Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Question to all you Vietnam era DUers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:03 AM
Original message
Question to all you Vietnam era DUers
I was reading an earlier thread started by a newbie who is into 4 by 4s. He linked to a message board where there were extremely vitriolic views expressed about Kerry's anti-war activities. One poster, a Vietnam vet, claims that he remembers shaking with anger as Kerry made his speech to Congress in 1971. So, my question is, how many of you who are old enough (I was only 3 at the time) remember Kerry making that speech. If so, do you recall the public reaction to it, if any? Was it widely covered by the media at the time? Were other veterans as outraged as this guy claims he was?

The reason I'm asking is because this Smear Boat thing doesn't seem to be dying, despite it being such an obvious partisan hack job by Rovian operatives. My freep co-workers, many of whom are ex-military but not Vietnam vets, bring it up all the time. I'm a little skeptical of these supposedly outraged vets, though. If his speech was such a huge deal, then why haven't we been hearing about it long before this? I've been hearing about Jane Fonda my entire life but not John Kerry. So I'm not really buying it. What do you 'Boomers' say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. I Remember Kerry Was A Big Hero in Berkeley
but rounded in Middle America.

Since I was a Berkeley undergrad at the time, everyone I knew (except for a couple of exotic campus Repub's) loved Kerry's ass.

'Course, to be a registered Democrat in Berkeley in 1971 was to be a member of the Fascist System. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. By the time
Kerry made his speech, I was out of the service and pretty damned disillusioned. Also, I had friends come back who liked to tell stories about the ":gooks".....so I knew that what Kerry was relating was pretty much true........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bubbismith Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. I graduated high school in 1971...
..so wasn't paying much attention to personalities. Didn't know Kerry then or his speech, but we were glad to hear anything which would stop the war.

Kerry moved right for this election, emphasizing his war side, those of us to the left understand that Kerry is also the peace candidate. Like Junior, though he's gotten more extreme, the fundamentalists know he's their candidate. Junior speaks to them in code all the time.

Personally I would have liked JK to talk more about peace, but I understand his position and need to speak to the more hawkish out there.

All the young ones wanted that war to end back there, and we actively tried to get out. That's the part that is galling about Junior. He wants it both ways (flip/flop) pretend he was a warrior, but willingly disparages the one who actually went to war, that's what's shameless. Junior should just admit he used daddies influence to get out of Vietnam, but he's too cowardly and wants the glory he does not deserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
23. Trust me, Bush also lies in code.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeeFan Donating Member (217 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
68. I Graduated in 74
He made the relatives of POW’s extremely angry.

I thought everybody here should know that I have a cousin who’s married to a Swift Boat Veteran. But he served and left just before Kerry got “In country.”

I thought everybody here should know that when the “Swift Boat Veterans For then Truth”, mess got started my cousin-in-law received a message from a Buddy who he served with. His Buddy served for a few months under Kerry before he Rotated back to the States. The Buddy hates, I mean Buddy really hates Kerry more than we hate the Bush Leaguer. The cousin-in-law was asked to send a few dollars to the fund. And he did. How much was sent I wasn’t privy to.

One thing about then as opposed to now, is while there are disagreements over many things, each party was very civil to one another. Can you imagine a Democrat and a Republican today shaking hands without looking for a hand-buzzer? Both parties got very well among each other. Both sides had their agendas and preferences. And each side preferred one mindset to another. Each side recognized they had to get along with the others and they DID. Imagine us getting along with Freepers. That’s about what it was like, more or less, back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
3. The division in the country was just as bad then as it is now.
There were a lot of people who'd turned against the war by then and thought Kerry did a very good thing. There was the other side who couldn't admit to themselves that America could ever loose a war, wouldn't accept that the attrocities occurred, and hated him for what he did.

All you're seeing now, is a revival of the feelings back in 1971.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Interesting
What type of people hated him for it? Were they vets, or people who supported the war but didn't participate like our fearless pResident? I'm just amazed at the anger and indignation of people my age and younger who have no memory of the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Most of the ones I knew were vets who said they didn't see
the stuff Kerry said he and his other vets saw. I think they probably didn't and couldn't bring themselves to believe any of it was true. You have to remember, we still had a draft then, so you didn't have many who didn't participate.

I don't know how old you are, but I suspect your friends who are so angry now have gotten all their info from older relatives who still carry the same strong feelings they had back in the 60's and 70's. There are still a lot of people who can't accept the idea that America had to admit they lost that war. I doubt it will ever go away until all the people from the 'Nam era are dead, and even beyond that, when those they've indoctrinated with their thoughts are dead too. Sorry to say it, but we're talking about 25-50 years yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ernesto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
35. Ever watch "All in the Family"?
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 11:40 AM by Ernesto
That show ppretty much sums it up. You have "Meathead", the thoughtful anti-repuke Viet vet & Archy, the Nixon-worshiping ol' fart.... Anyway, as a USMC Viet vet, I thought JK was right on the money. Suddenly, we had a national spokesman that was telling it like we knew it was. Our little Nor. Cal. group of Viet vets were protesting the war on our own while being treated like shit by the local rednecks. It was very upsetting to us because we felt like we had the ultimate legitimatacy for our view point. By the time JK came to Redding to stump for McGovern, he had attained a cult-hero status with me & my vet buddies. I'm proud to say that I shook the hand of our future president 32 years ago!
On edit I add that I'm now an ol' fart that has sent Kerry over a thousand bucks cause he was correct then & remains so today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. A lot of soldiers made speeches against the war...
...after they came back home. A lot of people were angry, and a lot understood. That's the divide in this country. I understood, after all, who can really fault someone for going into the slaughterhouse and becoming a vegetarian afterward?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
41. that's what I'm remembering - a lot of protests, speeches, hearings


everybody was hot

religion was not an issue

death was the issue - stopping the deaths
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUgosh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. In High School Then
All us hippie high schoolers knew everything back then. We had Sit'ins in support of ending the war. The war was very unpopular to the generation that could not vote, but could be drafted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
7. What do I remember?
I remember being so damn glad someone was fighting for our soldiers.

Ask that vet if he thinks it helps a man to find himself in a situation where he's forced to commit an atrocity? Ask him if he thinks a good soldier doesn't let it bother him?

Do you have any idea what we got back from that war? Not counting over FIFTY THOUSAND DEAD, not counting the maimed, do you know what the war vets were like? They were out of their minds. They were withdrawn, or they were violent, or surly, or people with the oldest eyes. And they were addicts, to drugs which were cheap as beer over there, or alcohol. They couldn't stand their own minds. But this vet is just fine? Yeah, sure.

