BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: GUEST,BobAGhanouj
Date: 08 May 00 - 04:38 AM

only by people looking for a scapegoat. wars are fought by ordinary men who think they are doing what's best. they are started by chicken shits who know better

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: InOBU
Date: 07 May 00 - 11:05 AM

Dear, northfolk/al cholger
We agree there, the myth that we won the war on the field and lost it in the press is quiet different than that which you present. The reality is we lost it in the field and won it in the movies. This is not to take away from the efforts of the US soldiers. They attempted a job that could not have been done, for many of the same reasons that my families regiment, the 35 foot got pasted in the American revolution (The Otway regiment). Just as Irish troops were fighting against their self interest in the colonies American troops were fighting against their interests in Viet Nam. They are not to blaime. Just as my Otway forefathers sent their troops to war ill equipted for the job, and to keep them from making the changes that should have been made at home, it is not isolationist to say that forign wars drop more bombs at home than on the enamy, to quote MLK.
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 00 - 08:15 AM

The thing is, there were baby killers, and that is not even controversial. Some of the blame for that inevitably spread out over some of those who weren't baby killers, and who did their best in terrible circumstances to do what they thought was right.

In the old South Africa there were decent cops and soldiers, and there were those who tortured and murdered. When the old regime fell, the new government set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, with the idea being that people who had done evil things (on both sides) could tell about what had happened, and receive amnesty, and it would be possible to understand where the responsibility for various things really lay.

This never happened for people who'd been involved in the Vietnam war one way and another, and it's a pity. The poison needs to be cleaned out of any wound befire it can really heal. Maybe it's not too late. (It needs to happen in Ireland as well, and I believe one way or another it probably will.)

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: northfolk/al cholger
Date: 06 May 00 - 10:50 PM

Larry, We should sit down and have coffee and... I did not mean to belittle the fight that the vietcong waged, in my post...I would say that there is at least a theory, that the Tet offensive was a strategic change in plans from the vietcong to signal a willingness to seek some compromise to fighting the whole thing out to a victory...but that is not really what this thread is about. My point is simply, US corporate control was what the war was about. The same corporations are selling fried chicken in china, and are manufacturing shoes in vietnam. It is an irony, that to be "niked" in vietnam means to be hit with a shoe for not working hard enough. I am pretty sure that that is not what most people believed "we" were fighting for.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Troll
Date: 06 May 00 - 10:38 PM

Yes McGrath, I was called a baby killer in a college classroom. The young woman who made the accusation was not pleased when I said that she needed to be more specific. Did she mean by bombs, long range guns, napalm, rifle, knife, or with my bare hands? The professor could not regain controll of the class after that and had to dismiss for the day.Several of the young men in the class wanted to meet me outside to discuss the matter further but backed off when a couple of the older guys in the class took my part. Needless to say, that class was tense for the rest of the semester. I have a good friend who was a medic on a LRP team and he had similar problems.I also have friends who have never really come home.Sometimes they call and we talk but it only helps a little. For myself, I don't want a "well done" or anything else. Just leave me -and those like me- the HELL ALONE!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: MarkS
Date: 06 May 00 - 09:31 PM

Peter T What exactly was the motovation for the bombing of Cambodia if not the reach the North Vietnamese troops hiding and staging behind a supposedly neutral border? Seems to me you need to drop the bombs where the enemy are. Mark S

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: InOBU
Date: 06 May 00 - 08:02 PM

Hi Fadac
I think we probably would have a lot to agree on, though we had differnt ways of dealing with the Viet Nam war. I agree that we should have gone after the nazis eariler. In fact, my crowd did. We American reds were called Pre Mature Anti Facists, and after the war, there was a return to denying the most basic constitutional rights to those who went to Spain to stick it to hitler while the US and England were sitting at the table with him. After the war, we returned to a pro-nazi, not a pro german stance, using the Gestapo to set up Interpole, our space program was a haven for nazis and well the list goes on, and the Criminocracy in Russia is the result. Now, before you flame me as a Stalinist, Stalin was a criminal, but there would have been a Gorbachev sooner if we had not been so agressive against ALL socialist states.
I only say this because, we have been looking at the Viet Nam war in a vacume. No, not every CO was a coward, I for one, went to Belfast in the worst years of that struggle as a photographer and was shot at there. Yup, I was scared shitless, cold jelly for knees, but I stayed and did my job.
That job, I hoped, was to help us all to realize NOT TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENTS! Trust each other, I have a lot more in common with you Fadac, than the sons of bitches who stuck a gun in you hand or made some kid from Glascow point a gun at me.
Peaceful aniversery to all, and my hat is off to the US vets who, against their governments wishes have gone back to remove land mines. Thouse men are more than heros, as so many have been, they are saints and heros.
Best wishes
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: canoer
Date: 06 May 00 - 02:07 AM

