Give your currrent lie a rest - you look like the ignorant fool that you are.
Give your currrent lie a rest - you look like the ignorant fool that you are.
And you look more and more like a Russian troll-bot every day.
Our resident LIAR Kevin says "And you look more and more like a Russian troll-bot every day." ----- That is all you got, other than more lies.
Troll-bots very often call other people liars.
Originally posted by: Candy Wright
Hanoi Jane (Fonda) fed the flames of anti-war sentiment, for one. Protesters running amok. The young enjoying the limelight from media. We didn't see WWII or Korea-age vets raising hell and spitting on returning soldiers, right?
No one got spit on. There's not one single news story in existence from the Vietnam era that alleges that. And can you imagine some hippie spitting on some grizzled army veteran just returning from war? There wouldn't be much left on the ground except love beads, would there?
But about six years after the end of our invasion, a lot of veterans somehow "recovered" their memories of how they got spit on by the protesters. Cognitive dissonance and all, some of them probably believe it.
Originally posted by: Vegas Todd
Bragging IS the issue, sfb.
Obviously you haven't been keeping up.
I suggest you familiarize with the topic before responding to keep from looking like an ass.
The TITLE of this thread is you accusing David Miller of NOT being a Vietnam veteran after claiming to be one. If you have proof of that, fine.
Otherwise, if you have a tiny bit of class you will admit you were wrong. And maybe even apologize.
Spitting - 
Counterpoint
I am a combat-disabled Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1968-69. I was infantry, in the field, fighting the most misunderstood and unpopular war in American history. I've studied the history, and I've lived it.
And David Sirota is wrong about the history and policies of that war and about the treatment of returning military men and women ("The myth of the spat-upon war veteran," June 8).
Contrary to protesters' claims, then and now, the Vietnam War did not begin without good reasons. It was a direct result of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill agreed to abandon the Vietnamese (who had helped defeat the Japanese in World War II) and give all of Indo-China back to the French. Despite U.S. economic support and military advisers, the French lost the ensuing Vietnamese independence struggle and withdrew from all of Indo-China. Vietnam ended up divided.
In the era when the North Vietnamese invaded the South, the world was facing Russian colonialism, the spread of communism, nuclear arms, the Cuban missile crisis and other threats to world peace. We fought to "contain" communist aggression and adopted the "domino theory," believing that if one country in a region fell, the rest would. Although the history of the past 50 years is complex, it's fair to observe that the spread of communism has been contained.
We need to remember that it was the South Vietnamese government that lost their war, not the much-maligned American soldier. American service members did not suffer defeat, even though most of us felt defeated. Policy and politics out of Washington had failed, not the military.
Vietnam vets were raised in a society that honored veterans. Despite Sirota's contentions, Vietnam vets were a bit crushed coming home. We were not honored, but were treated as the face of an unpopular war.
I am not aware of many Vietnam vets who were not subjected to some disrespect, either personal or from the culture that called us "baby killers." We were shamed and embarrassed. My car (with a military base sticker) was "egged." I bought a wig to hide my military haircut.
The spitting on veterans was just a small part of the overall feeling of lost honor, but it was real, contrary to Sirota's article, which appears to borrow heavily from a review of a book written by socialist and war protester Jerry Lembcke. Others:
• In October 1967, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter James Reston's front page article in the New York Times described his eyewitness account of protest behavior so vulgar that spitting was the least of the transgressions.
• Even Medal of Honor recipients were abused and "spat upon as 'monsters'," according to the head of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, WWII medalist Thomas J. Kelly. Kelly recounted how about 200 anti-war protesters showed up one year to harass the Medal of Honor recipients at their annual dinner. WWII Medalist James Conners was unable to avoid a particularly obnoxious man yelling, "Killer, killer, killer." Conners decked him.
• Other spitting incidents were reported by Pulitzer Prize winners Max Frankel in the New York Times (November 1969) and Carl Bernstein in the Washington Post (May 1970).
Personally, I don't care what toad thinks of me. He had proven time and time again to be a vulgar, hateful cretin who has no class. He raised the question of my military service (my being a "veteran") and was answered. The Viet Nam era was no picnic, here or abroad. But for some lowlife to question those who served during that period is uncalled for. He has no shame and I would not accept any type of apology from him, if offered - and I can not think of any Viet Nam era veteran who would.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Spitting -
BARRIE MAGUIRE – NEWSARTCounterpoint
I am a combat-disabled Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1968-69. I was infantry, in the field, fighting the most misunderstood and unpopular war in American history. I've studied the history, and I've lived it.
And David Sirota is wrong about the history and policies of that war and about the treatment of returning military men and women ("The myth of the spat-upon war veteran," June 8).
Contrary to protesters' claims, then and now, the Vietnam War did not begin without good reasons. It was a direct result of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill agreed to abandon the Vietnamese (who had helped defeat the Japanese in World War II) and give all of Indo-China back to the French. Despite U.S. economic support and military advisers, the French lost the ensuing Vietnamese independence struggle and withdrew from all of Indo-China. Vietnam ended up divided.
In the era when the North Vietnamese invaded the South, the world was facing Russian colonialism, the spread of communism, nuclear arms, the Cuban missile crisis and other threats to world peace. We fought to "contain" communist aggression and adopted the "domino theory," believing that if one country in a region fell, the rest would. Although the history of the past 50 years is complex, it's fair to observe that the spread of communism has been contained.
We need to remember that it was the South Vietnamese government that lost their war, not the much-maligned American soldier. American service members did not suffer defeat, even though most of us felt defeated. Policy and politics out of Washington had failed, not the military.
Vietnam vets were raised in a society that honored veterans. Despite Sirota's contentions, Vietnam vets were a bit crushed coming home. We were not honored, but were treated as the face of an unpopular war.
I am not aware of many Vietnam vets who were not subjected to some disrespect, either personal or from the culture that called us "baby killers." We were shamed and embarrassed. My car (with a military base sticker) was "egged." I bought a wig to hide my military haircut.
The spitting on veterans was just a small part of the overall feeling of lost honor, but it was real, contrary to Sirota's article, which appears to borrow heavily from a review of a book written by socialist and war protester Jerry Lembcke. Others:
• In October 1967, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter James Reston's front page article in the New York Times described his eyewitness account of protest behavior so vulgar that spitting was the least of the transgressions.
• Even Medal of Honor recipients were abused and "spat upon as 'monsters'," according to the head of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, WWII medalist Thomas J. Kelly. Kelly recounted how about 200 anti-war protesters showed up one year to harass the Medal of Honor recipients at their annual dinner. WWII Medalist James Conners was unable to avoid a particularly obnoxious man yelling, "Killer, killer, killer." Conners decked him.
• Other spitting incidents were reported by Pulitzer Prize winners Max Frankel in the New York Times (November 1969) and Carl Bernstein in the Washington Post (May 1970).
All I have to do is point out one obvious lie to discredit your source right. Well okay then:
Your James Reston New York Times story was not about protesters spitting on returning Vietnam vets.
Damn, that was easy. Next!
New York Times - that rag. You believe what you read, I believe what I saw. The only "easy" thing is how you are manipulated by the lying media. Research some more and you will find the truth, if that is what is really improtant to you.