Do you know what I remember? I remember my mother's old friends, men who were on submarines, at Monte Casino, at Anzio, men from her old neighborhood who had ENLISTED in World War II on December 8, 1941...I remember marching against the Viet Nam War with them...and their sons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raysr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I remember
several people that had gotten back from VietNam that bragged about the atrocities they personally commited. And some that wanted to go back and do it some more. If it weren't for people like Kerry, John Lennon, Fonda and the fact that the rich kids were getting drafted who knows how much longer it would have went on. US Army '68-'70.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftbend Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. People don't like to hear the truth.
I'm a Vietnam veteran and I admire Kerry for speaking the truth as he saw it then. It took a lot of courage to speak against the establishment. Some Vietnam veterans now still don't want to hear anything negative about a war that caused so many changes and heartaches in their lives,although I believe many may have been more receptive then than now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
37. Don't you believe that some Vietnam
vets are so ashamed at what they did and saw that they are in denial and thus the reaction to Kerry so many years ago? They really don't want their parents, sisters, and kids to know about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
11. Everyone I knew cheered them on
The Vietnam Veterans Against The War were heroes where I was - Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio. They even looked like us - long hair, boots, jeans, headbands, drugs.

Kerry's speech was heroic then, and that final line - about asking someone to be the last man to die - made me think that there was something bigger in his future. He handled himself like a pro, even then. And that was before law school, I believe.

The Swift Boat Liars With Piles forget that the peace movement in this country was huge, and most of us are still around.

And we're voting for John Kerry.

(Jane Fonda was just a tool, an actor who only knew how to take directions - she was hooked up with Tom Hayden, so she became part of the FTA troupe, and then she went to Vietnam and took direction from the North Vietnamese. She looked goofy doing what she was doing, and she was utterly clueless. I thought that she was doing the peace movement a fuck of a lot of harm. Since then, we've seen that she takes on the persona of whomever she happens to be married to at the time. She's history, and her activities had absolutely nothing to do with John Kerry or the Vietnam Veterans Against The War.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. I agree about Fonda
And I hate that people are trying to link Kerry with her. John Kerry was motivated by totally different reasons than she was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friesianrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. From my Dad, a Vietnam Vet...
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 12:26 AM by friesianrider
I asked hi mthese questions and typed them up so here goes:

If so, do you recall the public reaction to it, if any? Was it widely covered by the media at the time?

"I remember hearing the speech and me and my buddies were thinking "no shit" because we all know what he was saying was true. I don't know how the general public reacted to it but those of us who were there and were honest with ourselves knew everything Kerry said was accurate. I was a poor boy so I feel much more outraged that some rich kid from Kennebunkport got to stay home and I had to go watch my friends die for lies."

Were other veterans as outraged as this guy claims he was?

"Most every vet I knew never felt 'outraged'. The only people who said they felt betrayed were those who never seemed to accept that the Vietnam war was a mistake and a lie. We saw and did such horrific things over there I think many vets need to justify it in their mind. Accepting that those sacrifices were for absolutely nothing is a hard pill to swallow. For me and my buddies though e felt like 'finally someone is telling the truth'."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Wow. Thank you for asking your dad. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. Please thank your dad for me.
Not only for his service, which deserves thanks.

But for his willingness to be honest, even to people he doesn't know. There is such a strong pull to stay in denial, that it makes his words all the more valuable.

"We saw and did such horrific things over there I think many vets need to justify it in their mind."

I know this is true, and I also know it's why war continues. At some point, we have to find a way to intervene in this need to "justify", and heal the horrible psychic wounds so that we can finally take forward steps beyond physical conflict.

I watched the video, "Healing the Hurts", about Native Americans dealing with the painful emotions of forced boarding schools, and couldn't help but think that the same healing process would be very important for all war vets. I know that so many of them don't even want to think about their experiences, let alone talk about them, so dealing with them is out of the question, but until we can make that step, I think we're caught in a spiral. The Indians said much the same thing.

Thank you again for sharing your dad's thoughts with us.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarchy1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
29. Thank you for sharing and welcome to DU.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
56. Combat vet here.
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 05:42 PM by Dees
I returned from Vietnam in 1966. I soon got very tired of people telling how it was "over there". "We're really kicking ass over there", etc, etc. I would have dearly let any of those arm chair generals take my place.

I did not see any atrocities in my unit. But, we heard stories. It was a dirty little war and horrible things happened on both sides (US, ARVN, NVA and Victor Charles).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
13. As an ethnic Vietnamese
I get extremely sore whenever anyone insinuates that war crimes against innocent civilians in Vietnam was a rare occurrence. It happened all over South Vietnam. Most of the 3,000,000 Vietnamese who died happened to be South Vietnamese civilians.

Does anyone remember the Phoenix Project sponsored by the CIA? Does anyone even know that so many innocent civilians got caught up in that system, tortured, and executed in it? What about the carpet bombing of miles of countryside? The agent orange? Tiger Force? That psychotic, undemocratic thug Diem supported by the US?

The reason why so many Vietnamese took up arms against the US was because of US conduct in that war. For many, it was not that they necessarily agreed with authoritarian socialism or the brutality of the VC but because the US was on their land or because they lost someone they loved. When you drop bombs on people, when you send death squads across the countryside, and when you support thugs who stomp on them, you get a backlash. You get resistance.

The Winter Soldier Investigation is an indication of that. John Kerry wasn't the only fucking soldier who saw something in that war, something so horrible that he had to speak against it. There were thousands of them. He is not alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. A few years ago I met a man who was trained as a translator.
He was supposed to translate for torturers. He refused and spent two years in a stateside stockade.

We killed three MILLION? Does anyone have a clue why we were there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #24
38. Communism -
It was practically beaten into us that we should FEAR, FEAR, FEAR communism. How else could civilized people slaughter other civilized people if we were not convinced to fear and hate them? The real reasons are ever so much more hidden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeeFan Donating Member (217 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #38
69. Let’s Give a Cheer For Stalin
And his purges.
How many Ukrainians were murdered by starvation by his orders will never be truly known. The NKVD killed anybody, and their families, who was even faintly considered a threat to his rule.
Want me to talk about Beria? More deaths and murders by his hand.

I once read that if Hitler had treated the various Russian people he conquered during the first few months of Operation Barbarrosa he would have at least won on the Eastern Front. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. Stalin was vilified by Ukrainians. But Hitler’s orders made the citizens hate the German soldiers more than they did Stalin.

And let’s not forget about the Khmer Rouge and what they did in Cambodia. If you had eyeglasses you were murdered because you were part of the, for lack of better words, “The Establishment”. If you could write your name you could be on the list to be murdered.