Northfolk Al, why belittle the Vietnamese's struggle? They forced the U.S. government to decide to quit the war. David beat Goliath, and a lot of Davids around the world took inspiration from their accomplishment, and rightly so.

I certainly agree that the U.S. was later (much later) able, by other means, to impose its business goals on Vietnam. But they had to go another way, longer and slower and less immediately profitable. The war did not succeed. The postwar policies did.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: annamill
Date: 05 May 00 - 11:21 AM

FADAC!! Welcome back! Things have changed a little and we've had some hard times, but we've seemed to have weathered it. Spend some time catching up. It's good to have you back. We've missed you.

Love, annap

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: northfolk/al cholger
Date: 05 May 00 - 10:33 AM

There is a notion running through this post, and in our interpretation of the end of the war, that the US lost... to reiterate what I said in the BS Kent State thread, I reviewed some old propaganda from the era, and found two FORTUNE magazine advertisements, one from Eaton Yale and Towne Inc. referring to itself as a multinational corporation, doing business in the pacific rim, and that business is GREAT...another by CHEMICAL BANK, which starts WHEN YOU NEED SOMETHING MORE DIPLOMATIC THAN A GUNBOAT...

Watching the two parties of big business in the US voting MFN status for China, I say the war in Viet Nam accomplished just what it intended, so who were the winners/losers?

some of my friends , who went to Viet Nam, never reallized what they were fighting for. and some of my friends in the anti-war movement never knew what they were fighting against.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 00 - 08:47 AM

If you think that your country is involved in an unjust war, you should refuse to help in that war. Insofar as you can, you should try to change things so that it stops doing it.

Some people chose to resist openly, and went to jail for refusing to be drafted, or refusin to obey orders. Some people went to jail for anti-war activism. Some deserted from the army. Some went underground. Some left the country.

Yes and there were some who were motivated not so much by a belief that the war was wrong, but by a wish not to be killed. And some of them found a way to ridde out the war wiothout being drafted, and are now riding high in politics - Republicans as well as Democrats.

But suggesting that people who chose to leave their country and their place in society because of what they believed in, because they thought their country was wrong, are all cowards to be sneered at is rubbish. It's no better than saying that people who went into the army were all bloodthirsty babykillers - and I don't know anyone who has ever said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: uncle bill
Date: 05 May 00 - 01:40 AM

wow! happy anniversay . Everybody's on this thread . The uniniformed, uniformed, well intentioned, politically correct , forgiving , forgived, guiltfull, guiltless, gutless, and a few that are right on. If you weren't born yet at that time, then everything you learned about it in high school and college was probably wrong. If you were there, you know no explanations are necessary. Fadac, right on. If you were against the war (as any sane person), and you went to jail for you belief, you are a hero. If you went to war and did your duty not for your country, or theirs, but for your fellow grunts , keeping each other alive, you are also a hero. If you ran off to Canada, as a deserter, or draft dodger, enjoy the winters you a**hole cowards. Veterans dont have to justify it or apologize. excuse me , I need a valium now.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: dwditty
Date: 04 May 00 - 10:27 PM

As I recall, the war in Viet Nam was on for a long time before the Americans went in. While I hated the war while I was there and when I came home, I don't think it was the result of some spontaneous action.

DW

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 00 - 09:09 PM

Three million dead Vietnamese. How many dead Cambodians? Laotians? And 55,000 dead American boys. All for a war game dreamt up by politicians and generals.

