements. Not to any surprise, it is almost always liberal movements that suffer these attacks - pretty much by definition, since conservatives of various stripes (Dems or Repubs or others) are the ones vested in the status quo.

Spitting? I'm sure it happened - occasionally. But I'll bet the number of spitting incidences was far, far fewer than the number of disillusioned vets who returned from Nam and joined the peace movement.

I am a member of the patriot guard- they haven't been needed in this state- little far for those lowlifes (the phelps) to come to disrupt a soldiers funeral.

Our training is to not react- that is what they want- it is how they make thier money- they scream and taunt- you react- they sue.

There are alot of vietnam vets in the guard, but there are alot of soldiers, period, in that group.

Alaska, BTW- has over 70k vets. Not a easy place to be anti-military.

And I agree with QH- what the swifties did to Kerry were equally bad, if not worse.

John Kerry is a political opportunist who has made his career by marrying rich women and lying about what happened in Vietnam. That you would disagree with that neither surprises me, nor does it dismay me. In fact, should you ever agree with anything I said, I would find that most disturbing.


Aquilla

Ah, so to lie and dishonor, smear and distort someone who served honorably, even bravely, are okay, as long as they fit your political beliefs, such as you just did to Kerry?

Funny- you are all too ready to believe the lies of the swiftwater liars, and justify bad behavior smearing his military service- just because he is of the opposite of your politicla spectrum- very nice.

Huh, I thought that justification was the same one used by the "peaceniks"- I guess you have more in common with those you despise than you thought?

CruisingRam said:

I fear you missed the hyberbole, CR? "Folks like me"? I expected some backlash, of course, but certainly not that.

Do you think I would REALLY kill animal activists too? (Although, I have to admit that I had a "slight altercation" with one - but that's for another day)

Did you stop to read the "If it was me" part? IF I was a military guy who got spit on? IF? I F IF?

Truthfully, "folks like me" sit behind my computer after a long day of working. Rest assured, your friends are safe of the Menace That Is AZ Wolf.

CruisingRam said:

Oh noes! A fire hose!

How many protesters got to watch the face of their buddies being blown off, or pick up the appendages of their friends in hopes that it might be reattached? How many hippies had to stick their friends with morphine so that their death would be less painful?

So yeah, I think soldiers deserve a hell of a lot more respect than the protesters. The soldiers didn't have a voice. They had a duty. If you want to be mad at somebody, be mad at the government and those in power. That's like making your case to the guy delivering your subpoena. He's not the judge. He's doing what he does.

The irony here is that those hippies, all grown up now, mind you: want benefits for illegal aliens. The vets? Not so much. I hold both groups responsible, but apparently, the ill will towards veterans is rearing it's ugly head - and maybe it's always been there. Hell, we don't even believe them when they give a first hand account. I really wonder now what it's like to serve a country full of thankless panty-waists who claim to "Support the Troops", but oppose war, oppose military funding, highlight only the most grieving mothers, and support military pay cuts. I call shenanigans.

CruisingRam said:

Would you feel better if I told you I drove a motorcycle? Instead of killing them, they'd be little speed bumps.

Now I'm a redneck? Geezus, CruisingRam. Apparently I misunderstood your passion for this particular subject, and it won't happen again. I'll put "smilies" in there so you know.

Tongue in cheek already! I keed I keed!

CruisingRam said:

"It sounds like"? "It sounds like" nobody EVER got spit on with some of the arguments here. The protesters gathered at the Ports in San Fran to lend support and sympathy to our troops, right?

See? You know how to do the hyperbole thing. Nobody even said anything close to that.

But even so, let's look at that. Vets today aren't getting spit on. And hippie protesters aren't getting strung up in trees anymore. Progress?

CruisingRam said:

Right. We don't have any pics or video of soldiers getting spit on...

And we don't have audio-recordings of hippies screaming "baby killer"....

I don't see any pictures of "strung up hippies" swinging from trees... so that couldn't have possibly happened either. "It would have been documented!"

In fact, let's just rely on the sanitized news footage of the day and rewrite history while it's still fresh. Why bother with those silly veteran "eyewitness accounts"? How would they know if they were spit on? It might have been rain.