People were afraid of Communism for very good reasons. And everybody here better not forget it.

“October Surprise”? What about “Prague Spring” of 1968? I see that from hasn’t been mentioned yet. My school class had two girls visiting from Czechoslovakia. They were only around for a month. Then Prague Spring came about. I often wondered if they went back or stayed in America.

Oh, yeah. People hated communism for very good reasons. To think otherwise is reminiscent of the fables of ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
33. thank you for your truth...it was a crime against humanity as all wars are
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 08:38 AM by ElsewheresDaughter
just my $0.02
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
15. I was twelve at the time
...and not terribly well-informed about Vietnam. I heard Cronkite talking about it every night (my folks, both GOP, hated him) and I remember what he said wasn't very flattering to those in power at the time.

As an eleven-year-old boy, I figured it was all movie hero stuff going on over there. My favorite movie at the time was "The Green Berets" starring John Wayne, the GOP's favorite "war hero" who - outside of a movie set - never spent a minute in uniform.

Most of us, my Republican parents included, knew Vietnam was a mess and a mistake. They didn't like the anti-war people at all and I know they didn't like Kerry, but they understood that the war itself was wrong-headed.

On the other hand, my sister had friends who were drafted and sent to Vietnam. She thought Kerry was fighting the good fight and was totally disgusted by Johnson, Nixon, and the rest of the warmongers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
16. I was out about a year before Kerry's speech...
... and I knew who he was from stories about the VVAW (an organization which I thought was one of the best means of convincing the diehards that the war was unwinnable and wrong--vets capable of speaking to what they saw was a powerful counterforce to the chickenhawks in favor of the war and Nixon).

I remember the testimony being covered in the news. Not broadly, but covered. There was probably as much or more film on the vets throwing medals and ribbons over the WH fence.

Then, I thought Kerry was merely stating the obvious. It was a brutal war and lots of vets had been brutalized by it. From what I remember, he was fairly clear on that point.

Today, however, the whole swift boat liars campaign is intensely partisan, organized as it has been by O'Neill, who's a long-time Republican operative. The SBL have, though, manipulated the information to create an unflattering portrait of Kerry for purely partisan purposes, and perhaps, in the case of some people (like Hoffman), to bury their own lack of discrimination in killing civilians.

Most of the vets responding positively to the SBL ads now are trying to make a connection that isn't there, however. Claims that Kerry was attacking individual soldiers aren't supported by the actual record. He was attacking a government policy that was corrupt at best and relating that to its effects on soldiers. Some today simply won't see that--some still want to believe that the war was right and proper, and that whatever they did to staunch the spread of communism was okay. In itself, that's delusional and ahistorical. So many soldiers went to war in that country without knowing anything of its history or its culture, and suffered for that lack of understanding.

They're still suffering, since, to many of them, questioning their purpose in Vietnam seems to them a personal affront, an attack on their own judgment (after all, something like 74% of all soldiers in country were volunteers, rather than draftees). And, Kerry, in his Congressional testimony did just that--questioned the purpose of and the need for the war. In a convoluted way, these soldiers complaining about Kerry are those who rarely, if ever, have been retrospective enough to see that they were used by their government for ill purpose.

That's the central argument today about the Iraq invasion--that the soldiers are being used for ill purpose and were sent there on false pretext--exactly the same context for arguments against the war in Vietnam. This might be why they are trying to hurt Kerry now--this war is a blatant demonstration of what went on in Vietnam by government fiat, and it's a nasty reminder to them that they were suckered, and they don't like it. They should be attacking Johnson and Nixon. Instead, they attack Kerry, because he was one of their own.

Maybe it's a case of familiarity breeding contempt, but I think it's more likely that O'Neill knows that there is still anger out there amongst a segment of Vietnam vets for having lost the war, and he's tapping into it for political purposes by saying, essentially, that Kerry is responsible for the loss of that war by destroying the country's will to engage in the war.

All that said, the largest number of grunts know it was the biggest stupidity they've ever engaged in during their lives. The effects of the ads on voters is intended not to sway those vets. Rather, it's intended to sway those who were never involved in that war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorbet55 Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
17. I was in the Air Force at that time, but honestly
I don't remember it. I never was in Nam and never wanted to. Most of us were apolitical in the Armed Forces then and we just agreed that the war sucked and we wanted our DOS to roll around and go home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lizzie Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. Thank you for this question
During this campaign this has been on my mind a great deal. I was 23 when Kerry testified but I only have faint memories of it, too much bad stuff going on in my life I guess. I was whole heartedly against the war but most of my male friends went to Canada. In learning more about John Kerry, I have watched and read his testimony and realized I admire him. I started out as anybody but Bush, but now have great hopes for Kerry. I've been writing many Letters to the Editor and speaking with people. I wanted to get more Vietnam Vet's views. I met one at the Demo Headquarters 50 miles from where I live (in the forest) and we had a short but powerful discussion. He told me his buddy in the war showed him pictures of other soldiers with necklaces of human ears and heads on sticks. He said that the POW's in the Swift Boat gang were mostly pilots that didn't know what had happened on the ground. We also discussed the fact that many really outraged vets might be suppressing their own guilt at what was done in battle. I have a theory that I would even be afraid to express anywhere but here. I don't know why the anger of the country was directed at the Vietnam Vets in any way rather than the government. Most of what I battle are people who say they were called "baby killers" because of Kerry. The vets from this war will be held in high esteem. Maybe back then we thought we were the good guys, wore the white hats, could never do those horrific things. Now, we have Seymour Hersh again, finding yet more atrocities in this war. Now we know what we are capable of and we at some level accept that we can become murderers and torturers and we have found a way to justify it. Now I just need a shrink to weigh in and I'll find some more answers.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Your welcome. And thanks to everyone for the responses
They've been really helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
22. As I remember, there was a lot more media attention given to

Jane Fonda then to John Kerry (media always likes to show a sexy woman and even though she was trying to look un-sexy then, they had all seen "Barbarella," LOL!")

But we were all for Kerry and the VVAW, had friends in VVAW. Of course there were also people who supported the president (Nixon) and thought we should nuke Southeast Asia. They usually were too old to be drafted and didn't have sons who were draft age, either. A lot of WWII vets (our parents) turned against the war in Viet Nam because it had become such a clusterfuck, as they say in the military.

I know men today who are still "broken" because of that war, one vet who is practically mute, another vet who lives under a bridge downtown. They'll be getting some company from Iraq, I'm afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insultedVeteran Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
25. I remember
I was living in Lps Angeles and participating in the peace movement.

