This part of their statement is also misleading and worth addressing:

“During the Vietnam era in the United States, many soldiers came home to indifference and ridicule, and there was an emotional debate over the erection of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.”

Active voice matters. Indifference and ridicule from whom? Why an emotional debate, what were the sides, and who was on them?

The shabby treatment of the Vietnam veterans was from the establishment, who never cared about the vets, and the right-wingers who could never forgive them. The people supporting the troops and criticizing the shabby treatment were the same people who were criticizing the war. The debate over the Vietnam Memorial was almost entirely from the right, who were disturbed because the design did not glorify the war.

I'm glad that both these so-called controversies are mostly over. I don't hear much about how Vietnam veterans didn't fight in a real war. I think that ended when the Vietnam veterans moved up and became the top brass. As for the Vietnam Memorial, when they built it, it became really hard to argue with the emotional impact of Maya Lin's design. We don't have a memorial for all the Vietnamese who died in our part of the war, but now we know how it could be done.

In the responses, I'm hearing more of a sense of political chest-beating, of justifying the antiwar movement during Vietnam, than actually memorializing those who died.

Perhaps Turkey gives us a good example of how to recognize the other side. Kemal Ataturk spoke the words below, which are inscribed both on a monument at Anzac Cove on the Gallipoli Peninsula, where the Australian and New Zealander troops landed:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives....you are lying in the soil of a friendly country, therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets, to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours....You the mothers that sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

I think having matched monuments in Hanoi and Washington might continue healing.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

On March 26, 2007 - 11:51am noblesseoblige said:

Do Americans even realize that that good old expression (of Vietnam era fame): "Declare victory and leave" is the language of the coward? It takes courage to say: "Declare defeat and leave." Too much courage for Americans apparently. Land of the free and home of the sore loser.

"Pride goeth before the fall."

On March 26, 2007 - 11:57am hcberkowitz said:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives....you are lying in the soil of a friendly country, therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets, to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours....You the mothers that sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

Howard, thanks.

The problem of American refusal to apologize for the civilian dead in the Vietnam War is compounded by the fact that the Vietnamese government is not asking us to apologize. The Vietnamese policy is that the past is past, and we must look to the future. This approach has worked wonders in winning friendly diplomatic and trade relations with the US, and there is absolutely no interest in Vietnam in dredging up American massacres of civilians. The exhibits on US atrocities remain at the War Remnants Museum in HCMC (there are none in Hanoi), but they're there purely to establish the illegitimacy of the South Vietnamese regime and its American backers during the war, and hence to reinforce Hanoi's claim to be the sole political embodiment of the Vietnamese people.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Not only not asking our government to apologize, but not asking for the reparations we promised in peace negotiations. Which we have never paid.

Which not only speaks volumes about our fecklessness and complacency as a people, but also sets a sickening precedent for Iraq.

Or maybe just the coming of age of Bruce Beresford and Peter Weir, just the Age of Irony's old, tired wave finally washing up on the far Australian shore.

Well...they promised, in the peace negotiations, not to invade South Vietnam -- a promise they also had little intention of keeping.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

HR McMaster, a scholar who knows war, brought out a lot of new material about the Vietnam past, in his book, Dereliction of Duty. It is well that he is one of the key strategic advisors to GEN Petraeus, the Iraq commander, as simultaneously he researches at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

There are many parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. One of them is that the motivation to get involved in combat came from civilians, and the internal justification for major involvement in Vietnam may have made even less sense than the Iraqi invasion. Leading up to the McNaughton memo, we have declassified documents from the GW University National Security Archive as well as oral histories and other background at the National Security Agency. These show the confusion surrounding the events at the Gulf of Tonkin, and how LBJ seized upon it as a casus belli. Do be aware that the combat on which the Resolution was predicated was with the overt DESOTO patrols using destroyers to collect signal intelligence. The tactical commanders in the Gulf, however, were unaware of the concurrent CINCPAC OPPLAN 34A covert maritime raids on North Vietnam. AFAIK, nothing about 34A, and why it had the North Vietnamese on a war footing, was presented to Congress.

When it was revealed that LBJ's announcement of the retaliatory raids, timed to make evening news deadlines, also warned the North Vietnamese of raids still incoming, I am surprised more people were not enraged. If there is anything that says that Congress should not rush to authorization, still giving a President the authority to react to attacks and immediate threats, I don't know what does more than LBJ's announcement timing.

Petraeus brings out the reminiscences and regrets of senior generals, especially Army Chief of Staff Harold Johnson, who believed the war was wrong, but who felt they could be more effective limiting it from the inside. Johnson, in later years, believed he and other 3- and 4-star generals should have resigned in protest, but still felt they needed to try to take care of their troops.

It may not be blatant, but we have been seeing increasingly vocal disagreement by senior officers. Petraeus, when being interviewed by the Senate in confirmation hearings for his fourth star, seemed to leave open the possibility that he would keep Congress briefed in detail. Conceivably, he may be looking for the right line in checks and balances. He may not.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

TJKING says:

If you want to see a rewrite of the 60s, take a look at the same burned out hippies that are trying to claim that the soldiers did not get spit upon or in your case implying that the horrible treatment that they received from the liberals of america was deserved. You should be ashamed. Anyone that lived through the period experienced people mistreating men in uniform and you can't change that.

When we consider the millions of Americans that went to Vietnam I'm sure you can document at least 10 who were either spat upon or treated horribly. Please do.

