re: the anti troop posts here do you still believe we weren't spat on?

One of the arguments I hear that supports the idea that returning Vietnam vets weren't spat on is that the anti war movement wouldn't do that.

Are those who are calling the troops in Iraq the bad guys anti war?

A colleague of mine, whose field of concetration is the Viet Nam War, says he has never been able substantiate this incident.

Did you know someone who this really happened too?

I was spat on but I only wanted to show how lame that argument was that the anti war people were all pro troops.

My friend is writing a book on how servicemen were treated during and after the war.

Would you be willing to give me your Email address and let him contact you?

This is grant funded research, so he'd want to interview you in person.

by Jerry Lembcke is a book I read last winter that claims to refute this "myth" (his words, not mine). He is a socialogist at Holy Cross and was active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War

<snip>

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal
Images of long-haired antiwar protesters, almost always women, spitting on returning Vietnam veterans have become a shameful part of America's collective memory. Lembcke (sociology, Holy Cross Univ.), a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, here presents a stunning indictment of this myth?an illusion created, he maintains, by the Nixon-Agnew administration and an unwitting press to attribute America's loss in Vietnam to internal dissension. In fact, the antiwar movement and many veterans were closely aligned, and the only documented incidents show members of the VFW and American Legion spitting on their less successful Vietnam peers. But Lembcke's most controversial conclusion is that posttraumatic stress disorder was as much a political creation?a means of discrediting returning vets who protested the war as unhinged?as it was a medical condition. The image of the psycho-vet was furthered through such Hollywood productions as The Deer Hunter and Coming Home. This forceful investigation challenges the reader to reexamine assumptions about the dark side of American culture that glorifies war more than peace. Highly recommended for large public libraries and for all academic peace studies collections.?Karl Helicher, Upper Merion Twp. Lib., King of Prussia, PA

<snip>


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814751474/qid=1068058325/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-3969183-7746518?v=glance&s=books

I have a friend who is doing research on this kind of thing- do you think your friend would be willing to talk to him?

in this topic. I'm not American and I was born in '66, so I have no first hand knowledge of this. Also, based on what my husband was taught in the late 70's/early 80's, and what I now see my children learning in US schools, Vietnam is largely ignored. So, I did wonder if the accounts of returning troops being spat on, called names & worse was blown out of proportion by the media or if it was really widespread. Let me just say, the hate was obviously aimed in the wrong direction and the fact that most of the poor troops were drafted really makes me sick.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What does that do for you? Does that make your argument more valid?

I don't confuse myself that the anti-war movement in the 60's & 70's was "pro-troop"....They wern't.

No one I knew or even read about at the time did the spitting. We were poiticalley aware. We would not have given the administration that amo. Almost all the protests there were returning troops who honored us by speaking. This was one source for us to garner the truth. The spitting BS was an attempt to paint us as anti-something. Did not work and the truth,as always, won out.

(anti-war movement)nobody I knew was "anti-troop" either. We had friends and family over there!

posts regarding "the troops" are just that, generalizations. Don't try to lump the entire DU into some category that fits your, or someone else's right-wing agenda. If you don't think that calling all liberals "anti-troop" is part of the agenda, then maybe you do need to grow up.

As for the post yesterday about troops getting killed and whether it is a good thing or not, I believe the poster was making the point that if the US and the Boy King get relatively unscathed in their mission to change governments of a sovereign country, albeit while slaughtering thousands, civilians included, then they would probably be likely to do it again. And that you can take to the bank.

While I don't want ANY troops to be killed, I also don't want ANY civilians, children especially, to be slaughtered and maimed by our troops. And please don't lay that "collateral damage" dookey on me either. The beloved troops are probably a pretty good cross-section of the general population regarding morality. Don't try to tell me there aren't any cold-blooded killers over there causing more harm than good.

So, while I don't think the the "grow up" thing was completely necessary, the necessity of this thread also comes into question.

I think that there is a feeling among some here that because they are liberal or Dem or anti war that they must also be morally superior or something.

All liberals are not saints and all conservatives are not evil.

My point is that because you are anti war doesn't insure you place at the right hand of God!


It is hard for some of us to admit to our dark side.

I should have said get over it. I am in a bad mood today and have been taking it out on posters. I'm sorry. I agree what you say, probably happened. It is ancient history. My point was many other "Americans" also were spit upon (to say the least). Their cause was no less nobel than yours. I don't deny that spitting occured just the frequency of such occurances. I feel bad for you. You were demeaned but I suspect many protesters were treated just as badly or worse. Not saying any of it was correct behavior. Let's move forward. Again I'm sorry for the insult.

I probably should have not started this post except it gets to me that some people feel that somehow we are all saints here because of our political beliefs or our anti war stance.

If this country is ever to get back together and make something better for all of us we need to begin to accept that we will never all agree on everything.

Let's come together on those things we can agree on and go from there.

However "we" were often told that "we" were going to be spat upon as we returned to the US.... The only time that I saw a veteran disrespected was when I was a demonstrating member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Rednecks were very nasty as we demonstrated peacefully... Seems our reality was a little much for their small minds.

in Australia were we confronted troops but were never agressive or rude to them..only ever tried to persuade then to join us, or would often talk to US servicemen on R&R and was surprised by the number that agreed with us..