In LA it was a non event , because everyone was speaking up at that time.

I didn't get the power in his speech until much later
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
27. A little history for some perspective, from a learned thinker
and corroborated and verfiable by Daniel Ellsberg among many others.

http://www.zpub.com/un/chomsky.html

The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan.

Consider the following facts. In 1962 the U.S. Air Force began direct attacks against the rural population of South Vietnam with heavy bombing and defoliation . It was part of a program intended to drive millions of people into detention camps where, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, they would be "protected" from the guerrillas they were supporting--the "Viet Cong," the southern branch of the former anti-French resistance (the Vietminh). This is what our government calls aggression or invasion when conducted by some official enemy. The Saigon government had no legitimacy and little popular support, and its leadership was regularly overthrown in U.S.-backed coups when it was feared they might arrange a settlement with the Viet Cong. Some 70,000 "Viet Cong" had already been killed in the U.S.-directed terror campaign before the outright U.S. invasion took place in 1972.

Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish a government in Saigon to invite us in. We had to overthrow regime after regime in that effort. Finally we simply invaded outright. That is plain, simple aggression. But anyone in the U.S. who thought that our policies in Vietnam were wrong in principle was not admitted to the discussion about the war. The debate was essentially over tactics.

Even at the peak of opposition to the U.S. war, only a minuscule portion of the intellectuals opposed the war out of principle--on the grounds that aggression is wrong. Most intellectuals came to oppose it well after leading business circles did--on the "pragmatic" grounds that the costs were too high.

Emphasis mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
60. have said many times on DU...when the businesses thot they'd made
all the $$$$ they could, it became ok for 'the establishment' to be against the war

one of the first 'major' businessmen to publicly oppose the war, as I recall, was the CEO of the Dreyfuss co

Brown and Root (a TX-based co, now part of Halliburton) made lots of $$$$$$ in Vietnam......I read somewhere there were questions about the quality of their VN work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
28. Guy is full of crap. Kerry was one of many. I liken this to the medic
who says he "remembers" treating Kerry's "superficial" wound. In an entire painting of sadness and division, one rarely if ever picks out a single subject. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
30. I remember Kerry's appearance. Not particularly radical.
He was a bit of a latecomer to the struggle but, being a medal winner, was important as a spokesman.

As a vet myself who refused to extend my enlistment to go to Vietnam, I wasn't particularly impressed with him, but grateful for the help. I don't remember him making a big stir among the radicals, but by 1971, we were talking about revolution not just protesting.

The RWer's, with their revisionist "stab in the back" history making Vietnam a "noble cause" lost by heroes who were betrayed by politicians and commie protestors love to tag Kerry as one of those who lost the glorious war.

The Vietnamese beat the hell out of the Americans and threw us out of their country. Much as the Iraqis are doing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
31. I was overseas serving my country when Kerry made the speech.
and thank god he did! As far as knowing Kerry made the speech, I don't remember him doing it. Kerry was just one of many soldiers who came forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SudieJD Donating Member (676 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
32. I Was At The University Of Michigan...
Believe me, I remember his speech. I also believe that it aided the end to the war. There were demonstrations daily and his words were brought up all the time. I was anti-war, big time. I married a Vietnam vet, who had been wounded over there. He was never called "Baby Killer" or any other name.

Yes, I remember John.

Sudie in MN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
34. Well
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 08:45 AM by BamaGirl
I wasn't born till 72. My Dad came home front Vietnam in 69, and has never had anything bad to say about Kerry. The general feeling amoung VV's that we know is, that war had to be ended and the swift boat liars are idiots. Also, I've heard the atrocity stories all my life, most especially from VV. I can't imagine there are any who didn't hear about these things. Dad's always acted like it was common knowledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
independentpiney Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
36. I remember reading about it in Time
and thinking this is a man who could be President someday. When I went candidate shopping in June 2003 and saw he was running, I made my commitment to his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
39. It was taken in stride. It was all true, and we all knew it.
By that time the media had been full of evidence that US policy in Vietnam was counter-productive, strategically foolish, racist and/or immoral. Many aspects of formal US military policy were in fact in clear contravention of the Geneva Conventions, as Kerry stated.

(a) When I was in charge of artillery at LZ West, we were ordered to fire high explosive artillery rounds at random locations (selected by Division intelligence) in the countryside throughout every night focussing on paths between villages. This "Harrassment and Interdiction" fire--which had almost no strategic value--was a direct violation of Geneva Convention rules about free fire zones in populated areas.

(b) "Free Fire Zones" were in place in many areas which included populated villages, a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

(c) In BROAD DAYLIGHT we BOMBED the CITY of Ben Tre in March, 1968, a city of 35,000 people. We bombed it with B-52 strikes (carpet--not "precision"--bombs). The Colonel in charge of it stood by on a nearby hill watching as he was inteviewed by a Time correspondent. (I remember reading this while getting ready to ship out to Nam and it was the first time I began to have doubts about the war.) The reporter couldn't believe what we were doing, and asked the Colonel why in God's name we were bombing a CITY of 35,000 CIVILIANS??? The Colonel answered, famously, "In the course of events, it became necessary to destroy the city in order to save it." THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS!

So Kerry was absolutely RIGHT in testifying that US MILITARY POLICY included practices which violated the Geneva Conventions--and America knew and understood that fact at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
40. I remember it
Because I was 14 and he was cute and had that Kennedy accent. Okay, not much of a testimonial, but still. I remember hearing alot about Jane Fonda, but not John Kerry. Ever. And of all the vets I've talked to over the years, I've never heard John Kerry's name mentioned either. Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden and the rest, not John Kerry.

Because see, he's been doing so much for Vietnam vets all these years that criticizing him would have been counter-productive. They needed him then, but they don't anymore because most of the worst that was done to them has been addressed. Basically, they're back-stabbers, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
42. I was a little older than Kerry then......he and others, made us "aware"
Kerry's speech was not considered unAmerican by the vast majority....these people who are so angry now are using this as a political wedge. If it was such a big deal then why hasn't it been under discussion for all these years? He helped end the stupid, horrible war. I'm REALLY angry at the idiots who caused over 50,000 of our guys (my age) to die needlessly....one was a classmate of mine!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainstorm Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
43. I spent 34 months in Vietnam
Most of the time was in the field. I honestly never saw anything that I would call an atrocity by an American trooper. In fact, I remember many times when my fellow grunts helped the South Vietnamese. I remember the VC and NVA being very brutal to the South Vietnamese. In August of 1968 I help to bury 16 orphan children that were killed by the VC. The VC killed them because the orphanage was supported by American charity. It made me sick and it made me hate the VC more. I also was in Hue and I saw the mass graves of the South Vietnamese that were killed by the VC when they overran the city during Tet. It was a brutal war and I am sure that there were some American assholes over there but I just didn't see it in my time in country. To me the VC and the NVA were the enemy and nobody would have ever been killed had they not brought the war to South Vietnam.