I can document a few that were mistreated 'well' after they served in Vietnam though; Al Gore, John Kerry and Max Cleland.

I don't know if holding up Turkey is such a great example of a country being gracious about the victims, or did they finally admit to the Armenian Genocide?

No, they have not, and I doubt they ever will. One reason that they probably will not is that Ataturk had a significant responsibility. Thai people are often some of the gentlest in the world, but insult the Royal Family, and your life is on the line. In like manner, insult Ataturk in his country, and find that Turks, not especially known for delicacy, will be enraged.

In my example, Turkey is not being gracious to victims. It is being gracious to opponents in open war, and the feelings have been reciprocated. There is a major psychological difference between being responsible for the way you dealt with your equals, and those, at least at the time, that were considered decidedly not equals. Remember, also, that Turkey is Balkan in its attitudes toward long-term grudges.

There's a saying that perfection is the enemy of excellence. I would much rather have an example of Turkey, a Muslim-majority but decidedly not Islamic state, dealing honorably with the West, than to insist on apologies for atrocities for which no living person had responsibility. In like manner, I have a very limited ability to entertain the idea of reparations for slavery in the United States, as I had no relatives here until decades after the Civil War.

I can be comfortable in having portraits of Ataturk, Truman, Churchill, and Lincoln on my wall, because I believe the good they did outweighs the bad.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard, if you say it, I believe it.

I do think that its another instance of right wingers looking for the worst possible scenario and presenting it as the norm. Example; find an anti war demonstration of 100,000 people, look for the group of 10 people that are burning a flag, take a picture, then present this picture as the "anti war" demonstrators.

Howard, I guarantee you, if anyone spit on me or the guys I served with when we came home they would be getting their jaws wired post haste.

If you paid attention to what Todd wrote instead of practicing your war-crime apologist skills on this site, you'd have noticed that Todd did not compare US soldiers to Tojo's boys. He compared ostrich-like deniers like yourself to your Japanese fellow travelers.

Between two and three million Vietnamese civilians died. How did they die? Did they all choke on beef noodle soup? Is napalm a better way for a baby to die than at the point of a bayonet?

And since you brought up WWII, 400,000 Americans died in that war; we killed 2-3 million Vietnamese. Almost half the holocaust. But we meant well, of course. We killed them with love.

On the Allied side in WWI, the best junior generals were probably Monash the Australian and Currie the Canadian. Julian Byng was a reasonable British general, but some of his best work was supporting Currie and Monash.

Had Monash had operational command over the entire area, not just ANZAC Cove, rather than Stopford, Gallipoli might have been very different. Ataturk rushed to the fighting, and, before he got there and established himself, there was a window of opportunity. Stopford and Hamilton closed it.

Contributing to the Turkish respect, I suspect, is also their performance in the Korean War. No Turk collaborated as a POW. There is a monument to Turkey in Seoul.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It is interesting to look at the integration of Vietnamese into US society. I do remember how the press stopped interviewing some of the boat people who graduated West Point, who explained their motivation as wanting a chance to kill Communists.

I wonder if Kiwi von Huber, speaking of "simply" supporting one's President, understands this by Owen?

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

What possesses you and Keith Olberman and Jack Shaffer at Salon to peddle this history denial?

You want to deny that Hippies did cruel things. You want to deflect responsibility. You want to remain a child, where your actions have no consequences for you to be responsible for. The Liberals did spit on Soldiers then and they said cruel things every day. You were there and you saw it but you want to lie about it.

I laugh at this debate about the Net roots and the old school baby boomers how they condescend to the young left about how they don't understand the "Pure" left and the 60s, but they want to deny to the young left about the dark side of what they did. They want to lie about what happened in Southeast Asia after the pullout. They want to lie about the fact that statistics show that most homeless people are Veterans and many suffer from psychological scars that were put their not by bombs, but by the way they were treated when they came home. Thats Thanks to you, John.

Here's a message to the young left, ask the older hippie left, what it meant when they said," hey, hey, LBJ, how many Kids(sometimes babies or children) did you kill today!" Ask them if the term babykiller was ever directed at soldiers in uniform, and ask them why. Ask them if that was a mistake.

I remember seeing plenty of horrible acts of shameful and disrespectful treatment like that. Even less direct derision, like the group of kids that would call out, "Hey, ROTC" (with emphasis to sound like Nazi) and laugh or calling them "Hey GI Joe" as they passed them on campus. The spitting and the "baby killer" names and the throwing of rotten tomatoes at the airports, thats your peers, John. We all remember it even if we might want to forget. We will never forget what you did.

I rarely respond with links to your hateful remarks because of the game that you play about denying that links exist or claiming that this link or that link does'nt count, because it is obvious your little game to deny history, but for the sake of anyone else that might want to know, here are just a couple of examples of the way Hippies tried to hurt and intimidate American soldiers.

You asked for Just ten examples of Spitting on Vietnam Vets, at least thats better than Olberman who claimed there are none, but here, how about you start out with a thousand examples of spitting and attacking Vets.

Here are two reviews of the book, Homecoming, Reporter Bob Green wrote when the Aging Hippie's started their denial campaign and prompted him to investigate a story so commonplace no one ever thought it needed to document the victims:

From Publishers Weekly Chicago Tribune staffer Greene composed several of his syndicated columns around responses he received from Vietnam vets after he asked whether any of them had been spat upon. Unfortunately, the enormous impact of the columns is lost in their expansion to book form. Some servicemen were spat upon on their return, but more suffered verbal abuse or icy indifference. Many contributors point out that they did what their country asked them to do, and they were stunned by the cruelty, even savagery, of some of the anti-war protesters, many of whom proclaimed belief in love and peace. Some are still not reconciled to the treatment they received, while others welcome the change in the attitude toward them as a chance "to wipe a little spit off our hearts."

From Library Journal
"Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?" asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of "hippies" (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war's most unpleasant, enduring images. Conversely, other letters describe acts of generosity toward servicemen, from the typical free beers at the bar to a free show. But the over 200 letters excerpted here do more than confirm popular notions. They bring back the incidents of 20 years ago vividly, but not always with bitterness. And they reveal healing solidarity among veterans in response to what for many was not a happy homecoming.

Here is a video clip of News story on CBS evening news from 1971.

Stop trying to gin up more hatred of our soldiers, John. You have a serious problem. Why don't you focus your hatred someplace else.

I admire Wilfred Owen's poetry and also Siegfried Sassoon, one of the truly great war poets.

Sassoon's experience in the war was the origin of the "catch-22" uh...catch - if you know you're crazy, then you're not crazy.

e.e.cummings was also a great poet of that era, although his war poetry was little read at the time, and still not widely read today. And of course Robert Graves.

From the recent discussion, I'm not sure Prof. Gitlin got the title of his letter right. Maybe it should have been "The Troll of War".

TJ, no doubt your posts receive rave reviews over at Lucianne.com, FreeRepublic.com and MicahelSavage.com, but you don't score very well here...I guess there are too many rational people for you to contend with in this "little corner of the net".

There are many similarities between the behavior of US troops in Vietnam and Japanese troops in China. Japan got itself into its foolish war in China to prop up its Manchurian client state; it had backed the Manchurian state as a buffer against Russian/Soviet expansionism. The Manchurian state was in many ways at least as legitimate as the US/French-created entity of South Vietnam. When Manchuria proved vulnerable, the Japanese tried to score a "knockout blow" against Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalists; they sought a provocation, got it, and attacked. Nanking/Nanjing was Chiang's capital. When the Japanese took it, they thought they could end the war, but Chiang simply retreated. The Japanese were unable to distinguish between civilians and Nationalist soldiers. The orders came down from the top -- from Tokyo -- to eliminate any Nationalist soldiers. The predictable mass slaughter ensued, as it always does when scared soldiers are signaled that they have impunity. By 1940, the Japanese were calling their involvement in China a "quagmire" -- 20-odd years before the same word was applied in Vietnam -- and a member of the Diet was demanding to know how the government could have led them into this mess without a coherent strategy.

No one knows how many Chinese civilians were massacred and/or raped in Nanjing or elsewhere by Japanese troops, and no one ever will. It was a lot -- tens or hundreds of thousands in Nanjing, hundreds of thousands or millions overall. Similarly, no one knows or ever will know how many Vietnamese civilians were massacred by the US in the "quagmire" of the war we fought to support our doomed client state. We do know that My Lai-style massacres were far more widespread than has ever been reported. The "Tiger Force" revelations came out 2 years ago. Further revelations about US military investigations that substantiated dozens of war-crimes allegations were published in the LA Times a few months ago. We know that in the My Tho area in 1968-9, the US 9th Army reported an "enemy body count" of 10,000, but found only 700 weapons. US dumb bombing of the Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian countryside, and "random interdiction" artillery fire, killed numbers of civilians that will simply never be known.

We will never know the truth in part because American soldiers have never been told by the public or the government that they can speak freely and honestly about what they did in the war, without fear of retribution or condemnation. Many soldiers would not talk about it anyway; traumatic memories are too painful. But even those who would like to talk sense quite accurately that the American people do not want to hear about what they did over there. We "support" them, but not in the sense that we are willing to forgive them for having committed atrocities. Perhaps we should not forgive them for committing atrocities, and they are wise not to speak. But we should show some humility and a capacity for self-criticism: none of us should be too confident about what we might have done as Japanese soldiers in China in 1937, or American soldiers in Vietnam in 1967, and we should acknowledge the atrocities committed by "our boys" along with their acts of heroism and sacrifice.

And in general, when you hear the words "You can't compare..." -- go ahead and compare.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

I remember the 60’s, I was against the war, yet I was attacked, and beaten because I associated with the hippies.
Just as today politicians who are so eager to get us in a war, never finding a way out, perpetual war to bring us peace.

When Nixon told us he had a plan to end the war, he won, but he proved to be a liar. He was always instilling fear of the left.

How do you think you’d feel, if every event, started off with patriotic fervor, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT mentality, right in your face chants, with a few bouts of saliva throwing tantrums.

It was as though the whole nation, was being torn apart, but of course the Government could force you, to go fight for a cause, you didn’t believe in.

So many of us, thought IF THEY THREW A WAR, AND NOBODY CAME , the war would be forced, to end, maybe the government would stop the slaughter of so many young Americans.

But it appears that those who are intent on wars and war machines, are perceived to hold the higher moral ground, Patriotic flag waving, Fourth of July parades, MEN in Uniform, Hooray, marching bands.

So from the perspective of those who wanted an end to the madness. Soldiers in Uniform were complicit, in the never ending supply of participants. (If someone threw a war and nobody came)

So if you were part of the group opposed to the war, and you saw someone in uniform, you had to wonder Why? Why did you choose to be a pawn, killing someone, because some draft dodging politician said it was your duty? Rather; than fighting against the war machine, that the majority of Americans were trying to end.
What? You couldn’t dare think about standing along side those willing to do whatever to end the war. Some fled to Canada, some went to prison. Prison, rather than put on the Uniform?

I am only speaking of the Vietnam War.

Which do you want to focus on the William Calleys or the Hugh Thompsons of Vietnam. Thompson risked a great deal for an act of heroism, that even the left still does not fully give him credit for. You are again trying to use your hate to paint millions of vets with the broad brush of a few individuals. If you don't like the label of "hate" then stop trying to spread it with your misinformation campaign.

I didn't say that people that oppose the war against terrorism or any other war, i.e. the policy are hate filled. When you intentionally spread falsehoods about the Soldiers or even Bush that shows your hate. The soldiers were spit on by American radicals in the 60s and the soldiers today are being spit on, harassed and abused by the anti-war radicals. If you minimize that abuse on our soldiers to further your own personal agenda, then you are an accomplice in the abuse and that exposes your hate.

If you don't like being a hater, then stop supporting abusers. You were wrong about the spit on vets and you are just bitter. Give it up. The troops have done nothing against you other than protect your freedom to spew nonsense and allow you to make a fool of yourself.

~

What you've said is correct.

Although it is also correct that after we got our noses out of the business of Vietnam there was no such thing as a North or South Vietnam.

The north did not invade their own country, they united it. It may not have been pretty, but that's civil war for ya'. Like it or not...

~OGD~

~

See related comment above

~OGD~

Howard,
I am only expressing, my feelings, when events and issues made me aware of the impact on my life. Listening to Steepenwolf *The Monster* album or Black Sabbath' War Pigs

The events of the 60's. Forever etched upon my mind, the insidious draft.
I couldn't understand how a person could be compelled to serve someone else's cause, against, everything I was taught about LOVE thy Neighbor, thou shall not murder.
Watching as my friends and classmates were forced to report to the Draft office.
Then like some horror movie, a lottery of whose going to be fed to the Monster. being put upon the altar of sacrifice. For what? So some jackass, politician can look pious for one day on Memorial day, hang a wreath and forget about why they died, and then go off and start another conflict.

No I don't view it as a luxury, I sense a government run amok, Meddling, spilling innocent blood, amassing clear to the heavens.

I wish your mother or anyone who has worn a uniform no disrespect. God knows the horrors of facism and Naziism.

I just want an answer of why, when draftees,(Not enlisted) who knew they were being shipped to Vietnam, didn't stand up an say Hell no, we won't go. Forcing the Government, to leave Vietnam sooner than it did, and maybe normalized relations sooner, than we did. Sparing how many lives? Did Ho Chi Minh ever ask the US for help?Did the Amercan people have a right to know what it was we were fightin for?

http://www.kimsoft.com/1997/uncleho.htm

Ho Chi Minh worked for the American intelligence in Indochina during World War II, from 1943 through 1945. Although trained in Moscow, he was primarily a nationalist seeking independence for his country and sympathetically pro-American, just as Mao Zedong and Kim Il Sung were (and incidentally, Kim Jong Il is).
America financed and advised Ho until late 1945, when Truman betrayed him and gave Indochina back to the French. The United States financed and advised the French until 1954--when we betrayed them and gave Indochina to Diem.

We financed and advised Diem until 1963, when we betrayed him and gave Indochina to a succession of other failing leaders. And sent in hundreds of thousands of troops. We ended up betraying the South Vietnamese as well.
During World War II, Ho rescued our downed pilots and provided in formation on Japanese troop movements. Our Navy and OSS loved him. At the end of WWII, Ho adopted a constitution similar to ours and declared independence. He disbanded the Communist Party and called for a general election with all parties participating. The Americans on the scene were treated as heroes, loved and celebrated by everyone.

You mention
1945, 1954, 1959, 1961, 1963 and 1964,
Whats wrong with this picture, are we always fighting?
How many wars has the United States been involved with since 1776. Are we a Nation of war or peace?

To compare the Japanese orchestrated Asian Holocaust -- ten years of barbarities including cannibalism, medical experiments, human vivisection, the premeditated murder of POWs, enslavement unto death of millions of civilians and POWs, the Rape of Nanking -- with American "atrocities" in Vietnam is to display a failure to understand that a difference in degree so great amounts to a difference in kind -- and must result in a great embarrassment for any author who makes such a comparison.

"...So from the perspective of those who wanted an end to the madness. Soldiers in Uniform were complicit, in the never ending supply of participants. (If someone threw a war and nobody came)

So if you were part of the group opposed to the war, and you saw someone in uniform, you had to wonder Why?..."

Chuckie, sometimes I can count on you to admit what we already know and was basically admitted as fact at the time. The soldiers whether drafted or volunteer were being threatened and intimidated to make them pariahs, so that the ability to muster an army would become increasingly difficult. The end result would be a successful short term political outcome for the left at the expense of the psychological well being and the dignity of those that served with honor.

Politically it was shrewd, but morally it was wrong.

The remarks here today by others trying to paint all soldiers in the global war on terror as blood thirsty or stupid is a softer version of the same political shrewdness. The new attacks on todays soldiers is an attempt to take the soft criticism of the soldier and bring back the days of spitting and attacking.

The complaints about how criticism of the war as a policy draws Republican calls of unpatriotic behavior is a farce and an attempt to innoculate themselves from what they know was an immoral act against the Vietnam vets.

Todd Gitlin's article here is another attempt to demonize the troops by comparing them to the worst atrocities of any army in the 20th century.

40 years later, here we are and the youth are still signing up and defending this country even as our veterans are still being spit upon.

I admire your ability to retell what most of us already knew but were afraid to recall.

"...The orders came down from the top -- from Tokyo -- to eliminate any Nationalist soldiers. The predictable mass slaughter ensued, as it always does when scared soldiers are signaled that they have impunity...."

I get it. The cannibalism, daily bayonet the baby contest, rape and then mass beheading of women, was all being done by "scared soldiers" following orders "from the top".

The mass murder of civilians was of course "predictable".

It all sounds so understandable. Makes perfect sense to me now.

Do you realize many Japanese officers practiced cannibalism on living prisoners. They would cut off large pieces of meat from prisoners and serve it for their dinner and keep the prisoner alive for future dining. That sounds just like Lt. Dan and Forrest Gump, doesn't it?

I can't believe you even attempt this kind of nonsense.

Read this book and this link and then let me know if any American army has even scratched the surface of this level of barbarity. If you can't tell the difference between the most moral and fair dealing military in history and the worst barbarity in the world's bloodiest century, then you have absolutely no moral compass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

~

You bet Chuckie... Hell I'll never forget it? I was in the midst of it ...

I wasn't waddling around National Airport observing the crap going on there ... that's for sure. I was serving with my fellow compatriots, we were doing our damdest keeping each other alive.

My point in my comment that you have responded to was directed at the fact that I did not sense "...political chest-beating, of justifying the antiwar movement during Vietnam..." in any of the comments posted by TomB (see), noblesseoblige (see), nor JohnW1141(see) ...

~OGD~

~

dftt . . .

dftt ...

dftt ...

I would have thought, brooksfoe, that you would have wanted to stay silent so as to keep the rest of us in the dark with respect to your abysmal lack of knowledge of the type and extent of the atrocities commited by the Japanese throughout Asia and the Pacific during WWII and in China before then.

What the hippies did to the soldiers was immoral. To defend it is immoral. You are engaging in an immoral act if you deny the facts on the spitting, the insults, the attacks, the denigration, the humiliation, the discrimination, and the neglect of our Vietnam Veterans.

I won't dispute the reality of the spitting incidents, because I don't have the facts.

But I have seen interviews and read accounts of many Vietnam veterans who said the most hurtful comments they heard when they returned were of the form "Hey, nice job losing the war!" Frankly, I don't think most of those comments were coming from the left.

The scapegoating of the "hippies" for the pain endured by Vietnam vets on their return constitutes a massive denial and coverup for the rejection and back-turning the vets received from American hawks who felt shamed by the Vietnam defeat and blamed the soldiers for it.

Not that long ago, during the course of a somewhat bizarre conversation, a friend posited that the total elimination of war would not be a good thing.  Because that would destroy all good art, poetry, and music.  Reading this discussion of WWI poets has suggested that my friend might not be quite as crazy as I had thought. 

Between 2000 and later February or early March 2007 (six plus years) Shafer used his column to "track Vietnam Spit allegations" as they appeared in the press, and in six years found "nothing that contradicts Lembcke's basic assessment".  Tracking is reporting, not necessarily revitalizing debunking.  The key is the honesty with which results are reported.  If Shafer's only purpose was to revitalize debunking, all he would have had to do is keep quiet about the incident he, instead, accounted in detail.

I am very curious when a poster provides both a link and quotes sections with ellipses between them.  I want to find out what was omitted, so I went to look at Shafer's column in the link provided.  It proved to me, among other things, that Shafer is an honorable man, and perhaps more honest in his work than the selective paragraphs would suggest about Mr. King. 

In the omitted parts, Shafer says that his research indicated that

• The news stories undermine Lembcke's belief that the spat-upon-returning-vet meme didn't really start circulating until about 1980, but none documents a spit incident with any specificity. I still believe the stories deserve the "urban legend" status assigned to them by Lembcke.

In other words, the story began earlier than Lembcke's book indicated.  This is the principal "debunking" of Lembcke's book. 

Shafer then goes on to report the Delmar Pickett incident to which you refer:  so far, it seems the only documented incident, with a direct testimony of the victim of the assault.  By Pickett's first account, it involved two "dudes" only one of which spit at him.  (And missed).

This would seem to be more a random act of violence, than evidence of widespread movement behavior.  (I do consider spitting an act of violence: it has been a sign of contempt since at least the days of the prophet Isaiah.)   He also reports that

• Pickett is described as formerly "hawkish" on the war, but now thinks U.S. involvement makes no sense, yet he doesn't come across as a peacenik. His biggest complaint doesn't seem to be the spit incident but about the war apathy he faces. "Nobody really cares" about war, he says, and "nobody seemed interested" in what he did there. (emphasis mine).

Shafer, to his credit, tried to locate Delmar Pickett and was indeed successful.  Mr. King doesn't provide a link to the follow up story, but here it is.    Shafer is still trying to locate another soldier whose account dates to the actual war period, Jim Minarik, who, in 1971, recounted an incident from 1968.  He has not had success as yet.

On the second page, Shafer offers this interpretation:

• That the mainstream press aired Pickett and Minarik's accounts in 1971 show that the spitting-on-vets meme gained greater currency in those early years than Lembcke allows. But it also dispels the notion, held by many of my e-mail correspondents, that the Vietnam-vet spit stories were suppressed by the "liberal media."

So the confirmed, documented, accounts stand at one, not thousands. I hasten to say one is too many, but one raindrop does not make a flood.   But by selectively quoting Shafer in an essentially dishonest way you demean yourself, rather than him. 

Finally, some following this post might enjoy reading Lembcke's own account of why he undertook his research, remembering that he was a Vietnam Veteran himself, as well as a trained sociologist.  Lembcke never claimed that there were no incidents in those tumultuous days.  He does cast reasonable doubt on the number of incidents and sheds light on how stories like these become urban myths.

 aMike

Hmmm...I don't know, but I'll bet there's plenty of misery and bitterness to go around without creating more, jmo.

On March 27, 2007 - 2:32am TJKING said:

The remarks here today by others trying to paint all soldiers in the global war on terror as blood thirsty or stupid is a softer version of the same political shrewdness.

Nice tactic; purposely misinterpret what is said then attack your misinterpretation.

How much longer would we have been in Vietnam, how many more would have died, been maimed for life if not for the "hippies" and the anti war demonstrators?

TJKING attacks those that were the main force for getting us out of Vietnam, just as he attacks those who want to get us out of Iraq. He may even be preparing his attack on those who may eventually want to get us out of Iran.

Viviane, I was with you there for the first two paragraphs.

If you think "Perhaps TJKING's description of the U.S. military is accurate." regarding, "... the most moral and fair dealing military in history ...", then I think THAT should be a better goal than being better than the Japanese Imperial army.

"...Does that mean that all actions taken by U.S. soldiers are justified? In many ways, that seems to be what TJKING is arguing...."

No, I was not arguing that. I think you are the one being a bit hyperbolic here. I definitely believe there is room for improvement. "Best" does not mean perfect. Our Founders had such low regard for the ability of government to solve problems, that it made it difficult for them to move to freely. The Military also had many constraints put on it and I think the result has been part of the reason for a better outcome than other countries. If it makes you feel better to apply Churchill's observances of democracy, then it would acknowledge deficiencies while accepting that ours is the best example of how a military should be run.

Part of the problem here is that those that oppose the war continue to use isolated incidents to paint a broad negative image of military service and when that image is demonstrated as false, people apply a criteria of perfection to the military which is impossible to attain.

"...We can, of course, debate what standard the United States should be held to. I suggest that being more "moral" and "fair" than the Japanese during WWII is not a goal we should aspire to...."

I think this assertion, aside from being as obvious as the sun in the sky, it is closer to those that are arguing no difference between the two, than my argument that they couldn't be more different. Again, I never made a claim that it should be a goal of our military to base their mission on something similar to the Japanese Imperial Army and then push it one step better than them and consider that a major achievement.

So, I was with you for the first two paragraphs, but your P.S. I believe is off track. If you want to be skeptical of the statement, fine, I assume that means inconclusive. I think some of my posts comparing the Japanese to Nazi actions in combat (excluding the Holocaust) shows that the Japanese were far more vicious, cruel, and atrocious, although at this end of the spectrum (the one farthest from the US) regarding barbarity in war, it becomes a disturbing analysis of body counts and psychosis. Saying it depends on how it is measured sounds like anyone could fall on either end of the scale if you doctor up the stats. Thats not true. The Japanese are tied for if not in sole possession of number one on that barbarity scale. US and UK are at the opposite end under any reasonable measure.

If you want to not take this argument seriously because of the contention of "worst babarity" being applied to the Japanese, then I find that surprising. If the term the "bloodiest century" seems hyperbolic, I would consider it a learning experience if someone pointed out a bloodier century.

Nanking is not a tangent. Someone like Todd, makes a completely ridiculous contention about the Japanese and Americans and as usual people demand examples and sources if you plain to counter such nonsense. So you provide evidence and people call it a tangent or a distraction or deny that Nanking was a massacre or claim that it was made up. Yes, there are people here that have covered each one of those stances. They make "baseless" assertions and when you supply evidence that clearly topples the contention and they flip out.

"...But comparison of atrocities or wrongs is not productive. It's like rejoicing that one is drowning 10 feet below the surface, because somebody else is drowning at 11 feet below. ..."

It is productive. Todd's article was drawing equivalence, which is a lie. It is productive to prove that he is lying and irresponsible in his contention.

No one I know is rejoicing about atrocities. A better comparison would be to say it is more tragic that tens of millions were drowned at 11,000 feet below the surface, than a couple of hundred drowning at 1 foot.

Individual American soldiers have done wrong (I don't hold Eisenhower responsible for Oswald), and JAG should get a hold of them and bring them to justice so the other 99.99 percent of the military can go about the business of defending our lives and our constitution.
Thanks for your post.

I am going to post a quote from Hunter S. Thompson just for TJKING...

We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world, a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them.

Did Hunter Thompson hate his own country because he made a statement like this?  No...he was angry.  TJ...there is a big difference between anger and hate.  A distinction, in the course of political discourse, you refuse to grasp.  I say refuse because I think you are more then smart enough to tell the difference.

But even while Hunter Thompson was angry his anger flowed from the fact that he loved his country and not from hate of country.  He was mad at the damage that politicians (mainly conservatives) are inflicting on our country, all allegedly in the name of protecting our country.  And anyone who says criticism of the political leaders of our country we love (when those leaders deserve the criticism) actually represents "hate", is inflicting even more damage.  As much as you RW'ers want to say criticism of the war is criticism of our troops you couldn't be more wrong...it is only criticism of inept, stupid, corrupt, politicians.

But I am sure your reply (if there is one) will be one asking me why I hate my country.

There were a number of reasons, Chuckie.  When I was drafted, for example, the Canada option was just forming in the public imaginati8on.  Refusal = jail in 1965, unless you could make a good C.O. case.  But there's another thing that's not often discussed - and that is embedded in American culture is an element of fear of authority.  That could translate many ways according to the myriad personality types swept up in the draft (assuming that military volunteerism would attract a narrower range of personality types.)  At any rate, that is likely the reason I submitted to the draft and served in Vietnam - an innate fear of authority that left it difficult if not impossible to say "Hell no, I won't go!"  And it's not the anticipated consequences that is the inhibitor; it's the act of defiance itself.  Remember, early on there were very few who refused - and I admire their courage greatly.  But by Dec. of 1969, when the lottery came to be, refusing service had become almost style and fashion in the U.S., and there was a huge social support mechanism extant to support the refuseniks (not to mention the numbers were so great that proscution was improbable except for a few example cases).  So it's apples and oranges - refusing service in 1964 was quite different than in 1970.

I was lucky - I had to face my fear directly, and I was able to overcome it a few years later after separation from the Armed Services.  But I think many Vietnam veterans have never quite figured it out.  You have to keep in mind that a great number of G.I.s serving in Vietnam also thought it was "a piece of shit" war, and there is a tendency to attempt to valorize it in a retroactive fashion just to sooth conflict in the soul. 

Neoboho

Howard, do you think that if a high ranking officer in those marines chain of command saw this video that they would be right to send down the line for an explanation or clarification of what went on in this incident?

Do you think many officers in today’s army or marine corp in Iraq will go out of their way to investigate when some of their men get fired on and then over-react and cross the line and commit acts which would land those men in the stockade if they were undeniably revealed?

Do you think such acts happen? Do you suspect that they are more common as the war goes on?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"...So the confirmed, documented, accounts stand at one, not thousands. I hasten to say one is too many, but one raindrop does not make a flood. But by selectively quoting Shafer in an essentially dishonest way you demean yourself, rather than him...."

Your idea that "selective" quoting in a demeaning and dishonest way means someone that does not include links to every article an author ever posted is laughable. If it were true, you engaged in demeaning and dishonest posting when you used Shafer's 2000 article without including the 2007 article that I alerted you to. I did not accuse you of knowingly concealing it, but I realize now, that in my attempt to share the link with you assuming you might be interested, that in fact it hurt your feelings. If I wanted to conceal it, I wouldn't have attached the link, which was clearly placed there for your perusal.

You either didn't read my response to you or you are intentionally mischaracterizing my response. Here is what I said:

"...As you can see in my previous post I mention Jack Shafer and his 7 year campaign to revitalize the debunking of the spitting stories.

What he didn't say is that in Green's book he included 63 examples out of 1000 documented accounts of individuals being spat upon ( never mind the ones that never wanted to talk about it or relive it), not to mention other forms of abuse like people going to the trouble of transporting rotten fruit to the airport for the soul reason of pelting the troops...."

The CBS video I supplied that you decided to use as an opportunity to mock Pickett's being spit at by two or spit upon by one, is a contemporaneous account and Lembecke said there were none and Shafer said he agreed with Lembecke.

The Pickett account was not meant to supply information about a thousand accounts. I clearly stated it was the Green book, Homecoming. Then I included these two reviews of the Green book.

From Publishers Weekly Chicago Tribune staffer Greene composed several of his syndicated columns around responses he received from Vietnam vets after he asked whether any of them had been spat upon. Unfortunately, the enormous impact of the columns is lost in their expansion to book form. Some servicemen were spat upon on their return, but more suffered verbal abuse or icy indifference. Many contributors point out that they did what their country asked them to do, and they were stunned by the cruelty, even savagery, of some of the anti-war protesters, many of whom proclaimed belief in love and peace. Some are still not reconciled to the treatment they received, while others welcome the change in the attitude toward them as a chance "to wipe a little spit off our hearts."

From Library Journal
"Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?" asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of "hippies" (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war's most unpleasant, enduring images. Conversely, other letters describe acts of generosity toward servicemen, from the typical free beers at the bar to a free show. But the over 200 letters excerpted here do more than confirm popular notions. They bring back the incidents of 20 years ago vividly, but not always with bitterness. And they reveal healing solidarity among veterans in response to what for many was not a happy homecoming.

If someone claimed that Blacks were not spit upon during the civil rights movement because there were not enough videos, photos, police reports, DNA evidence, etc. I think we could all fairly assume that the person denying history had either a political agenda in denying the facts or some kind of hatred for the victims of the attacks.

Your contention that the spitting incidents against American soldiers is an urban myth is a disturbing case of history denial. Todd Gitlin's original article was about just that subject, history denial. He was engaging in it and even when faced with facts, you and others here are continuing to call the Vietnam vets liars. That adds insult to injury. You demean yourself on an even grander scale than your misrepresentation of the facts by injuring the troops.

On March 27, 2007 - 12:58pm Libertine said: I am going to post a quote from Hunter S. Thompson just for TJKING...

They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis

The Nazis were into war, militarism, ultra nationalism, mysticism, obsession with flags, anti-union, press control, and an identified enemy; in Germany's case, the Jews (Liberals?) , sound familiar?

Your perpetuating the story of the kid running down the road with burns as representative of American atrocities is more proof of your ignorance. The American soldiers seen walking with her were bringing them to get aid after the South Vietnamese mistakenly bombed them.

She now lives a comfortable life in suburban Canada and has never characterized it as an atrocity.

The fact that you deny the millions of mass murdered and tortured under the Imperial Japanese army, but you mischaracterize the American soldiers rescue as an atrocity demonstrates your hate quite thoroughly.

I agree with your analysis, it did take a while for the Anti war movement to get to critical mass.

On March 27, 2007 - 12:59pm neoboho said: But there's another thing that's not often discussed - and that is embedded in American culture is an element of fear of authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention The 1968 National Convention of the U.S. Democratic Party was held at International Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois, from August 26 to August 29, 1968, for the purposes of choosing the Democratic nominee for the 1968 U.S. presidential election.[1] 1968 already had been a tumultuous year for the United States, with the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.), and widespread protests of the Vietnam War.

The convention achieved notoriety due to clashes between protesters and police. Despite the poor behavior of some protestors, there was widespread criticism that the Chicago police and National Guard used excessive force: a 1968 Time article declared that "With billy clubs, tear gas and Mace, the blue-shirted, blue-helmeted cops violated the civil rights of countless innocent citizens and contravened every accepted code of professional police discipline ... No one could accuse the Chicago cops of discrimination. They savagely attacked hippies, yippies, New Leftists, revolutionaries, dissident Democrats, newsmen, photographers, passers-by, clergymen and at least one cripple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Massacre

The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970.

Four students were killed and nine others wounded. The students were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon launched on April 25, and announced in a television address five days later.

Oh How I wish TJKING, who gets worked up, about degrees of atrocities, would realize that besides the indignities of so called "being spit upon", I wish he'd reflect upon , the degree of pain inflicted on war protestors. American citizens who were spit upon and being killed in America, for standing up to be heard. By politicians with deaf ears, and no skin in the conflict.

On a lighter note, according to your bio: how do you like the desert Southwest, beautiful isn't it.  Spectacular views and serenity.

On March 27, 2007 - 12:59pm TJKING said:

Welcome to war. I think your post demonstrates not just ignorance of war, but a failure to even attempt to understand the difficult job these soldiers are doing.

And you are more qualified to post on 'war" or to understand the difficult job the troops are doing? You are more qualified to judge other's comments on war?

Do you have any understanding of what its like to be in a war?
To be shot at? To be shelled? To see your friends blown to pieces? To see piles of rotting corpses? To freeze your ass off in a foxhole as you watch tanks and infantry coming toward you? Do you have any idea what its like to attack a town defended by the worst of the fanatics, so frikkin crazy that you have to kill the SOBs twice?

You pontificate, blast, and insult often in here on what your mind has conjured up as posters that want to gin up more hatred for our troops. Your lies, exaggerations, dissembling
and contortions of other's posts who may disagree with you are notorious.

So I ask you again, how is it you're qualified to post on what war is like? What the troops experience? What they think?

Well John it all sounds waaaaaay to familiar, eerily so.

I have a guy, who works for me part time, who is staunchly conservative.  He refers to Arabs as (his words) "sand niggers" and "rag heads".  He tries to rationalize all the Iraqis who have died because of our invasion by saying "well if we don't kill them first they are gonna try to kill us".  And about Muslims in general he says "Their book (The Koran) says they must kill all unbelievers" and therefore he has no issues with "innocent" people being killed because in his mind none of them are innocent.  We get into some pretty heated discussions and I come right out and tell him that I feel his positions are based on racism, hatred and fear.

He, in his mind, has completely bought into the rhetoric of our brave and righteous Furher leader.

This is your second post in a row that you include offensive racial epithets. Is this a pattern we should expect will continue? I hope not.

I like the desert, and yes, the panoramas are spectacular.  The wind's blowing today, so the dust is up and vision is limited, but usually I can see the Sierra de Cucupa's in the south, Mt. Signal and the Baja California range SW, the Coast range to the West, Chocolate Mountains to the East.  Everything is up from here, 115 feet below sea lever.  The Colorado desert is a bit more of a desert than the lush Sonoran desert to the east in Arizona, but with the giant agricultural project here it's quite green year around.  

I just ignore the heat.  When it hits 120 I just think: "That's why they call it a desert."  But it's surprising how one can get used to it - keeping in mind that it will kill you if you're careless.

Neoboho

On March 27, 2007 - 2:22pm TJKING said:

Your perpetuating the story of the kid running down the road with burns as representative of American atrocities is more proof of your ignorance.

In that case, your perpetuating the story of troops being spat upon as representative of hippies shows proof of your ignorance. Don't you agree?

First off TJ...the last 4 1/2 years are littered with republicans claiming that any dissent is unpatriotic and in essense giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" in our faux war on terrorism.  If nobody cites any I will provide some examples later on tonight or tomorrow...I am on a clunky 56K hook-up here so it will take me some time.  But if others want to provide examples feel free.

Secondly, Hunter Thompson might have "hated" certain aspects of American culture but he certainly didn't hate America.

Finally, the fact that Gonzo is willing to criticize both D's and R's tells me he is honest in his thinking and positions he takes.  He is not an political ideologue in any sense.

p.s. - your post did live up to my expectations in one sense.  Like the vast majority of the conservatives I have run across when in doubt you brought up Bill Clinton.  Congratulations...you get to keep your RW credentials. ;-)