I can see why people who suffered or had people close to them who suffered want to feel that their suffering was somehow worthwhile, and that the suffering they collectively inflicted on the people in Indo-China was justified. I imagine there are people in France still who feel the same way about the earlier war in the same part oif the world. And people in Japan about the one before that, when was their turn to fight the Vietnamese - and the Americans.

There's only one thing worse than losing an unjust war. It's winning it - and at least America was spared that.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Bud Savoie
Date: 04 May 00 - 08:41 PM

This thread opens up a very sore wound. Yes, I served two years in Nam, spoke the language, and was as close to my Vietnamese friends as to my American ones. I returned with a bad case of what we called "Ho Chi Minh's revenge", which lasted two years, and a case of claustrophobia so bad that I passed out four times on the plane ride back. Most of what you read in the newspapers and saw on TV gave a false picture of the people and the GIs who were there. No, no one spit in my face when I returned, but I haven't any doubt that it did happen to some.

I am a Holy Cross alumnus also, and receiving the various alum mailings, I can tell you that the place has become thoroughly PC and leftward swooning. I can understand a Holy Cross war protester writing a book claiming that we are liars; people of that ilk have to justify themselves, and they do it by attacking others.

I have read so much anti-vet garbage, that I frankly doubt that I will read this. April 30th is always a very emotional day for me, and this year is the 25th anniversary of the day I first felt ashamed to be an American.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Fadac
Date: 04 May 00 - 08:09 PM

Right tatics, Wrong tatics. Who cares? It's too late to change it. Perhaps if the US & Britton had gone after Hitler in 1939, when Hitler went into Austria, that might have been the end of it. But no, nobody did a damn thing, so the war was on. Perhaps if we didn't go in VN, that war might have grown too, relighting Korea, Japan, etc. Then we would all be sitting on our big proud rear ends saying "Why didn't we get involved?" You can't win, no matter what you do, someone will find fault.

How do I as a vet feel about protesters? You will be surprised to hear, I'm 100% behind protestors right to protest. And I'll defend to the death the support of that right. Sometimes it's hard, but as far as I'm concerned everyone gets a say.

Those that decided to go to Canada. OK, if that is what one had to do, fine. However I feel that they should stay there. (Remember, Canada sent troops to VN too, as a peace keeping force. I think they were there about three months.)

-fadac

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 00 - 06:32 PM

So, McGrath of Harlow, I assume you feel the U.S. has no business sending troops to Bosnia either, es so? And following the same line of reasoning, American troops should never have been sent to Korea in the 1950s. In 1941, the Empire of Japan bombed Pear Harbor and that caused the U.S. to declare war on Japan. Did that justify our declaring war on Germany? Should American troops have been sent to Europe?

There were a lot of isolationists in the U.S. that would have been very happy had we sat out WW2. Don't think that would have been possible though myself.

Since you have such strong views about the SE Asia conflict, I just wondered how you feel about the other situations.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 May 00 - 05:45 PM

I think that saying that the bombing of Cambodia (part of the euphemism for "the spreading of the war" being used here) was entirely the fault of the North Vietnamese Army makes perfect sense. I also believe that if I knock my feet together, the ruby slippers will take me back to Kansas.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 May 00 - 04:21 PM

Yeah Bull, there was that too......

And Larry, keep in mind that it was the "constitutional" government of South VietNam. Personally, I find it amazing that I can read every word of their constitution without translation in the original English! Evidently an awful lot of South Vietnamese read English ....... I guess....huh?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: GUEST,Ole Bull
Date: 04 May 00 - 04:13 PM

The truth is that at that time you were more likely to be abused, spat upon, beat, insulted and jailed for wearing long hair than for being a vet. Will anyone who lived through that time dispute this?

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 00 - 04:10 PM

Arguing about different tactics is essentially irrelevant. The essential thing is that America had no right to intervene in that way in a country on the far side of the world.

The war against the French ended in an agreement that should have meant a united North and South Vietnam, and that was broken, with American encouragement, by the South Vietnamn government. As a result of American intervention millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians and Laotians were killed, and tens of thousands of young Americans. And that's not counting the even greater numbers who had their lives wrecked. And no good whatever came of it.

That's all past history. But the important thing about history is to learn from it, so that you don't make the same mistakes again.

"I do have the right to put this point of view across, no matter how unpopular it is"

That's more or less what David Irving said in his recent court case...