I returned home in 1970 but I don't remember Kerry's speech. Back then I probably would have disagreed with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. You were at Hue?
What unit were you with? I spent a lot of time in that area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainstorm Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. I was never stationed in Hue
I did, however, spend some time in Phu Bai that was a little north of Hue. I was sent to Hue after the Marines and South Vietnamese secured the city for a very specific job that lasted about a week. My cousin was a Marine Captain and he took me and showed me the mass graves. It was not part of my duty to visit the site. The bodies had already been removed by the time I viewed the site.

I was assigned to the 509th RRG and attached to the Americal Division. I spent quite a bit of time in the 196th and 197th LIB. Of the 34 months in country I spent about 26 months what I would call in the field. I also had a nice plush assignment at Nha Trang before leaving. Good transition beach time before returning to Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. What a coincidence, I also spent time in Nha Trang
I was stationed out of Camp evens in I Corp ans was in Phu Bai many times. I was with the 1st Cav my first tour. My second tour I was stationed in Nha Trang with 281st AHC attached 5th SF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
44. As a Vietnam vet, I saw my fellows split into three primary camps.
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 12:24 PM by TahitiNut
First, let's emphasize the context. While a tour of duty was a nightmare, "coming home" was a tougher challenge for about 90% of us. "Home" just wasn't there any more. The nation was divided along two axes: one axis was "dove v. hawk" and the other was blame-mongering. Some doves blamed the troops; some didn't. Some hawks blamed the troops; some didn't. No matter what, however, the returning vets had to figure out how to "come home" after coming home - we had to find a place to live.

The motivation to "find a 'friendly force'" was high. We came back to a different kind of 'combat zone.' Our "hearts and minds" were up for grabs, especially those of us who were draftees or coerced 'volunteers.' The "coerced volunteers" were the guys who sipped the Kool-Aid: enlisting for 3 years on the promise of serving in Germany; those who went in for four years in return for an officer's commission, either through OCS or ROTC; those who 'volunteered' for 3-4 years in the Navy or Air Force to avoid being an infantryman; and those who 'volunteered' for the Marines under the delusion(?) they'd get better survival training.

Many took refuge in one of the more 'traditional' groups: the "hawk + blame LBJ" group of which the Swiftboat Liars are archetypal. Most of the guys who served in the Navy and Air Force in Vietnam found their way into this constituency. These guys were often from the "Bible Belt" who viewed LBJ as a traitor to the southern 'cause.' Today, they're almost all part of the neocon right-wing. Some can be found on FreeRepublic.

Many took refuge in the 'antiwar activist + blame the establishment' group. Among these are Ron Kovac ("Born on the Fourth of July") and the VVAW guys. Lots of the (non-career) guys who served in combat roles in the Army who also came from other than the "Bible Belt" found their way into this group - mostly guys who came back from 'Nam before 1971. Pre-lottery. Guys born between 1943 and 1950. Guys with close personal friends who were involved in the protest marches. Today, they're unabashed "liberals." Some can be found on DemocraticUnderground.

Many took refuge in erasing those days from their identities. (This group includes me. I think it's the largest.) Many/most of us in this group were in Army combat support and other roles - with enough of a taste of combat to have years of nightmares and a startle-response that amused coworkers. In most cases, this group had "bigger (personal) fish to fry" than to take sides in a nation that betrayed them. Many came back and had to deal with getting divorces or annulments. Many came back and had to deal with earning a living. Some came back and, not being able to overcome the nightmares, became homeless. "Coming 'home'" wasn't an option for these guys. Almost none of these guys were careerists - but many were in-country Air Force or Navy.


The point is ... much of what motivated a Vet was finding a "support group." (Those who stayed in the military - about 35% - had the military as their support group.) A "support group" is even more needed when in a combat zone. The US was, in effect, a social "combat zone." While I suppose most would, in hindsight, rationalize their choice of affiliation as one of conscience ... I see it differently. That choice was more one of survival and convenience (nearest foxhole) than one of contemplation and conscience.


As always, YMMV. :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
46. I did not hear Kerry's speech or know anything about him at the time
But anyone who believe atrocities did not occur are not very intelligent people. Atrocities occur during every single war ever fought. Hatred is accumulated like so many scars and it is very slow in healing. I was out of the Army by the time Kerry was active in protesting the war but when I was there I witnessed many things not suitable for these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainstorm Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. I feel I am an intelligent person
and I disagree with your statement. There were some atrocities in Vietnam as there are in any war. Lt Calley's action prove that to be a fact. However, I never saw any in the extensive time I spent over there and I did see VC and NVA atrocities. It was a brutal war. I was never told to commit any war crimes and in my experience it was not part of American policy. I did not hear Kerry's speech but I have read the transcripts. Just declaring an area a free fire zone is not proof of atrocities. Hell, the whole South was a free fire zone during the Civil War. Does make the Union army guilty of war crimes? Wasn't the whole of Europe a free fire zone during WWII?

There are things that I can support Kerry on but his testimony to Congress does not jibe with my experience in Vietnam. You may have a different experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
50. My husband is a Vietnam combat veteran
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 01:27 PM by geniph
(USMC), and a regional coordinator for Veterans for Kerry. He knows a number of other Vietnam veterans - combat veterans all - who are also Kerry supporters. All of them believe that his actions after the war have no bearing on his conduct during the war, which is unimpeachable, and all of them are furious at the Smearboat liars for trying to impugn his combat actions by using his later anti-war stance against him. As my husband puts it, that's spitting in the face of every combat veteran - if they can later invent lies and smears about your service based on what you did AFTER your service, then no veteran's reputation is safe.

As to outrage at the time - I have yet to talk to a Vietnam veteran with more than the vaguest recollection of the young John Kerry. He didn't make that much of an impression on most of them.

And for myself, as a civilian during those days, I remember nothing whatever about John Kerry. I remember all the outrage about Jane Fonda (which was at least partly justified at the time), I remember Love It Or Leave It stickers and such, but Kerry? Nothing.