Alternatively we were certainly spat on and abused..the usual 'get a job etc' and even famously when LBJ was in a motorcade with the local Premier and we spilled onto the streets to stop his car and the Premier told his driver to "run over the bastards"..was always quite proud of that and felt linked to Lyndon forever after.

Seems like you've had yer question answered, eh?

I don't know what other threads ya'll are talking about but methinks the gist is this: Our troops in Iraq are either there to do good or to destroy. So far, destruction seems to be the chief success. And with the leaders who are leading our troops, we all get a sneaky feeling that destruction will remain the chief success of this invasion.

If you have evidence that points to the contrary, methinks we'd all like to see it.... until then, there doesn't seem to be much good is ever going to come out of this mess.

Some troops are gung ho and believe that they are fighting for American freedoms and all the red white and blue ideals. I think they are misguided but they really beleive in what they are doing. It is too bad that we can't convince them other wise.

Most troops are there because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe they are career military people or maybe they are reservists but they happen to be in the military when PNAC took control.'

They don't believe in the war or that they are fighting terror. They are victims of the situation. So will the new draftees be victims if it comes to that.

What are their choices? Go AWOL or do what they are ordered to do? I was in the same place when I got drafted. I chose to go to the Army and do my 2 years and get out. I did what I had to do to survive in Vietnam.

I am neither a saint nor a devil because of my service. I made personal choices just as the troops in Iraq are doing.

We can sit here safe behind our computer screens and say what ever we like because we don't have to make the choices they have to make.

They can only try to survive the experience and hope to get back to the place where we are today.

I hope we don't turn on them too badly when they come home.

are trained to fight other "ARMIES" .. the problem in vietnam and now Iraq is there was and is no other army to defeat. It's a blind shot in the dark. I've read comments from some on active duty that say the same thing. They are policing school children for chris sakes!

I'm not privy to what has gone on here on DU re this subject. I am 'anti-war', save for true self defense, but I would never blame the men and women who serve our country the best they can under the circumstance they are in (and they can do better than committing war crimes -- I'm not saying they are/have/do . it happens in rare circumstances).

I read a compelling article written by a draft resister during the vn war. He went to prison for two years. He said he kept expecting more protesters and resisters to end up in prison with him .. they never came. He felt abandoned by the anti-war movement .. so I guess it works both ways, as most things do.

"the problem in vietnam and now Iraq is there was and is no other army to defeat."
When I was in Viet Nam we were engaged against the third largest army in the world at the time. It was the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and they were all uniformed troops with modern equipment. They defended bunker emplacements with tunnel systems that stretched for miles and miles. We located an underground hospital one day that rivaled a US hospital. It had modern lighting and modern medicines. They had modern weaponry and were a force to be reckoned with. They did not control the air so they were forced to operate within triple-canopy jungle but they were formidable. Many engagements were between regiment strength units. Fifty eight thousand American military didn't die from un-trained un-equiped peons. We had fighter jets shot down quite often and helicopters shot down or shot up daily.

Victims of the failure of anti-human diplomacy. Pro-human diplomacy usually leads to peace.

Choices: Virtualy any one of us could join the military. Joining up one must realize what one is entering into. It ain't the boy scouts. One makes one's choice. I made mine, and had I ever been drafted I would have made the choice to go to jail. I would prefer to be a victim on my own best interests, were I to be victimized that way.

When the troops come marching home: If it is soon, real soon, than we shall all greet them with open arms. Should this matter carry on, as did Vietnam, then there shalt not be many flowers thrown at their feet.

Are you happy? I don't go around claiming that all Vets are whacked out psychos, so why do you try to stereotype my kind?

I would never say all anti war people are shit. Far from it. I beleive that we need more anti war people. I actually believe there could be a world where there is no war.

We use to sing in church in the sixties a song called "The Strangest Dream"

"Last night I had the strangest dream I ever had before.
I dreamed the wold had all agreed to put an end to war.

I dreamed there was a mighty room and men all sat around
with guns and knives and uniforms all scattered on the ground.

And the paper they were signing said they would never fight again."

I'm not sure of the words now. It has been a long time ago.

I just thought you were trying to say that the anti-Vietnam war movement was anti-troops. While I agree there was probably a small element of that, I think that most were probably pro-troops because they understand that a) the troops had no say on whether they went to Vietnam or not and b) to be anti-troop would allow the gov't to lable them as something the general public would find reprehensible.

Once again, sorry to bite your head off.

I can't imagine anybody spitting on a troop returning from Iraq. It's just so unlikely.

Yes, I have no doubt that spitting incidents happened. But I'd bet they were so far and few between as to be as inconsequential to the big picture as Deans comments on southerns with a confed flag on their truck.

How about ceasing the emotionalizing of this issue and sticking to the thick of it - to be exact - how much responsibility does the US soldier have for being in the line of fire?

I'd love to hear more opinions on that and less on the actions of a few a-holes toward returning GI's from Vietnam.