Yeah people just beat eachother up. Why no assault reports? The image of soldiers stoicly pacing on as spit dribbles down there face is something I have seen time and time again on fictional portrayals, but can you imagine family members not reacting to assaults as their sons came home.?
Sean
Sean, and others. I swear, if you were some random dude who just signed up I would verbally punch you straight in the coutter!
I am going to patiently assume that you and others aren't just trolling, but are logical people who have maybe just gotten caught up in the recent media hype.
Please, I beg you folks, try to listen to reason on this:
1. There were a lot of police reports of fights, vandalism, arrests, and so forth over conflicts between soldiers and war protestors. These occured
30-40 years ago. Most legal records for non-felony charges are purged from the system in 7-10 years. I am sure there were multiple police reports because we can find references in records to these in newspaper articles and witness accounts. Just because I can't fax you over a police report from the 70s that details a spitting incident, that doesn't mean that such incidents never occured, or that such reports never existed or don't exist today. I in fact linked to a news report of war protestors vandalizing a veterans memorial to deceased soldiers right on this thread. I also linked to a spitting incident that occured recently in Syracuse NY. There is also VIDEO FOOTAGE that does exist (not sure where to find it at the moment) of protestors spitting on soldiers. So don't fall into the trap that some leftie media hounds have laid, and look at all the evidence objectively before you make yourself look immoral and stupid by supporting an immoral and stupid premise.
2. The idea that this was a "myth" was propigated in a 1998 book that I already referenced here by Jerry Lembcke. Mr. Lembcke decided that the "spitting on soldiers" idea was a myth; a part of some vast right wing conspiracy to denounce war protestors. His evidence was that he claimed that he couldn't find any eyewitness accounts of such incidents, or "official reports" like police reports and such. He makes a whole host of claims with faulty statistics to bolster his argument. He also claimed that because some soldiers spoke out against the war, that this means that "protestors" and "soldiers" were all on the same side, thus no incidents of foul treatment could have occured.
Mr. Lembcke is both morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. A more objective individual had asked the same questions of "did this really happen" 10 years prior to Lembcke's book. A writer by the name of Bob Greene had asked the question and asked for responses in several syndicated columns in the 80's. He recieved 1000's of responses from vets accounting tales being spat on, and much worse. He detailed this in his book that I have already referenced here "The Homecoming." This book, on top of news accounts and countless other accounts of soldiers being treated poorly can be found fairly easily.
Mr. Lembcke selectively left Greene's book, and all the other evidence, out of his "research."
3. One has to ask themselves why would radio hosts, columnists, bloggers, and other "liberally biased" media sources would take such a strong interest in "debunking" this "myth" today. The obvious reason is that these people, who are war protestors and ideologically similar to those during the Vietnam era, don't want to be associated with those who would spit on and socially "attack" and degrade soldiers.
But, because these certain people are so morally bankrupt, instead of doing the right thing and simply denouncing previous behavior towards soldiers and behaving differently then their predecessors, they would rather REWRITE HISTORY AND PRETEND THAT IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Don't become as immoral as these people. It is one thing (and perfectly American as we have these freedoms) to dislike the war and dissent. It is quite another to try to rewrite history to serve your agenda.
4. Vietnam was very polarizing for many people during that era, even within the armed forces. This was due to a lot of reasons, one of which could be the DRAFT. Right now, we have a volunteer army. The large portion of people that I know in the military are happy to be serving, regardless of the politics behind the Iraq war. You institute a draft, and now all of a sudden you will have a lot of troops who don't want to be there, and a lot of desenters and "soldiers" who protest the war. Why do you think that many anti-war politicians talk about instituting the draft, despite reports from the Generals that this is not needed yet? They would be willing to FORCE young men and women into service in hopes that it will create enough dissent to end the war. See, for some of these folks, the ends justify the means, no matter how wrong the means. Can we say "morally bankrupt"?
But I digress... the fact is, ideological "peer pressure" is what tends to occur here. There are many pro-war, anti-war, and middle of the road vets from the vietnam era. There are a small few who got sucked into the anti-war movement who served. There are a few who went the opposite direction.
But the overwhelming evidence exists that the anti-war crowd of that era was anti-troop. Sure, if you were a soldier who was willing to trash your medals and your uniform for their cause, they were happy to USE YOU for the cause. But this does not make them "pro-troop, anti-war." Because if you were a soldier who was proud of your service regardless of the politics, and was proud to wear your uniform in public, you were considered trash yourself by many of the anti-war folks, and you were treated as such.
And with such a strong anti-war sentiment towards the end because people were so sick and tired of Vietnam, many soldiers were trashed in public by the public.
Yet, they all had families and friends and others who were understanding, and who treated soldiers well upon their return.
So, no, not every person or "anti-war" person trashed soldiers during Vietnam. Not everyone had a horrible homecoming. But enough of them did for us to remember this point of history, and not deny it to serve a soulless political agenda.
5. Immoral means don't justify an end no matter what way you slice it. Trying to change history to serve an end is disrespectful to your country and to those who serve it. Maybe you can say that you "support the troops" but that you "disagree with the way political leaders are managing the war." But you cannot say that you "support the troops" but that you believe that the stories of vets being treated poorly during Vietnam were all "myths."
This is because many soldiers have given first hand accounts of being treated poorly in countless publications, including RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD. So by saying that these accounts are myths, you are saying that these soldiers are LIARS.
How can you say you "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" when you are so willing to call so many of them LIARS?
Just think about what you are doing, and what you are saying. Please... I beg you. Don't be stupid, and don't fall into immoral, agenda driven stupidity. Because it really does hurt people in the long run...