John also says that a lot of the outrage over Kerry's statements about atrocities is coming from those who weren't in frontline combat units. He says most of those in combat assignments saw, at one time or another, things get out of hand. The vast majority of American troops did not commit atrocities, but everyone knew that some were. There's bad apples in every barrel. (John, being an ex-Marine, of course claims it happened less in the Marines because they had better training and discipline.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Well, I have clear memories of the Winter Soldier meeting ...
... in no small part because it was less than a half-mile from where I was working for Chevrolet (Central Office) in Detroit. I worked in the New Center area along Grand Boulevard ... where the hotel in which the Winter Soldier meeting took place. (I was still having my own "issues.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mariema Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
52. I graduated HS in ‘70
My best friend had lost a brother, my cousin was permanently crippled and my boyfriend was MIA (later found KIA). It was such an incredibly intense time, I cannot even describe it. I remember have screaming arguments w/Dad, uncles and other hawks. I don’t remember much attention being paid to Kerry, just that he went, came back and was speaking out against the war. It was some times brought up in arguments and debates, but Jane Fonda was the real topic.

I had a friend who came back after 3 tours as a Marine, a drug addict and totally fried, who joined VVAW, got blitzed and drunk every nite and kept saying, “Man, the sh*t I seen, you wouldn’t believe”. He told horror stories to every hippie he ran into, I think more to just freak out the girls than to bare his soul. We were at an anti war protest in Madison sometime after Kerry testified to Congress and this guy was telling everyone “F*cking Kerry is f*cking right on, he’s saying straight sh*t”

My husband had 2 tours, (‘71 & ’72) and hardly remembers hearing about Kerry at the time. He wasn’t drafted, he volunteered to go. He says it took him exactly 3.5 days to realize the whole thing was FUBAR on the first tour and the second tour was all about helping out his buddies, (much like a lot of re-enlistees who go back to Iraq). After he came back from 14 months rehab with 2 purple hearts, he re upped with the Army. He wanted to train soldiers and I like to think that some of those coming back from Iraq survived because of his training. He got out after 22 years, right after his 3rd combat tour. He aches when he thinks about what the troops are going thru right now: “Those jackasses didn’t learn anything from ‘Nam and those kids over there are paying for it.” Anyway, when the Swift Boat crap came up, and all the stuff about Kerry throwing away his ribbons, my husband said, “Hey, who has more right to do it than someone who went to war? He earned them, he can do what he wants with them.” He hates what Bushco has done to the Army and the nation and says Kerry has to win or we may have to move to Canada!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
53. US ARMY 69-72
Never heard of Kerry until much later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
54. I'm A Vet Who Was Just Back At That Time
I knew that the protests were going on in DC and I also knew that there were vets testifying, and I thought that was just great. And then I went on about whatever in hell I was doing back then. It really didn't matter to me one way or another to tell the honest truth. I agreed with the Vets Against The War, but it was certainly no more than a nodding agreement. I wasn't out in the streets, other than being in the bars at night. Oh, and this might suprise you too; I didn't even bother to keep up with what was going on in the war after I got back. I don't recall having paid much attention even when it was on the news - which it was all the time back then. The only exception was when I'd see a place where I had been getting blown up or something like that. Otherwise I honestly didn't give a shit. Felt the same way about the protests, felt the same way about the people who spoke. So I guess that would include John Kerry. As I felt then and as I would say now, so what?

Thom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
55. The poster is either a liar or insane ...
It was on the Evening News. Period. A few excerpts, more lengthy than you would see today but still, it was on a half-hour national news show.

And I was paying close attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ducque Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
57. I was in graduate school at that time
We had suffered so much with Vietnam (don't ask me to detail it). Hearing Kerry, a decorated veteran, tell the truth that we all already knew was a lot like what's going on in the US now -- the truth, the very ugly, unpleasant, awful truth -- was "outing".

And a very, very large number of people really didn't want to hear it.

Remember, the end of Vietnam was a serious denouement for the US. People had the President, the Superme Court, Congress, etc., on a plateau "a little higher than the rest of us". No question that a large majority of Americans in, say, 1960, would have been totally incredulous if you had suggested that the US Government was lying in any substantial way.

In Vietnam, we learned that we were lied to be everyone in the US Government.

In High School, you certainly do learn it differently ... and a lot of people are not going to drop their Beaver Cleaver view of the US.

I'd say that the current situation is partly due to Vietnam -- no, not the Swift Boats, etc., but that American desire to see everything as OK after all, yes, and we're well protected and safe, and the government really is good.

Is George Lakoff in the room anywhere?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. good post and welcome to DU!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
m berst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
59. punpirate, Merlin, TahitiNut
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 05:41 PM by m berst
Thank you for the excellent posts. What you have to say is very constructive and healing. The anxiety and anger still bubbles below the surface after all these years for so many people and your posts are the rare and much needed voice of sanity.

on edit - I just watched Stolen Honor and it is a rework IMO of the old hawk position from back then, now aimed at a gullible and ignorant public that doesn't know enough about the war to pass any judgement about it. That makes it a cynical and intentional re-opening of the wounds from the war for partisan political gain. To engage in this propaganda while there is another controversial war going on and another generation of young men and women at risk and in the midst of a heated political contest is behavior that is truly beneath contempt.

Again thanks, guys. Did me a lot of good to read what you had to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. this is a good take on "Stolen Honor"
"a rework IMO of the old hawk position from back then, now aimed at a gullible and ignorant public that doesn't know enough about the war to pass any judgement about it. That makes it a cynical and intentional re-opening of the wounds from the war for partisan political gain" ..I completely agree.

I didn't watch Stolen Honor but read the transcript here:
www.sinclairwatch.net
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slater71 Donating Member (586 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
61. To damn scared to worry what he said.
I was serving during that time and was to damned scared wondering what in the hell I got myself into to remember what it was like when he gave that speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
62. the years since VN, the right has been trying to rewrite the history of
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 06:16 PM by bobbieinok
that period. They lost the PR war then and have worked hard so that they can now claim they 'won'.

They lost on civil rights and women's rights and the right to protest the govt.......and they have been and still are furious.

IMHO, much of the RW fury behind the hatred and then impeachment of Clinton was because of his anti-war stance in the 60s and the fact he never apologized for it.

In the 80s and 90s, more and more politicians were saying.....'I really regret not serving in VN; I missed the defining moment of my generation.' That just makes me furious....easy enuff to say years after the fact.

I was in grad school in CA during most of the 60s. We certainly heard a lot about taking ears as 'proof' of numbers of 'enemy' killed. My brothers and friends from hi school who stayed in OK remained 'America-love it or leave it.'