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: InOBU
Date: 04 May 00 - 03:48 PM

Hi Sapper:
Is that the same legit government of South Viet Nam, whose leader the US assasinated?
Just asking,
All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Ditchdweller
Date: 04 May 00 - 02:57 PM

One thing that people forget about the Viet Namese, is that the US did not start the war. After the withdrawl of France from Indo-China, Viet Nam was split into two, de facto, independant, sovereign states, North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam. The Communist Supported North Viet Nam instigated, with Chinese and Soviet funding, an insurgency campaign by the Viet Cong. US forces only became involved after requests from the then LEGITIMATE government of South Viet Nam. Unfortunatly, the US forces decided on TOTALLY the wrong tactics, with a gross overdependance on firepower. Had they studied the tactics used in the, admittedly smaller scale, Malayan Emergency, they may have picked up a few pointers on counter insurgency operations. Another error made was the use of combat units permanently based in VN, so that in any of these units there was a cross section of personel with different amounts of service done. The spread of the war into Cambodia was entirely due to the North Vietnamese Army, acting in support of the Viet Cong, taking over that strip of Cambodia bordering on the two Viet Nams. When informed of the commencement of Bombing in that strip, Sianhouk (sp?) is reported to have commented that, as far as he was aware, no Cambodians were being killed by the bombs. They had already been driven out by the NVA. The Vietnamese War was a nasty, long drawn out and brutish afair in which the wrong tactics were used. Few of the participants can claim any kudos. The Viet Cong were more brutal against their own countrymen than the US forces were. But, had the US forces not been there, S. Viet Nam would have been overwhealmed many years earlier and at much less cost to the Communists than it eventually was. Had this happened, would the sponsors of North Viet Nam's agression stopped there? I know this will offend some people. I do not apologise for that, but I do have the right to put this point of view across, no matter how unpopular it is. Sapper

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 04 May 00 - 02:18 PM

annap: Thanks for the message. I think you were more generous than I would have been toward someone who said he killed babies and liked it. In college I nearly broke up with a girlfriend because she said draft resisters were cowards. Instead, she apologized, I forgave her, and we got married. Years later, we got divorced, over something that had nothing to do with Vietnam, but did have a lot to do with her lack of sincerity and commitment. Who knows, I might have avoided a lot of pain if I had followed my first impulse. You don't do yourself any favors by forming relationships with people whose values are much different from your own, or who have no values at all. I'm talking about REAL values, not just what kind of music you like.

The only time I ever got into a heated argument about Vietnam was with an old friend who totally surprised me by saying he thought Lieutenant Calley should not have been prosecuted. He was not saying they were prosecuting the wrong guy - he meant NO ONE should have been prosecuted. He said, "these things happen" in war and we should just accept them - I think he meant they should just be covered up. He was, technically speaking, a Vietnam veteran, but he spent his entire tour working in an office in Saigon. This incident changed my feelings toward this guy so much that I avoided seeing him for the next 3 years. (He lives in another city, so I wouldn't see him more than a couple of times a year anyway.) We have become friends again, sort of, but we haven't discussed war since then. If it weren't for the fact that his wife is also an old friend (she stayed out of the argument) I don't think I would bother with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 04 May 00 - 01:42 PM

I agree with most of what you're saying, McGrath. But let's remember that this self-centered aspect ("our casualties matter, 'enemy' casualties don't") isn't unique to America. Every country that has ever fought a war was either indifferent to 'enemy' casualties, or enthusiastic about them. That's war -- I don't like it any better than you do, but it's the nature of the beast. And it didn't start with Sherman, or Napoleon either -- the issue is as old as war itself (although the "rules of war" concept that exempts civilians from the harsh realities of war probably got a big boost in Victorian times).

I admit that there's a certain logic in all of this that I find compelling, in a horrific way. It isn't only the soldiers on the front lines that wage war -- it's the whole society that's backing them up, with its money, its industrial production, and its enthusiasm for the "cause". So why should everyone except the soldiers be exempt from the suffering that war causes? Remember, when Lyndon Johnson was escalating the war in Vietnam, he deliberately sought to insulate the country at large from the realities and costs of that war. It could be (has been) argued that this is a big part of the reason that war lasted so long -- the country was prosperous, and the small portion of the polulation that was suffering the most had no influence (in fact, for most of the war the average age of an American soldier was 19, and the voting age was 21). The result was that public opinion against the war took a long time to coalesce, while the killing dragged on.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 May 00 - 01:18 PM

The problem seems to me to be far more complicated. Since Napoleon inaugurated the "nation in arms" as a model, the mobilization of an entire country for war is standard. While the Geneva Conventions, etc., have tried to keep civilians separate, when you are fighting nation against nation, the capacity to fight is increasingly not the individual soldiers, but the basic capacity of the society. In World War II the argument was increasingly made that industrial cities were full of industrial workers who weren't civilians. And so it goes. We can remember in Vietnam all the metaphors about "drying up the enemy's swamp" and all that -- if everyone is part of the struggle, who is an innocent?

We find a version of this argument in the rationale of the IRA and other supposed "armies" that no one is innocent -- they are complicit, or obstacles, or whatever. So they are acceptable targets.

And then there is the morale issue, touched on above. Stop the support for the war by punishing everyone who thinks they can get away scot-free.

All this starts with Napoleon, was worked over by Sherman, and we are still in the middle of it. After all, we -- that is NATO countries and the Russians -- spent the last 50 years holding each other's citizens hostage at missilepoint.

I don't pretend to have an answer: but it is a really hard one.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Bert
Date: 04 May 00 - 01:17 PM

McGrath,

Actually we were involved in that 'first' Gulf War. We were selling arms to Iran and intelligence to Iraq.

But don't worry about not knowing that. George Bush didn't know it either (Ho, bloody Ho!).

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: annamill
Date: 04 May 00 - 01:07 PM

I have tried so hard to stay out of this thread. Just reading the title brings tears to my eyes. I think there was anger and pain here at home at the atrocities that were done. I was angry and very ashamed to be an American.

But not once did I, or anyone I knew, feel anger at the soldiers that had to deal with that pain. I wanted to kill General Blackstone, or whatever Calley's generals name was.

Let me tell you about someone. I dated him for awhile. He was the national sales manager for a very large well known firm. He had a style you only dream about. He and some friends leased about 40,000 acres in Cali for hunting. He had his own winery and served me delicious white and red wine from his own vineyards. We used to take the wine and cheese and ripe pears and sit in his jacuzzi and talk for hours. He loved the same music I did and intrduced me to a few musicians I didn't know. I could have loved this man.

But...he also kept a large amount of guns, rifles, shotguns in his house. Safely of course. He had a house right across from the ocean and used to stand in his house just inside the doors to his balcony and shoot crows off telephone lines. He used to drink himself into mindlessness EVERY night. He used to go to sleazy bars because as head of such a large organization, he couldn't do the things he did in sleazy bars in bars where his peers were.

You see he was a sniper in Vietnam during the war and had $25,000's on his head. He did shoot babies and woman and children and old men and whoever he had to. He once told me "Yes, I'm a baby killer and I enjoyed every moment of it" with a painful grin on his face.

He told me he was very angry about how he was treated back home and very hurt for the hatred he received here. I told him we (war protesters) didn't hate him (the soldiers), but hated the circumstances that made beautiful young men into such vicious killers.

I've never felt more pain for any one human being like I felt for that poor beautiful young man in an old man's body.

He left me against my wishes because he felt he was getting way too close and he was afraid he would really hurt me. He probably would have.

I hate that war!! any war!!

There I go getting emotional again!

Love, annap

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 00 - 12:43 PM

Whistlestop. I can't see that the fact that millions of civilians on the other side are being butchered ever stopped most people supporting "our" side in a war. Even with Vietnam the impression I've got is that, for Americans, the casualties that really mattered, both at the time and retrospectively, were American conscripts, rather than Vietnamese civilians. There's no wall of remembrance for the Vietnamese civilians. (And the same is true for other countries in other wars.)

And when it's your own civilians that get killed by the other side in a war, the effect seems to be to make the country under attack even more determined to fight on. Even death camps have that effect. (So did General Sherman insofar as he waas engaged in terrorising civilians rather than destroying the resourcer s that made continued resistance possible.)

Now if they could come up with some way of waging war which selectively picked on politicians and so forth, it might be a different story.

Short of that, some guarantee that generals and politicians who intentionally kill civilians or commit other war crimes can never be safe from the prospect of facing trial in a war crimes court might just slow them up a bit. Including the ones from England and France and America, not just from the little countries. Too late for General Sherman of course. Pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 May 00 - 11:47 AM

Jim Dixon.....Thanks again for the links, especially the one of his own writings which goes far to explain the "why" of the book. I'm sure that the title dose not reflect the real book, and the idea sprang from it instead. Looking forward to another perspective. I still stand by my previous postings regarding my thoughts, decisions, healing, and all.....but I am more comfortable with his personal motivations.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 04 May 00 - 11:15 AM

McGrath, you make a good point about civilian deaths in modern war. But is this a bad thing, or a good thing? It could be argued that societies (American and others) will continue to support a war with the flimsiest of justifications until the reality of that war is brought home to them. This is not a new idea -- General Sherman (American Civil War, 1861-65) "War is hell") made this point many times, as part of the justification for his invasion of the Confederacy. It could also be argued (has been, in fact) that the U.S. is much too willing to go with the military option because our wars always happen "over there," so the civilian deaths are rarely ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 May 00 - 09:46 AM

You are right, LEJ, I apologise. I got too hung up on reacting to the first paragraph. That will teach me to pontificate in a hurry.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: InOBU
Date: 04 May 00 - 08:37 AM

Dear fadac:
I may be wrong, but in my experience, the same sons of bitchs who sent you and your brothers to Viet Nam, to die for Goodyear Rubber, are the same sons of bitchs who are putting you out of work, and the young college pukes, as you say, whose jobs are preserved, are not the ones who said wake up to the fact that this country is OWNED by a small elete minority, but the sons of the sons of bitchs who OWN the country, though, it is becomeing more of a youth culure where we old grey heads are generally expendable. If it gets much worce, ol pal, we wont be fighting, you and I over the old Viet Nam issue, we will be in perfect agreement, all mixed together in the Solent Green.
All the best, to all,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: SeanM
Date: 04 May 00 - 12:23 AM

FADAC! Great to see you back and posting, even if it is only here...

OK... I'm 28, which means that about the time all of this was happening, I was still debating the great philosophical discussion of what exactly a toilet was.

However, after reading the blurb from the author available at the link, it doesn't look as if he's disputing that the "spitting" happened. What it looks like he's trying to move away from is the idea that such a reaction was widespread, and extremely common.

I'm not going to debate individual incidents. They happened. There are enough victims and witnesses to call that point in any case.

I WILL say that from what I gathered out of his message, that from HIS viewpoint, spitting at vets as a social phenomena (rather than as isolated acts) didn't happen. And to address the "healing" view that 'spaw pointed out, that appears to a certain extent to be something that he's interested in as well.

I'm too lazy to go and transport quotes myself, but what I gathered out of his synopsis is that he's trying to remove the stereotype of the young, brave veteran vs. dirty, unwashed, agitating hippy. Personally, I think this could be a good thing.

Now of course, the book could be something entirely different. In which case, I've got about 70 different recipes ready for the serving of crow, and I'm entirely prepared to eat my own cooking.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: GUEST,mary g
Date: 04 May 00 - 12:15 AM

yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: MarkS
Date: 03 May 00 - 09:18 PM

Sorry, but my attempts at a blue clicky just do not seem to be working out. If you want to try it the old way, try
http://espn.space.swri.edu/vn101/index.htm

So if anybody else can turn that into a blue clicky,please do, and let me know what you did!
Thanks, MarkS

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 00 - 08:02 PM

"the lives of the young soldiers of our enemies"

But in most modern wars the soldiers are only a tiny proportion of the people who get killed. The exception at the time was the Second Gulf War (the way we forget the first Gulf War, the terrible Iran-Iraq war is a but shocking - just because "the West" wasn't directly in vollved - apart of course from the US Vincennes shooting down the Iranian civilian airbus with its 300 passengers).

But of course the civilian dead since then, through sanctions, has made up then balance by now, vastly outnumbering the 200,000 Iraqui soldiers killed at the time.

And note, I haven't said anything about the rights and wrongs of the war or the sanctions - the point I'm making is that in modern war it's civilians that mostly get killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: GUEST,fadac
Date: 03 May 00 - 08:02 PM

It's been a long time. However, VENT MODE ON!

But I was spat upon, had things thrown at me, and my auto damaged. It is very unlikly that anyone was spat upon getting off of the airplane from 'Nam. Why? Because the airplanes landed at Air Force Bases. Then there was a period of processing, your free steak dinner (I got breakfast on both of my homecommings) pay call, uniform issue, etc. etc. So for some reason I didn't see any protestors on the Air Force Bases.

If one want's be selective of their data, you can prove ANYTHING.

Anyway, I'm sick of the whole subject, I don't want some chowder head telling me what a "Good Job" I did. That was probably the same chowder head that tossed a rock through my windshield because of the 4Th Inf. badge on the car.

Now it's fashonable to be pro vet. I think most of this good boy crap is from people that are trying to set them selves streight after screwing the vets over for years.

BTW I worked at a major electronics company and the first people layed off in the mid 80's was all the vets. While the YCP (young collage pukes) stayed on.

So nowdays I don't have much respect for YCP's or anyone in the press. Respect is something that someone earns, and I give what I was shown.

VENT MODE OFF,

Let's forget this crap and go have a nice round of the Hoky Poky!

-fadac

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 03 May 00 - 07:46 PM

"And let us be careful in our use of the great power at our disposal so that, as we do not sacrifice the youth of our country, neither do we sacrifice the lives of our enemies without overwhelming cause."

Peter, I think you missed this part of my statement in the previous post. My meaning is that, as we have learned an obvious lesson to not consider our youth expendable(unacceptable casualties), perhaps the next step is to consider the lives of the young soldiers of our enemies in a more enlightened way.

LEJ

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: MarkS
Date: 03 May 00 - 07:26 PM

Looks like my attempt at posting a blue clicky did not take. One more time
Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: MarkS
Date: 03 May 00 - 07:22 PM

For anybody who would like to discuss this issue from the perspective of veterans themselves, just Click here
Here you can ask and get answers directly from the horses mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 May 00 - 03:18 PM

No, is it on an album or a video? -- not that I would look for it -- the subject of abstracting other people for the purposes of dulling your responses is pretty well worked over on all sides of the debate for me. As the son of a WWII bomber pilot (who never got a service medal because of outrage over the saturation bombing late in the war), and having lived on a U.S. Air Force base in the 60's and watched school friends go off and get killed in Vietnam, I have had more than enough of this subject for one lifetime. It just keeps coming back. Star Wars Mark II will ensure that it will have a continuing life.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 May 00 - 02:55 PM

First Jim......Thanks for the links and I see where the book may be going, but I hate the title. I will be reading it and I'm glad you started the thread.

Peter.....Your point is sound and I would be the last to argue your premise against you. But to inject a bit of dark humor, have you seen George Carlin's routine about bombing "brown people?" A few years back, but darkly funny for its truth.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 May 00 - 02:47 PM

McGrath is right. I am perturbed by LEJ's remark that in the next war massive casualties will not be acceptable (not that I attribute bad motives to LEJ, whom I deeply respect, and everyone else here who has been through hell). But it is a revealing remark. He means massive American casualties. There seems to be a filtration system against the lives of other people meaning even a small fraction of American lives. This is perhaps understandable for every country, but in the last two wars that America has been fighting in, first, the Gulf War, 300 or so Americans lost their lives (I am not trivializing this at all), and well over 100,000 Iraqis, with thousands of children dying every few months still; second, Kosovo, where no Americans, repeat no Americans (or Canadians for that matter) lost their lives, and thousands of other people did underneath Allied bombs.

I am not blaming Americans for these messes; nor saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. I have personal opinions about both wars. I personally don't want anyone to die anywhere. But Americans should be aware that this kind of thing frightens people from other countries a lot. There is a widespread perception that only precious Americans matter, and that everyone else is target practice for testing new weapons systems.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 May 00 - 02:19 PM

I'm the person who started this thread, and I am very surprised at the hostile reaction to Lembcke and his thesis. I feel inclined to defend him (although I, too, haven't read the book), but he can probably do a better job himself. Here is an article written by Jerry Lembcke himself on the same topic.

I have searched the web for reviews, but they are pretty scarce:

Here is a review that appeared in the Denver Post.

Here is a "thumbs up" review that appeared in "Storm Warning!" the publication of an organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist." It also includes some enlightening quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: canoer
Date: 03 May 00 - 12:10 PM

McGrath, I'm glad you mention the Vietnamese. If it was a psychologically hellish time here in the states, it was a total hell many times over for Vietnam. I think the figures of 1 million soldiers killed, and 2 million civilians killed, are roughly accurate.

General Curtis LeMay said "we should bomb them into the stone age."

It is not well appreciated (insert list of reasons here) that a people who basically still were in the stone age, stood up to an invading Goliath and kept on fighting and fighting for their land, in the face of such terrible casualties. They showed an example that said to the whole world, "It can be done."

One reason for the U.S. campaign of mass destruction, was to send another message to the world: "If you try to resist us, this is what you'll get."

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 May 00 - 11:43 AM

Well, what say we read the book and find out what he has to say and what relevance we find? We'll come back with book reports, just like in grade school!!!(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 03 May 00 - 11:27 AM

Hey Spaw -- I'm going out on a limb here, since I still haven't read the book. But one possible answer to your "what's the point?" question is that it illustrates how we adopt attitudes and points of view based on "facts" that may not be factual. I find this to be a tremendously relevant and important question. We all carry around a lot of assumptions that are not based on personal knowledge, and we all incorporate these assumptions into our view of the world. We Americans recently fought another war (the 1991 Gulf War) in which we made a lot of decisions based on the lessons we learned from our Vietnam experience. If our view of the Vietnam experience was fundamentally flawed, then our decisions in the Gulf may also have been flawed. And the decisions we make tomorrow, or next year, or ten years from now, may likewise spring from these same flawed assumptions.

Military people and planners are often justly criticized for "fighting the last war". There is some justification for the view that when we fought in Vietnam, we were actually mis-applying the lessons we learned in World War II (that America's overwhelming industrial superiorty would make the achievement of our aims in Vietnam a foregone conclusion). So it's worth examining the lessons we took from the Vietnam era to see if we are also misapplying them to the crises we face today.

If history were just a rehashing of past events that have no relevance today, then I would agree that there's little value in this. But the Vietnam War has had a tremendous impact on US foreign policy in the years since, so I think that questioning our assumptions about that war is worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 00 - 10:59 AM

Noble, noble soul leaking through there, Spaw-man. Sweetest prose I have ever seen from your leaky pen. Thanks for a rare moment of pure electric understanding.

A

P.S. ...If you're gonna start waxing eloquent, insightful, full of depth and compassion and vision like that, can I be the Mudcat Garbage-mouthed Curmudgeon? Just wanna see how the other half lives...you understand!

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon?
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 May 00 - 10:42 AM

Hey WS.......I said above that I'd like to read the book before I pass judgement, but I do question the need for a book with this premise. What's the point? It may be interesting reading and again I'd imagine that within certain narrow confines of documentation, these incidents did not happen. As others have said, if you narrow the criterion enough, the Holocaust didn't take place, which is ridiculous. All that aside though.....What's the point?

The war divided this country into multiple factions, not just two. From each perspective there were wrongs and rights, truth and lies, honor and shame. All of us carry those with us every day. We have tried to heal the wounds we inflicted on each other and we have both succeeded and failed. Some will never forgive the actions of others. Some will see through the surface and face their own demons with honesty.....and pain. In either case or those many in between, this kind of book can only offer a narrow and, to me, devisive influence that does nothing to further understanding, history, or healing.

But I will read it as I have many others. And I'll remember friends lost and friends made. I'll feel the angst of those times again and question decisions I made. I'll think of the Wall and remember standing before it in tears, amazed that I was now crying for that which I so detested. We were young and the offspring of a generation where the choices were clearer. Now we are old and the choices will live with us for eternity, but we can offer each other an understanding which was beyond us at the time.

I doubt many future VietNam era authors will be reading Mudcat threads, but if they do, may I ask that you give us books of unity and understanding and not division? Just a thought.......

Spaw