Hey, you know what we DO have photos of, CruisingRam? Would you like to see the dragged, hung, beaten and burning soldier's bodies hanging off bridges in Iraq? Yeah, I'm the bad, barbaraic, twisted redneck... who should learn to submit!

CruisingRam said:

First, no, of course not.

America has certainly redefined the term to the point where Ghandi would be spinning in his grave.

The result of "civil disobedience" in the case of war protestors is all too often (if not exclusively) punishing innocent people who aren't part of your little group. That's not what it was originally (or supposed to be) about, but that's what's happening here. "The Peace Gang" has arrived.

The whole concept is interesting. Ghandi, who outlined rules for "civil disobedience" said this in 1940, when invasion of the British Isles by Nazi Germany looked imminent, to the British people (Non-Violence in Peace and War):

Ghandi

Let me sum that up for you: Don't fight! Give up. Be killed. It's a good thing! And if Al Qaida want your stuff, give it to them. Wait... what?!?!

I hope we don't look at this as the answer to "Defending America". I'll take a soldier of ANY caliber ANY day who has the guts to put his life on the line for everyone. Ghandi was assassinated. The British Isles, however, are still around. (insert Wahhh Wahhh Wahhh Wahhhh )

So CruisingRam... he was serious about this. But if *I* joke about running a few over, you get all bent out of shape. Make up your mind weather or not you support civil disobedience. Because it sounds to me that when the rubber meets the road, CD's are offering themselves for martyrdom. And those wishing for their demise just might oblige! And a good civil disobedient person isn't even allowed to swear. Apparently those in San Francisco didn't get the memo.

And again, the irony is that when people are arrested, they freak. Half of these college aged kids have no concept of being arrested. "What? I'm going to JAIL?! What for?! Hey Joey, call my mom and have her get a lawyer. WTF is going on here...." Yeah. That's good stuff. They have no idea of the consequences, and then claim that they're victims! The whole point of being part of a civil disobedience is to know that you're probably going to get busted, or your hiney kicked, or killed or all three. It's not a concept that was intended for "Remember those old college days, man?" Again - the memo must not have arrived.

While I think the liberals in San Francisco richly deserved to have their streets littered with people laying down in them playing dead and stopping traffic, and vomiting all over the steps of the Federal Building, I still find it annoying that most of the victims who had to deal with the result weren't even the decision makers.

Businessmen unable to get to meetings. Moms unable to pick their kids up from school. Those pro-war jerks!

Agreed, looks like the big ship of state is taking a turn. The hippies were right again, except the hippies never really existed. They were everyday people with kids and jobs and SUVs with flags tattering in the wind. Some were young and others blue-haired grannies. During Vietnam most were young, and so you had the impatience of youth plus the idealism and invincibility that met up with police clubs in Chicago, 1968. Oh yes, those were the days my friend.

Seems there is spitting going on but not directly on people. On the ground somewhere near assault but no, ha ha, it was the ground. Can't get slammer time for that. Lots of people spit on the ground, which is crude and base but not illegal.

I personally have no ill will toward those who decided to sign the military contract. For the Vietnam vets, as for civilians of that period, time is running down. For the Iraq and Afgahnistan vets, time is still a long stretch. It reminds me of a common saying from the 1960s and 70s -- die young and leave a good-looking corpse.

Five years ago they were thirteen, fourteen. Now they are making the big decisions that impact entire lifetimes. Sign up or not? Vote or not? Does it matter?

Another popular aphorism from back when was that we live in interesting times, which is a an ancient curse. Very funny if stoned properly. Then after the fog cleared away, it wasn't so damn funny. The blue-haired grannies feel strongly that the grandkids are being screwed. There's no smugness about it either. Maybe the kids need this shot of reality. Maybe not. Maybe some can be diverted away from interesting times. Probably not. Watership Down. Catcher in the Rye And a host of others.

It is a curious position I find myself occupying. It's partly a leaving of this life and partly an acceptance of those interesting times, a reflection in a still and deep pool. So spit in it or don't, it doesn't matter. Not to me, but maybe to that 18-19 year old with the vote.

The ship of state began its turn well before the year 2000. It takes decades to turn, and once the turn gets momentum it's impossible to stop. Within a fairly long lifetime I've seen it turn once and am seeing it turn again. This time things are different yet the same. They spit on the ground, not on people.

Not on vets. And the vets spit back, on the soil that is the United States of America.

There's no hatred for who we are but what we have become, and it seems turned toward symbolism that can't yet be expressed. It's too early. Maybe that's just the way it has always been. There's never enough time.

Thanks for the explanation, azwhitewolf. I was assaulted once by a "temperant military man" when I came out of the Seven-Eleven with a cup of coffee. Because I had a beard and long hair, he assumed that I was a "useless, unemployed, <snip> hippie." I was spit on, shouted at, and my coffee knocked to the ground. Working two jobs at the time, I was able to afford a second cup of coffee. As he was not courageous enough to continue his accusations until the police arrived, they were unwilling to file a complaint. Of course I do have a hard time describing people, and I "should have noticed" which branch of the military, the name on his uniform, etc... It was the clerk who had called to report a fight in the parking lot; but I also lacked credibility with the police in Midland because I frequently wrote letters to the editor, and I was known to be a nuclear power protester, a union member, and a member of the Democratic Party. My picture had been on the front page of the newspaper, and I was known on the edditorial pages as one of the "town clowns."

I was just trying to purchase a cup of coffee!

I'm sure you were. I wasn't judging anyone based on their appearance alone. I was judging them on their merits. The appearance part was added because I absolutely think that hippies are the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Going back to the original question of whether or not hippies spit on soldiers, do you think this particular soldier was spit on? I'd wager that he was. Unless there was some underground random-vets-spitting-on-hippies history I missed out on.... and even I'm not jumping to conclusions there either.

Was his taking it out on you justified as a result? No, of course not.

The thing that angers me is that there is enough evidence to suggest that there were many instances of people spitting on vets, but we're going to rely on some lack-of-pictures theory instead of firsthand accounts of people who are alive today that were there and say it happened.

I admit I jump into debates with both feet. So I took a breath and called my dad, who served. And I asked my father in law who lives with us, who also served and asked them to recall accounts within OUR families. Quite honestly, they don't engage in conversations concerning the war. It's usually a silent understanding, and those with a vet in the family know this, so I was shocked when they both started talking about the circumstances and their own accounts. Two total of my family members were spit on when they came home from groups of hippies. And for what? Serving their country? Where are we when a tie-dye holds more social merit than a soldier's uniform?

Hippies spitting on vets makes just as much sense as a soldier spitting on you. It's ignorant, full of assumptions, and doesn't really punish the person who is responsible. But let's not pretend it doesn't exist. I don't question that it happened to you - in fact, I'm sure there was a bit of backlash FROM some vets. Not to worry, many of the vets became disabled, drug addicts, alcoholics, or suicidal - and a combination of those - I'm sure much to the thrill of the self-righteous peace-lovers - after all, it's their comeuppance!

The point I was making is that if it was me, walking off a ship, into a crowd of people screaming "Baby killer" and getting some jerkwad spitting his throat cheese at me, I can't imagine myself taking that crap in public. And if it had happened in front of me, I'm not sure I'd be ready to tolerate it. It might as well be a bunch of monkeys throwing their feces. How does anyone defend a message of "not only did they deserve the beating in Vietnam, but we'll give them another one when they come home"? I understand anger. But this misplaced blame is unacceptable. THAT is why I hate hippies. They're a bunch of psuedo-intellectuals who were wrong on many accounts, dishonest or inaccurate in their own propaganda, believed their own hype, and took their rage out on someone who didn't deserve it. The only thing noble was their core cause, which was watered down with mindless idealism, and the beaming adoration of Che Guevara. In contrast, forgive me for my staunch support of men who are willing to die - even for the wrong thing - and place their lives in harm's way for the sole reason that they were ordered to.

Curmudgeon, what are your thoughts on Civil Disobedience?

I'm curious, because I think you suffered it on a small scale from the hands of a Veteran. Did it do anything expect punish you for something you didn't do?

You don't think I'm going to stand here and say that the vet who choged on you had a right to his "freedom of expression" at the expense of you, do you?


Edited to add
Yeah, I didn't see this part which you added after I already started replying:


Thanks Curmudgeon.

I didn't know you torked off an entire town. My response would have probably been a little different.

I thought it was "your hair and beard" that got your coffee thrown to the ground. Turns out, it was your political activism. That "little" tidbit certainly makes a difference, doesn't it?

Any other details you may have forgotten? Did you get his sister pregnant?

You jump from some people (what is a hippie, exactly, and how do these people know it was hippies who spit on them?) spitting, to hating all hippies. You talk about hypocrisy?!? I can smell the stink of this all the way through the internet! How is your "leap of hate" any different from the guy who hates all soldiers because of the ones who shot the kids at Kent State? Or who hates all soldiers based on what happened at My Lai and other villages? Can you really not see you're making the same silly leap the "spitters" are making? Lumping a group of people together based on some loose criteria, for the actions of a few? Heck, at least with the soldiers, we know that the guys who committed atrocities were actually soldiers. You have no such evidence to base your "hippy" claim on.

Lots of crocodile tears here. Aquilla wants to pretend he's got some sort of soldier code of brotherliness - ooh, don't you dare dishonor the soldier..., but he's perfectly willing to whip out a verbal beat-down on a former soldier if the guy turns out to - gods forbid - be a liberal. I guess the problem for him isn't that soldiers were spit on - it's that it just wasn't the right soldiers! You castigate the spitters for making false leaps of logic, and your natural dislike of such an action (with which I agree - spitting on anybody for any reason except kinky love is bad bad) leads you to the same erroneous leap. To you, these people were hippies, and therefore all hippies are equally guilty, and you hate them and nyah nyah nyah. In fact my response can be summed up in the portion of your post I already quoted: "I understand anger. But this misplaced blame is unacceptable."

I think this is over the top.


Aren't you practicing the same sort of thinking that got the soldiers spat upon by anti-war activists? What makes you any better than they were with your prejudices?

Curmudgeon was gainfully employed (although he had to work two jobs to be) and paid his taxes. He was never jailed for civil disobedience. He did not use drugs. He had a wife and two children. He expressed his opinions in an orderly manner that involved no wrongdoing to anyone. He deserved no such treatment at the hand of a soldier, whatever branch, any more than returning soldiers deserved ill treatment when they came home.

So tell me, doesn't your attitude amount to the pot calling the kettle black?

Give it a rest, QH. The problem I have with John Kerry is that he lied before Congress by telling them that soldiers. supposedly his fellow soldiers were war criminals. He used his brief serve in Vietnam and his medals (many recommended for him by him) to bolster his lies. That earned him a spot at the political table. I don't care that he's a liberal, actually, I'm glad he is because he'd give conservatives a bad name. What I do care about is that he's a liar, and not just a liar, a damn liar. His lies brought dishonor to a whole lot of people, and I'm not just talking about nam vets, but their families as well. Kerry could have cared less. I find what he did utterly despicable. And, I'm not alone. I wasn't a POW or in the Riverine, so I couldn't join the Swift Boat Vets and POW's for Truth. What I could do and what I did do as I posted here was contribute to their cause where they once again stepped up front and defended this nation against an enemy. And enemy named John Kerry. A liar and political sleazebag who would do anything and say anything to advance his own career. Being a liberal is the least of his faults. And, if you have a problem with that, maybe it's the least of yours as well.



Aquilla

I don't remember anyone 'whipping out a verbal beat-down' about Al Gore's military service (and he's a liberal...and he served in Vietnam). Nor do I remember anyone giving the verbal smack-down to Carter for his military service. Do you? Seems to violate your paradigm.

Not to mention another anti-war liberal - George McGovern. He was a highly-decorated combat pilot in WWII, receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross. A lot of people had a lot of problems with George McGovern, but his military service wasn't one of them.

Aquilla

Were Vietnam veterans spit on when they returned? If yes, how widespread was it?

The only semi-decent attempt at confirmation was put forth Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image. The book researches the validity of the claim and found no evidence to suggest that there was widespread spitting. Lembcke claimed it was an urban legend designed to discredit the antiwar movement.