The VN era forced me to read and think a lot about what it truly means to be an American. One of my major conclusions: it's the duty of every American to question everything the govt says; accept nothing on 'authority,' make everyone prove whatever they say. Of course, this is just what the RW then and now absolutely hate...the 'lack of respect for authority'.

....But what I decided then and believe now is ...... you don't have respect because of your position (as an authority---govt spokesperson,parent, teacher, etc) but because you have earned respect by being honest and reliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
64. Does your friend think war crimes did not happen??

http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0438/turse.php

From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocities
Swift Boat Swill

by Nicholas Turse
September 21st, 2004 11:40 AM

John Kerry is being pilloried for his shocking Senate testimony 34 years ago that many U.S. soldiers—not just a few "rogues"—were committing atrocities against the Vietnamese. U.S. military records that were classified for decades but are now available in the National Archives back Kerry up and put the lie to his critics. Contrary to what those critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have implied, Kerry was speaking on behalf of many soldiers when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, and said this:


They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

The archives have hundreds of files of official U.S. military investigations of such atrocities committed by American soldiers. I've pored over those records—which were classified for decades—for my Columbia University dissertation and, now, this Voice article. The exact number of investigated allegations of atrocities is unknown, as is the number of such barbaric incidents that occurred but weren't investigated. Some war crimes, like the Tiger Force atrocities exposed last year by The Toledo Blade, have only come to light decades later. Others never will. But there are plentiful records to back up Kerry's 1971 testimony point by point. Following (with the names removed or abbreviated) are examples, directly from the archives:

..more..

-----------------

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR082404.htm

Did the U.S. Commit War Crimes in Vietnam?

DAVID MacMICHAEL, dmacm@adelphia.net

A disabled veteran of ten years active Marine Corps service in Korea, MacMichael was a Defense Department consultant from 1965 to 1969 in Southeast Asia. During most of that period he was attached to the office of the Special Assistant for Counter-Insurgency at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok. In that capacity he reviewed classified reports from the U.S. mission in Vietnam. MacMichael said today: "Some Vietnam veterans are outraged that presidential candidate Kerry in his 1971 Senate testimony spoke of atrocities reportedly committed by U.S. military forces in Vietnam. There is more than a little substance to the charge. The Toledo Blade won the 2004 Pulitzer Prize by revealing that in 1967 the 101st Airborne Division created a 'Tiger Force' ordered to kill all Vietnamese males in Quang Ngi Province. According to official U.S. Army records unearthed by the Blade reporters, Tiger Force killed many hundreds of Vietnamese and, yes, soldiers of that force did proudly ware necklaces of the ears they cut from their victims. The Army did investigate and identified the perpetrators of the crimes but chose not to prosecute them." www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTI... >

MacMichael added: "In 1968, Colonel George S. Patton III -- son of the World War II general -- then commanding a brigade in Vietnam, sent out Christmas cards showing dead Vietnamese stacked up Abu Ghraib-fashion with the message 'Peace on Earth' and signed by him and his wife.... And then, of course, there was My Lai. There, C Company of the 11th Brigade of the Americal Division in 1967 entered that village and methodically executed between 347 and 504 of its unarmed inhabitants, men, women and children. At least 100 of them were lined up in an irrigation ditch by Lt. William Calley and shot to death by his GIs. The slaughter only ended when the shocked crew of an Army helicopter gunship landed and forced C Company at gunpoint to cease and desist. My Lai was far from an exceptional case. In fact, it might never have come to light had not a troubled Americal Division mortarman, Tom Glen, who had not been present, heard about it and, after rotating out of Vietnam to the U.S., wrote to the U.S. commander in Vietnam, General Westmoreland. His letter only mentioned My Lai as 'part of the abusive pattern that had become routine in the Americal Division.'"


DAVID CLINE, daoudc@aol.com, www.veteransforpeace.org, www.vvaw.org, www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
Currently national president of Veterans for Peace and a longtime coordinator of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Cline is a disabled combat veteran. He said today: "After 30 years, some people are trying to whitewash what happened in Vietnam."


S. BRIAN WILLSON, bw@brianwillson.com, www.brianwillson.com
Willson is a former Air Force captain who served in Vietnam. He said today: "As head of a 40-man USAF combat security unit in Vietnam, I was separately tasked to assess 'success' of targeted bombings. I discovered egregious war crimes -- daylight terror bombings of undefended fishing and rice farming villages resulting in mass murders and maimings of hundreds of residents. Subsequently, in conversations with members of the 9th Infantry Division, I heard bravado about slaughter of 11,000 'enemy' from ground operations, though the vast majority proved to be unarmed civilians."

....more....


------------------------------------------------------

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Tiger_force_120803.htm

Tiger Force (Vietnam) Uncovered and Exposed

Witness to Vietnam atrocities never knew about investigation

THE NEW YORKER, NOVEMBER 10, 2003
Talk of the Town, p.41

<snip>
At the height of the rampage, the Tiger Force platoon was operating a few dozen miles from a Quang Ngai hamlet that the Army called My Lai 4, and where, in March, 1968, more than five hundred Vietnamese civilians were massacred by a task force whose platoon leaders included William L. Calley, Jr. The Blade quoted a law professor as stating that My Lai might have been avoided if the senior officer corps had acted on complaints of military brutality in Quang Ngai that had been filed by at least two soldiers. The Blade further reported that in the early nineteen-seventies, after Calley's conviction for the murder of twenty-two Vietnamese civilians, in March, 1971, and while the Army was publicly insisting that My Lai was an isolated incident, senior officials in the White House and the Pentagon were provided with periodic reports on the Tiger Force inquiry.

In fact, while the Army was conducting its internal investigation of My Lai, it discovered that a second large massacre had taken place on the same day in the same area, in a hamlet known as My Khe 4, but Lieutenant General William R. Peers, who had served for more than two years in Vietnam and who led the investigation, publicly denied that there were any other incidents. "It was not brought out to me in the evidence," Peers told reporters at the close of the inquiry, and he was not challenged on that assertion, even though two Army officers who had been present at My Khe had already been charged with war crimes. Twenty years later, the Army declassified an April, 1970, memorandum to the General responding to an article I had written about My Lai. It noted that I did not appear to "possess any substantive information concerning the suppression or cover-up aspects of the incident," but that I was being aided in my reporting by someone with access to the official records. It concluded, "The need to terminate such assistance to Mr. Hersh becomes increasingly important when consideration is given to the use Mr. Hersh would make of any information he obtained concerning command reaction and efforts of suppression."

John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Nixon, acknowledged that he had received a series of reports from the Army on the status of pending war-crimes investigations, including My Lai, but that they gave no hint of the extent of the crimes. "It doesn't get to the top unless there's a problem," he told me last month. "I had no knowledge of My Lai"-that is, its full horror--"until it hit the press."

In war-crimes investigations, the disparity between the facts and the military's official versions of them has repeatedly been exposed, often with bruising consequences, by an independent press. The Blade's extraordinary investigation of Tiger Force, however, remains all but invisible. None of the four major television networks have picked it up (although CBS and NBC have been in touch with the Blade), and most major newspapers have either ignored the story or limited themselves to publishing an Associated Press summary. In a column published on the first day of the series, Ron Royhab, the Blade's executive editor, pointedly wrote that the decision to run the Vietnam stories now had "nothing to do" with the current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As he told me, "We can't have this kind of information and sit on it, because then we'd be a party to a coverup." There is, of course, a hesitancy in time of war--and, in particular, during an increasingly unpopular war against an entrenched guerrilla enemy, to publish stories that could be interpreted as undermining military morale. And news organizations instinctively debunk scoops nom their competitors, especially those in smaller markets. It may be that others in the media are planning to do their own Tiger Force investigations. Let's hope so. Terrible things always happen in war, and the responsibility of the press is to do exactly what the Blade has done-to find, verify, and publish the truth.

-Seymour M Hersh

----------------------------

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=6217

From Vietnam to Fallujah

. by Fran Schor September 13, 2004

The recent controversy surrounding the "Swift Boat Veterans" ad challenging John Kerry's Vietnam record and his later statements as a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) have fallen into predictable partisan perspectives. Republicans and their media attack machine still insist that Kerry's medals are suspect and his VVAW activities were treasonous. Kerry and the Democrats, in turn, have found further documentary evidence and eye-witness accounts to support his version of the Vietnam incidents. As far as Kerry's 1971 testimony about US atrocities in Vietnam, Kerry has reiterated that he was just recounting reports from the Winter Soldier Investigations. In addition, he tried earlier to deflect criticism of his VVAW positions by claiming that some of his statements were overzealous and part of the heated rhetoric of the times. In effect, the Bush Administration and Republicans have tried to deny that atrocities took place while Kerry and the Democrats have tried to minimize or marginalize them.

For those who have studied the historical record of the US prosecution of the war in Southeast Asia, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have confronted the full measure of those atrocities and what their legacy is especially in the war on Iraq. While most studies of the war in Southeast Asia acknowledge that 4 times the tonnage of bombs was dropped on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos than that used by the US in all theaters of operation during World War II, only a few, such as James William Gibson's The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam, analyze the full extent of such bombing. Not only were thousands of villages in Vietnam totally destroyed, but massive civilian deaths, numbering close to 3 million, resulted in large part from such indiscriminate bombing. Integral to the bombing strategy was the use of weapons that violated international law, such as napalm and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs. As a result of establishing free-fire zones where anything and everything could be attacked, including hospitals, US military operations led to the deliberate murder of mostly civilians.

While Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have touted the "clean" weapons used in Iraq, the fact is that aerial cluster bombs and free-fire zones have continued to be part of present day military operations. Villages throughout Iraq, from Hilla to Fallujah, have borne and are bearing US attacks that take a heavy civilian toll. Occasionally, criticisms of the type of ordnance used in Iraq found its way into the mainstream press, especially when left-over cluster bomblets looking like yellow food packages blow up in children's hands or depleted uranium weapons are dropped inadvertently on British soldiers. However, questions about the immorality of "shock and awe" bombing strategy have been buried deeper than any of the cluster bomblets.

In Vietnam, a primary ground war tactic was the "search and destroy" mission with its over-inflated body counts. As Christian Appy forcefully demonstrated in Working Class War: American Combat Soldiers and Vietnam, such tactics were guaranteed to produce atrocities. Any revealing personal account of the war in Vietnam, such as Ron Kovic's Born on the Fourth of July, underscores how those atrocities took their toll on civilians and US soldiers, like Kovic. Of course, certain high-profile atrocities, such as My Lai, achieved prominent media coverage (almost, however, a year after the incident.) Nonetheless, My Lai was seen either as an aberration and not part of murderous campaigns such as the Phoenix program with its thousands of assassinations or a result of a few bad apples, like a Lt. Calley, who nonetheless received minor punishment for his command of the massacre of hundreds of women and children. Moreover, as reported in Tom Engelhardt's The End of Victory Culture, "65% of Americans claimed not to be upset by the massacre" (224). Is it, therefore, not surprising that Noam Chomsky asserted during this period that the US had to undergo some sort of de- nazification in order to regain some moral sensitivity to what US war policy had produced in Vietnam


..more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
65. I was at the demonstrations in Washington
when all of this came down. I was in the Army stationed at Ft McNair and spent the weekend (late April in 1971) with that mass of humanity. Was wrecked most of the time, so I don't remember most of the speakers and
musicians who were there. I do remember hanging around with some of the Vets and Kerry was one of the leaders. A friend of mine who was discharged in March introduced me to some, but I don't remember who all they were.

Kerry's testimony in Congress only got a few minutes on the news. I don't remember any of my Army buddies complaining. Most agreed with his position, even the ones who had been to 'Nam. In fact, I've never heard a single old Army buddy of mine complain or even say anything about it for 33 years, and then this swift boat crap comes up.

The park police and the Army came in early Monday morning and cleaned out the place. It was ugly from what I heard. I had gone back to the barracks Sunday night and thankfully missed that shit. I did see the troops lining the bridges early Monday as we crossed the Potomac going to work at Ft McNair. I didn't dare tell my CO what I did that weekend.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
montieg Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
66. A Ten-ton load of shit
is all this is, IMHO. I graduated high school in '65, went to college 4 years on deferment, was one of three leading radicals on campus, deeply involved in the anti-war movement. Went to grad school in '69 and got my draft notice when I had been there a month. Missed arrest on Moratorium Day, 15 Oct 69, cause my oldest son was being born--just lucky , I guess. I NEVER HEARD A WORD about John Kerry!!! Still didn't know his name till the primaries began last fall. If this was such a big effing deal in 71 I guess I must have slept through it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mapatriot Donating Member (166 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
67. I remember...
I was an army infantry officer stationed at Ft. Benning, Ga. at the time. There was some outrage but the majority of the officer corps at Benning was cheering "Go John". We all knew he was telling the exact truth but none of us had the guts to go public like he did. Among the enlisted men, none of them cared much one way or the other. They just wanted out. The current batch of faux patriot veterans are just right wingers who hated the "hippies" of the early 70's and this is their revenge. They're traitors, the lot of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC