# Supporting our troops, protesting the war ...



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The headline said 'U.S. SOLDIER BURNED IN EFFIGY AT PORTLAND ANTI-WAR PROTEST' ...

album says "peace rally"

https://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2012088&l=c6305&id=65201211


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Nothing says peace like burning an American soldier and flag.

My favorite poster read RETURN IRAQ'S SOVRANTY.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

_What if we threw a revolution and no one came?_


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> _What if we threw a revolution and no one came?_


Astonishing. This was the exact reaction I first had to the images.

And IMO it's a perfectly valid question.

I'm the last one who would advocate blaming pawns for a king's mistakes, but the simple and rather distasteful fact is, we protested our involvement in Vietman's civil war for almost a decade, but it wasn't until Americans started treating returning vets like murderers instead of heroes that substantial change occurred in our policy.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

https://www.boston.com/news/globe/e...ncilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> ... it wasn't until Americans started treating returning vets like murderers instead of heroes that substantial change occurred in our policy.


Frank, Not that you said such things, but I would just remind you that a few weeks ago when Vietnam Vets were discussed we were told that such things never happened to returning vets and were inventions of the right wing talking heads.

Personally speaking, I would have a problem if I witnessed someone burning a American soldier in effigy or an American flag.

I'm glad I haven't been put in that situation.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, Not that you said such things, but I would just remind you that a few weeks ago when Vietnam Vets were discussed we were told that such things never happened to returning vets and were inventions of the right wing talking heads.


Told by whom? Certainly not me.



ksinc said:


> Personally speaking, I would have a problem if I witnessed someone burning a American soldier in effigy or an American flag.
> 
> I'm glad I haven't been put in that situation.


If it pushed your hot button, it accomplished its goal. Personally, I put as much credence into this particular message as I do the "God Hates ****" morons who showed up at Matt Shepard's funeral and "defense of marriage" rallies.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Without justifying their actions, the photos seem to indicate the message of the stunt is that American policy is needlessly killing our troops. The brurning is to provoke a gutwrenching emotion to this end.

Pretty tasteless though regardless. 

-spence


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

CCabot said:


> https://www.boston.com/news/globe/e...ncilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/


Jacoby would have been a perfect Nazi.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

[_quote_]_What if we threw a revolution and no one came?_[/quote]



FrankDC said:


> Astonishing. This was the exact reaction I first had to the images.


Actually I was commenting more on the narcissim of the protestors. I would venture to say that many are completely clueless as to what the particulars of the debate are about or who the major players are. The Viet Nam generation was not mine but I would venture a guess that the same was true then. I'm always amused when I hear some self-indulgent boomer talk about how "we changed the world man" and think to myself that the extent of his participation was smoking weed and chasing tail in college.

The liberal media have created this idyllic fantasy world of the 1960's, one in which the youth were "socially engaged". The same is happening now. Many of these kids are drawn to such protests as a means of trying to capture some of that 60's magic. _So what my comment was directed toward was the sense of angst some may feel about going unrecognized despite their best efforts. _


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Astonishing. This was the exact reaction I first had to the images.
> 
> And IMO it's a perfectly valid question.
> 
> I'm the last one who would advocate blaming pawns for a king's mistakes, but the simple and rather distasteful fact is, we protested our involvement in Vietman's civil war for almost a decade, but it wasn't until Americans started treating returning vets like murderers instead of heroes that substantial change occurred in our policy.


This is a rather strange assertion. The legend of widespread abuse of GIs returning from Vietnam is precisely that, a legend. There may have been isolated incidents of such abuse, but it was scarcely on such a scale that it had an effect on US policy. Far more important to US policy was the increasing radicalization of the US military as the war dragged on. This has been a under-studied aspect of the war, for obvious reasons, but its effect was likely very important. I still have copies -somewhere - of some of the underground soldier newletters and pamphlets that were very common in the 1968 - 1973 era. Very radical stuff, and over time this view was reflected in the thoughts and actions of the soldiers. This radicalization of the armed forces did not overlap entirely with the era of greatest civil unrest in the US, but it occurred close enough in time that the ruling class could conceive of facing a serious domestic crisis with an unreliable army to suppress it. This had a "Februrary 1917 in Petersburg" aspect to it, one that put the fear of god into those that mattered. In the June 7, 1971 issue of Armed Forces Journal, Colonel Robert Heinl, Jr., in an article titled "The Collapse of The Armed Forces," wrote: "Our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous. Conditions [exist] among American forces in Vietnam that have only been exceeded in this century by...the collapse of the Tsarist armies in 1916 and 1917." This near-mutiny was a much bigger factor in bringing the war to an end than was domestic protest; in fact, domestic protest was most effective when contributing to the radicalization of the armed forces. The soldiers themselves were much more responsible for ending the Vietnam war than the Flower Children. This is the primary reason there will be no draft, no matter how bad things get in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The important lesson was learned.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Jacoby would have been a perfect Nazi.


Much as I might agree that his arguments are, at best specious, his thinking illogical in the extreme and his arguments comprises one non-sequitar after another, please don't use the "N" argument. It doesn't apply in any possible way and it just weakens any further discussion on your part.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Rachael's comments to each picture express my opinion, and the opinion of anyone I know who would attend an antiwar rally. At all the marches and rallies against the Iraq war that I've been a part of veterans have actually been an acknowledged and honored part of the march.

Lushington's right. The story of veterans being regularly spat on (typically as they arrived at San Francisco Airport, notwithstanding the fact that that isn't where returning soldiers and marines landed) has been thoroughly debunked. 

People who burn the American flag, or American soldiers in effigy, dishonor themselves and hurt the antiwar cause.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Lushington said:


> This is a rather strange assertion. The legend of widespread abuse of GIs returning from Vietnam is precisely that, a legend.


I'm not claiming Vietnam vets were beaten in our streets. But by 1968 popular opinion about the war had shifted enough that these vets were no longer automatically given hero status in our country. Concurrent with (I'd even say caused by) this shift in popular opinion, Vietnam vets themselves started taking the initiative, e.g. the VVAW and other groups.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Told by whom? Certainly not me.
> 
> If it pushed your hot button, it accomplished its goal. Personally, I put as much credence into this particular message as I do the "God Hates ****" morons who showed up at Matt Shepard's funeral and "defense of marriage" rallies.


I guess you saw your answer further down! LOL


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Funny you like to label people Nazis but you seem to overlook the fact that those who protested our assistance in helping to defend South Vietnam ultimately led to our abandonment of that country and its annexation by a repressive police state that still exists today. But I bet you don't lose too much sleep over the repression Vietnam has endured since 1975. 

It seems you don't have a problem with tyranny as long as its of the "correct" ideological stripe. After all, you supported a course of action that would have left Saddam in power.

You'll always have Pyongyang though.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Lushington,

I don't know if the notion of returning Vietnam vets being scorned and abused has been overblown but I do know that when my father returned from Vietnam (where, bc of his fluent French he served as an Army translator) he said that he came to blows several times with people who called him a war criminal. They were interested in labeling him a baby killer but had no interest in hearing what he actually saw over there or his motivation for dropping out of college and enlisting - the fact that he and my grandparents came to the US in 1952 as Displaced Persons (DPs) fleeing Communist Czechoslovakia.

That being said my father turned down an offer to attend OCS, went back to finish college and voted for McGovern in 1972.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Funny you like to label people Nazis but you seem to overlook the fact that those who protested our assistance in helping to defend South Vietnam ultimately led to our abandonment of that country and its annexation by a repressive police state that still exists today. But I bet you don't lose too much sleep over the repression Vietnam has endured since 1975.


What I lose sleep over is the same group of "better dead than red" clowns who believed we could "win" the civil war in Vietnam, now are killing thousands more of our kids because they have the exact same delusion about Iraq. We threw away the lives of 58,000+ of our kids in Vietnam. FOR NOTHING. And we're making the same catastrophic mistake today in Iraq.

The Iraqi people, like the Vietnamese people, and every other nation on Earth are going to get exactly the government they deserve. We could double or triple our military presence in Iraq, and we'll still hold only as much territory as fits between each soldier's two feet.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Under your tortured logic Nelson Mandela and his comptariots "deserved" the government they had prior to the end of apartheid. And France deserved Vichy and Poland deserved the General Government during the Nazis. What nonsense, but coming from you, unsurprising.

Also how may key memebers of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations are making Iraq policy in the Bush administration? I know facts are of little value to you but the rest of us prefer a bit more solid ground than you do.

And had we sent double the amount of troops from the very beginning, Iraq would be well on its way to a peaceful and brighter future but alas you still long for the status quo of the ancien regime - when Iraq ignored the UN, supported terrorism and Saddam was in power. 

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Under your tortured logic Nelson Mandela and his comptariots "deserved" the government they had prior to the end of apartheid. And France deserved Vichy and Poland deserved the General Government during the Nazis. What nonsense, but coming from you, unsurprising.


And coming from you, the non sequitur of comparing nations occupied by an invading Nazi army to Iraq is hardly surprising.



Karl89 said:


> Also how may key memebers of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations are making Iraq policy in the Bush administration? I know facts are of little value to you but the rest of us prefer a bit more solid ground than you do.


You'd be surprised at how many, if you'd only do a tiny bit of homework. But in any case I was referring to an arrogant mindset, not specific people.



Karl89 said:


> And had we sent double the amount of troops from the very beginning, Iraq would be well on its way to a peaceful and brighter future but alas you still long for the status quo of the ancien regime - when Iraq ignored the UN, supported terrorism and Saddam was in power.


Please tell us, how many suicide bombers were in Iraq prior to our invasion? How many roadside bombs were going off in Iraq prior to our invasion? Is there no end to your arrogance or cluelessness?

We deposed one terrorist, and created tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands in his place. Good job, George.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Sure there was conflict and acrimony - losing wars tend to exacerbate such things. Some soldiers will say the civilians stabbed them in the back; some civilians will say that the soldiers were incompetent criminals. But the idea that occasional conflict between some GIs returning from Vietnam and some civilians had a significant effect on US policy, as Frank implied, is incorrect in my view.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I did my share of public demonstrating. I stress did, past tense. You cannot control a public gathering. All sorts of interesting folks show up; counter demonstrators, F.B.I. provocatuers, people with agendas of deliberate violent confrontations with civic authority and, suprise a few people I first became conscious of in a military directive listing people in the Bay Area we were ordered not to associate with. When they all had active membership in the Worker's Party and were encouraging desertion and sabotage ( I ignored said order and confirmed this myself) it made sense. My last demonstration in downtown L.A. ended whan a black box anarchist decided to burn the flag. I rabbit punched him from behind and siezed it. My friends were horrified. I explained I was merely defending the revolutionary banner of Ho Chi Minh's hero. Nobody knew who or what I was talking about, nothing new. They formulated a group consensus I should leave. I did, in my old 240 Volvo that got all 8 of us there from Ventura. Like I said, organisation and planning ahead for contingencies almost always fail at demonstrations. I still want to save the Whales, Tibet and Celine Dion . I just work in more effective ways.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Where to begin?

First, Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany AND the Soviet Union under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Were you truly ignorant of this fact or are you just pulling a Walter Duranty? Iraq under Saddam was similar to Nazi Germany bc both governments were morally illegimate. I suppose though you might of less of a problem than I do in bestowing legitimacy on tyranny.

Secondly, don't be coy. Please name senior members of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations who are currently responsible for this administration's Iraq policy. You say there are many. Name one. You also say you referring to an arrogant mindset. I defer to to your vast and intimate experience with an arrogant mindset.

Finally, Iraq under Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, but more importantly and obviously lost on you, was that under Saddam Iraq terrorized, as a matter of state policy, its own people. Your view is that those terrorized deserve the government that terrorizes them. I depart from this view.

Try again Francis.

Karl


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, Not that you said such things, but I would just remind you that a few weeks ago when Vietnam Vets were discussed we were told that such things never happened to returning vets and were inventions of the right wing talking heads.
> 
> *Personally speaking, I would have a problem if I witnessed someone burning a American soldier in effigy or an American flag.
> 
> I'm glad I haven't been put in that situation.*



Ksinc,

I haven't been put in this situation either, but I really wonder how it would affect me seeing it in person. I have never been one to agree with burning THE FLAG, but I can see the freedom of speech side saying that flag (the one burning) is just a piece of cloth at that moment. On the other hand, burning the image of a soldier seems to cross all different kinds of lines. This bothers me. For the same token, is it any worse when parents like Sheehan disgrace her son by using his death to further her goals? I'll just leave my opinion at I don't agree with this. =)


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I think the state of LA set, for a brief time, the penalty for assaulting someone burning an American flag at $25.

As distasteful and disgusting as I find flag burning to be I think a liberal society has to allow such freedoms of expression. Now on the other hand if the local Fire Marshall is concerned about the public safety issues a flad burning might cause.............

I was too young at the time to remember it, but I always delight in seeing footage of Rick Monday of the LA Dodgers stealing the flag away from some hooligans who were attempting to burn it in center field of Wrigley Field sometime during the mid 70's. For that alone he deserves a spot in Cooperstown - with apologies to all fans of the 1981 Montreal Expos!

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Burning the flag is about as original as wearing jeans or black to be a rebel. There are lines we cross only without intention of coming back; calling a woman a particular word, burning flags or profaning religous objects and calling it art. The possibility of getting your head ripped off should be spelled out to anyone so inclined first. And then there was the son of Allah who set himself on fire trying to ignite a poorly made flag at a protest. You'd think such an obvious sign from the heavens would reach those idiots.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Rachael's comments to each picture express my opinion, and the opinion of anyone I know who would attend an antiwar rally. At all the marches and rallies against the Iraq war that I've been a part of veterans have actually been an acknowledged and honored part of the march.
> 
> Lushington's right. The story of veterans being regularly spat on (typically as they arrived at San Francisco Airport, notwithstanding the fact that that isn't where returning soldiers and marines landed) has been thoroughly debunked. .


This is bunk.

Returning servicemen were flown into Travis Air Force Base--north of San Francisco. They then had to take a bus down to SFO and catch commercial flights home. The military only took them as far as Travis. It was while they were going through San Francisco International that the incidents occurred. The men were still required to travel in uniform and were easily identified.

In Southern California, it was common for protesters to wait outside the gates to the base and pull stunts while men were making their way to the taxicabs--which would take them from the El Toro to LAX.

If you don't want to believe me, read Bob Greene's book, "Homecoming." He is left winger who questioned the veracity of the "legend" as you call it and investigated it himself. He was convinced that it happened often. It did.

Most of the worst stunts were often pulled by women--because most of the little boy protesters knew that they would get slugged--an even sadder commentary on the protesters.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Burning the flag is about as original as wearing jeans or black to be a rebel. There are lines we cross only without intention of coming back; calling a woman a particular word, burning flags or profaning religous objects and calling it art. The possibility of getting your head ripped off should be spelled out to anyone so inclined first.


So at that point we'd be Iran. Brilliant.

There's no shortage of pea brains in this country or any country, and far worse than flag burners are Americans who either can't or won't distinguish the symbols of freedom with what those symbols are supposed to represent. Such people are the primary targets of flag burners, and deservedly so in my view.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> This is bunk.
> 
> If you don't want to believe me, read Bob Greene's book, "Homecoming." He is left winger who questioned the veracity of the "legend" as you call it and investigated it himself. He was convinced that it happened often. It did.
> .


And I would invite you to read The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, by Jerry Lembcke.

https://www.amazon.com/Spitting-Ima...9388674?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174562314&sr=8-1

https://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Spence said:


> Without justifying their actions, the photos seem to indicate the message of the stunt is that American policy is needlessly killing our troops. The brurning is to provoke a gutwrenching emotion to this end.
> 
> Pretty tasteless though regardless.
> 
> -spence


It is always interesting to know the widely varying interpretations of a scene.

To me this burning of the soldier is in NO WAY advocating for our troops in Iraq. Same with the American flag. It is clearly an of indictment of our soldiers and our country.

Did you note the crosses that were being set out? Did you see any American flags on them? No, only red crescents.

Back to the burning... I hope I never personally witness such an event. Right or wrong, I imagine that there is no way that I could keep from wading right in and expressing myself, also. I wore that uniform and stood ready to do battle under that flag for a few years. I don't want to hurt anybody, but in the process, I think I'd likely end up a bit singed and bloodied.


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I think the state of LA set, for a brief time, the penalty for assaulting someone burning an American flag at $25.
> 
> ...


Here you go Karl






I would have a hard time not beating someones head into the curb if I saw them burning an American flag. Those pictures made me extremely angry and glad that I couldn't smell those damn hippies.


----------



## The Wife (Feb 4, 2006)

I'm reminded of the environmental activists who set fire to a lot of SUVs, causing considerable pollution.

"Sovranty"--hee, hee. The illiterates are identifying themselves.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank, Do you see anything in my post suggesting legislation banning said expressions? The overt object of a protest is to draw attention and effect positive change with a specific issue. Again, I've btdt. I can tell you anecdotaly from personal experience it is more often an exercise in self rightous narcissism and preaching to the choir- Kipling's 'Rule of the Bandar log.' Burning the flag, calling a woman the C word or declaring an Ikon covered with excrement art is drawing a line in the sand: The same sand your position is then built on. Funny thing about my rabbit punching that Black Box Anarchist and stealing his property. It was witnessed by two cops who didn't have a clue what we were demonstrating over. Was I arrested? Nope, but I got 5 minutes to explain why I there and reach two new people.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Duck said:


> Here you go Karl
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He did get some recognition from the Hall for that act. Well done Rick Monday.


----------



## Barrister (Nov 2, 2005)

*I'm right there with you Duck*



Duck said:


> Here you go Karl
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing disgusts me more than the lingering odor of patchouli mixed with poor hygiene.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> And I would invite you to read The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, by Jerry Lembcke.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Spitting-Ima...9388674?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174562314&sr=8-1
> 
> https://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215


Yes, I have read Lembeck's book. I don't think it's not even considered a serious examination by the anti-war apologists. And the VVAW...you're joking right?

The gray pony-tail crowd can try to revise the history of the disgusting conduct of certain "protesters" all they want but there are just too many guys out there who actually experienced it.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Duck and Ksinc,

Thanks for the Rick Monday info.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Frank, Do you see anything in my post suggesting legislation banning said expressions? The overt object of a protest is to draw attention and effect positive change with a specific issue. Again, I've btdt. I can tell you anecdotaly from personal experience it is more often an exercise in self rightous narcissism and preaching to the choir- Kipling's 'Rule of the Bandar log.' Burning the flag, calling a woman the C word or declaring an Ikon covered with excrement art is drawing a line in the sand: The same sand your position is then built on. Funny thing about my rabbit punching that Black Box Anarchist and stealing his property. It was witnessed by two cops who didn't have a clue what we were demonstrating over. Was I arrested? Nope, but I got 5 minutes to explain why I there and reach two new people.


No, you didn't suggest legislation banning such expression. You suggested something far worse: gangland justice, "The possibility of getting your head ripped off should be spelled out to anyone so inclined".

At least the former could be handled peacefully under rule of law. The latter is utterly fascistic and threatens lawless violence against people who're simply exercising their First Amendment right to political expression.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Again, I have not suggested or advocated any action. I merely point out reality. Spills muriatic acid on your 7 fold tie and grinds my heel over your freshly polished spectators.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This type of scene makes me think of so many things, some frivolous, others not so much. On the frivolous side, I am willing to bet at least half the guys out there are only trying to score with some of the bohemian babes. While their hygiene is lacking, their ardor and willingness to be round heeled rarely is. Fifteen years ago I could have seen myself attending for just such a reason.

On the serious side, we need to protect the right of people to make such statements. More than that, we need to make sure these events get major press coverage. Actions do speak louder than words, and the general public needs to see these actions of the so called "peace activists". Close up on the crosses meant to symbolize dead muslims under the burning soldier effigy really needs to hit some front pages.

I am too young to remember Viet Nam. What I do remember though is the 100's of messed up Vets I saw in Detroit during my undergrad clinicals at the VA there. A very strong theme amongst the Viet Nam era vets was the rejection they felt from society. Now, I do not have a book to point people to on who got spit on and who did not. However, if any of you fancy lawyers and such doubt there are many, many Viet Nam era vets with mental problems they themselves attribute, at least in part, to how they were treated by society upon their home coming......well take off your fancy suits, put the Rolex in the jewelry box, borrow a car that won't get stolen and drive down to volunteer at your local outpatient VA clinic. Again, actions speak much louder than words.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> Yes, I have read Lembeck's book. I don't think it's not even considered a serious examination by the anti-war apologists. And the VVAW...you're joking right?
> 
> The gray pony-tail crowd can try to revise the history of the disgusting conduct of certain "protesters" all they want but there are just too many guys out there who actually experienced it.


And the fatigue-wearing warmongering crowd can invent mobs of protesting hippie chicks besieging returning soldiers at airports and bus stations and drenching the valiant warriors with saliva as they flee for the gates. You want to attack sources? Bob Greene . . . you're joking right? Greene is as sentimental clown who probably believes in the tooth fairy. His volume is a rigorous piece of scholarship, by god. He accepted at face value any load of rubbish that any of his informants told him. In one story related in _Homecoming_ his correspondent claimed to have been spit upon no fewer than three times after his plane landed in San Francisco: once by "hippies," once by man wearing a "leisure suit," and once by a little old lady who spit on him and called him an "army asshole." The man covered his bases there, didn't he?

Clearly, there were isolated events in which soldiers during the Vietnam era were subject to abuse _because they were soldiers returning from Vietnam_, not, because they were, say, drunk assholes in uniform. Personally, I think the whole "spitting" bit entered the public's consciousness with Delmar Pickett, who in December 1971 was the subject of a five-minute biopiece on the CBS Evening News. In that piece, Pickett said that when he returned from Vietnam he got off his plane in Seattle - not San Francisco - and walked past two "dudes" - not girls - one of whom spat at him. In later years, Pickett has said that it was four men that he walked past - who were leaning against the wall, not protesting the war - when one of them spat him, and all four ran off when he approached them. Whatever. The point is, it was just two or four or however many pricks in an airport - there was no connection between Pickett's experience and antiwar protests. Other incidents like Pickett's no doubt happened. They've always happened. I used to know an oldtime San Diego Police officer - now gone to the great station house in the sky - who was an amazing source of local history and folklore. He joined the force during WWII, and he often said that practically all he did during the war years was break up brawls between locals and the sailors and marines who had flooded into town during the war. Are we to deduce from this that the domestic population did not support WWII war effort and despised the men in uniform? Of course not. People are still spitting at soliders. From the Syracuse Post-Standard News, December 6, 2006:



> A Syracuse woman was charged after a Fort Drum soldier accused her of spitting on him without provocation at Hancock Airport, Syracuse police said. Lauren Maggi , 35, of 256 Thurber St., was charged with second-degree harassment after the Nov. 22 incident, police reported.Jason Jones, 21, told police a woman he did not know walked up to him near the United Airlines ticket counter, asked him if he was a Fort Drum solider and, when he responded that he was, spat in his face
> 
> Police searched the airport garage and located a woman fitting the description that Jones provided, who was later identified as Maggi. Police escorted her into the terminal, where Jones identified her as the woman who had spit on him. A second soldier on the scene supported Jones' accusation, police said. Maggi offered no explanation for her conduct, police said. She could not be reached for comment Thursday night.


So I guess the current troops are widely loathed and despised and must fear for their safety when returning from Iraq.

Edit: Here's an even more recent report of spitting - mutual spitting, in fact - with the added bonus that it involved an antiwar protest. From the NY Times, January 27:



> There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.
> 
> Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
> 
> ...


'I'm sure such reports will influence US policy in Iraq in the near future.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Lushington said:


> This is a rather strange assertion. The legend of widespread abuse of GIs returning from Vietnam is precisely that, a legend. There may have been isolated incidents of such abuse, but it was scarcely on such a scale that it had an effect on US policy. Far more important to US policy was the increasing radicalization of the US military as the war dragged on. This has been a under-studied aspect of the war, for obvious reasons, but its effect was likely very important. I still have copies -somewhere - of some of the underground soldier newletters and pamphlets that were very common in the 1968 - 1973 era. Very radical stuff, and over time this view was reflected in the thoughts and actions of the soldiers. This radicalization of the armed forces did not overlap entirely with the era of greatest civil unrest in the US, but it occurred close enough in time that the ruling class could conceive of facing a serious domestic crisis with an unreliable army to suppress it. This had a "Februrary 1917 in Petersburg" aspect to it, one that put the fear of god into those that mattered. In the June 7, 1971 issue of Armed Forces Journal, Colonel Robert Heinl, Jr., in an article titled "The Collapse of The Armed Forces," wrote: "Our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous. Conditions [exist] among American forces in Vietnam that have only been exceeded in this century by...the collapse of the Tsarist armies in 1916 and 1917." This near-mutiny was a much bigger factor in bringing the war to an end than was domestic protest; in fact, domestic protest was most effective when contributing to the radicalization of the armed forces. The soldiers themselves were much more responsible for ending the Vietnam war than the Flower Children. This is the primary reason there will be no draft, no matter how bad things get in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The important lesson was learned.


Interesting point, Lushington, and one seldom discussed adequately. I can recall discussing the question of whether any American prisoners were held back by the NVA after the war with a very good friend of mine who has lots of ties with the Special Ops community. His reply was that no American was held prisoner after 1973 but that large numbers of them stayed behind. They were traitors and deserters. According to my friend, the government did attempt some "wet work" against these types. In many cases, the government soft-pedalled the matter with the families, not informing them that their men were defectors. This may have fuelled the abiding belief about large numbers of POW/MIAs being held in Viet Nam.

I discussed this with Jack Lewis, who founded the magazine I edit. He served as Lt. Colonel of the Marines in Nam. (He had also served in Korea and WWII.) He told me that there was a whole area north of Da Nang called "Dogpatch" controlled by deserters, mostly blacks. He said that a large MP unit went into Dogpatch to capture as many deserters as they could. None of the MP unit returned. The military authorities then decided it was most prudent just to leave Dogpatch alone.

A friend of mine serving in the Army Reserve at the time of Nam told me that the major reason the Reserves were never called up in force for service in Nam was because the government was afraid of outright mutiny.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Relayer said:


> It is always interesting to know the widely varying interpretations of a scene.
> 
> To me this burning of the soldier is in NO WAY advocating for our troops in Iraq. Same with the American flag. It is clearly an of indictment of our soldiers and our country.


Well, the fact that the "executioners" are dressed in black leads me to this. I also did track down the website of the goup sponsoring the rally and found the messaging to be the standard, get out so our troops don't have to die mantra etc...

I didn't see any pics of the burning there.

-spence


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Lushington said:


> And the fatigue-wearing warmongering crowd can invent mobs of protesting hippie chicks besieging returning soldiers at airports and bus stations and drenching the valiant warriors with saliva as they flee for the gates. You want to attack sources? Bob Greene . . . you're joking right? Greene is as sentimental clown who probably believes in the tooth fairy. His volume is a rigorous piece of scholarship, by god. He accepted at face value any load of rubbish that any of his informants told him. .


As to Bob's Greene's method, maybe you didn't read his preface where he laid out how he verified the authenticity of the letters:

1.	Any that were obviously "suspect" he deleted outright.

2.	The next step was to write back to the individual, to inform them that their letter may be printed in a book, allowing those who embellished their story to quietly back out of the project by not giving him permission to use the material or simply by not responding to his letter. Only letters that were confirmed again by the author were used.

3.	He further verified the names as actual veterans through a contact in the VA.

Maybe it's not quite "scientific" but it sure is credible journalism and research and is infinitely more rigorous than the nonsense in the Lembcke book. My first reaction to Lembcke's book was, "My God, this guy's a professor?" He doesn't even try to support most of his claims. His assertion that vets couldn't have been spit on in airports because they didn't go through civilian airports was just asinine on its face-and that's one of his better attempts.

Greene, raised the question in his newspaper column because he personally did not believe the story of veterans getting abused when they came home. After going through more than a thousand responses, he had this to say:

"I now have no doubt that many returning veterans truly were spat upon-literally-as part of their welcome home. There were simply too many letters, going into too fine a detail, to deny the fact. I was profoundly moved by how, all these years later, so many men remembered exactly where and when they were spat upon."

Again, Greene--to his credit-admitted that the story he wanted to believe to be a myth, was in fact true.

Buttressing the veracity of the "I got spit on" responses were a number of letters from veterans who wanted to inform Greene that, quite to the contrary, they were treated very well when they came home. So there was a very realistic and credible balance to the "data" if you want to look at it from that perspective.

You can believe what you want-but it happened.

Most of the old washed-up hippies and wanabe hippies from that era are still trying to run from the fact that the young soldiers coming home from Vietnam were just better men than they were. That's a pill that many men won't be able to swallow in a lifetime--pretty sad.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> A friend of mine serving in the Army Reserve at the time of Nam told me that the major reason the Reserves were never called up in force for service in Nam was because the government was afraid of outright mutiny.


This isn't quite true. The decision not to use the reserves was made in 1965--long before the war was controversial. THe decision was based on the concern that the war would "deplete" the reserves (as the war in Iraq has "depleted" the reserves. There was also many in DoD who still felt that they needed to keep an ace in the hole in case the Cold War in Europe went hot.

Later on, it became politically untenable to call up the reserves because so many folks had gotten into the reserves to avoid active service. But in defense of the reserves--more than 10,000 died in Vietnam--so they even got a bad rap.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> This isn't quite true. The decision not to use the reserves was made in 1965--long before the war was controversial.


That's far from true. The first organized Vietnam protests in the U.S. occurred in 1963, by 1965 nearly a third of the country was opposed to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> Maybe it's not quite "scientific" but it sure is credible journalism and research and is infinitely more rigorous than the nonsense in the Lembcke book. My first reaction to Lembcke's book was, "My God, this guy's a professor?" He doesn't even try to support most of his claims. His assertion that vets couldn't have been spit on in airports because they didn't go through civilian airports was just asinine on its face-and that's one of his better attempts.


If that's all you got from Lembcke's book you have obviously either not read it, or read it solely intending to disbelieve it.

Eyewitness evidence is possibly the least reliable type of evidence, and the most subject to alteration and confusion over the years. At the heart of Lembcke's research is the idea that if spitting on returning soldiers were as widespread as it is claimed it would have been big news, and it would have been covered in the news media. (Don't bother with the "biased left-wing media" trope here--we're talking about a period when the majority of newspapers endorsed Nixon.) Not only is there an absence of news reports of this claim, there is an absence of any contemporary documentation of this story. It strains credulity that this behavior would have been as common as pro-war revisionists claim, and not be widely reported in the news media. The fact that Bob Greene was able to get people to tell these stories doesn't disprove Lembcke's claim, but in fact illustrates the phenomenon Lembcke analyzes in his book.

As for regrets or shame over our activities during the war, I canoly speak for myself. I am proud of all I did to end the war, and the only regret I have is for not doing more.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

How proud are you of the repression that the Vietnamese people have endured since 1975? Contributing to a peace that has ensured that 30 years later Vietnam remains one of the most unfree nations in the world is hardly something to crow about. But no regrets, well bully for you Jack as I am sure the hundreds of Catholic priests and Buddhist monks languishing in Vietnamese prisons for simply practicing their religion will rest easier knowing that your conscience is clear.

But why worry about human rights in Vietnam when you can demonize the Bush administration?

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Good grief, give it a rest already Karl. How proud are you of a Republican-led Congress that borrowed $50-60 billion a year from Communist China? How proud are you of U.S. corporations who can't export jobs to both China and Vietnam fast enough?

Vietnam currently has the second fastest growing economy in the world, next to China. And they have a far smaller percentage of their citizens rotting in jails than the U.S.

Somehow your whining about repression rings hollow.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

If you have noticed I don't defend our current policy towards China and I have said many times that the Republican Congress deserved to be defeated.

And what does a growing economy have to do with human rights? Russia has a growing economy too, think they are making advances in civil society?

And yes we have far too many people in prison in the US and serious criminal justice reform is need (drug legalization for starters) but do you seriously think that there is more due process in Vietnam than there is in the US?

It seems to be true - there is not a tyranny you won't defend!

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> If you have noticed I don't defend our current policy towards China and I have said many times that the Republican Congress deserved to be defeated.
> 
> ...


In this case, what good is due process (or democracy for that matter) when it results in the world's highest incarceration rates? We're 5% of the world's population and we currently incarcerate 25% of the world's prisoners. Almost 338,000 are in jails for non-violent, low-level drug offenses.

I do not condone human rights violations by anyone, but I also believe in cleaning up my own house before I start complaining about the condition of someone else's.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Well we agree on something - that drug laws need to be changed. I would even go one step further and say that we have a much larger problem in sentencing guidelines that have a clear racial bias that fundamentally undermines our cherised notion of equality under the law.

That being said we do have a system of due process and as much as you and I might think that current drug laws are pure folly, the do have legitimacy as they are the product of laws passed by freely elected legislatures. Vietnam has no such freely elected representation and no such system of due process in practice. That is a key and monumental difference and would hope that you could recognize it as such.

You demand perfection from the US (we were never perfect and we will never be perfect) and are unwilling to complain about the far greater human rights abuses of others until we reach your standard of perfection. I find that position utter nonsense.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl, why don't you go ahead and post a list of all the countries you think we should invade and install our own governments?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

I will, after you list all the tyrannies you are willing to tolerate. Unless of course you have been busy organizing on behalf of human rights in Vietnam lately.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Come, get out of the way, boys
Quick, get out of the way
You'd better watch what you say, boys
Better watch what you say
We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port
And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
So bring your daughters around to the port
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

. . .

And when we butchered your sons, boys
When we butchered your sons
Have a stick of our gum, boys
Have a stick of our bubble gum
We own half the world, oh say can you see
And the name for our profits is democracy
So, like it or not, you will have to be free
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World 

Phil Ochs


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

Kep patting yourself on back and keep supporting tyranny. Just remember that you are unhappy that Saddam isn't still in power. Perhaps the Nation will sponsor a trip to Pyongyang. You and FrankDC can go see the sights.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I was no fan of Saddam, but what we have in Iraq now is not an improvement.

This disaster was totally forseeable and should have been forseen by our government.

All in all, I think we have a good system here, but I have always felt the man currently in office is in WAY over his head. Even though I did not vote for him, I guess we as a people put him there.

I agree that our drug laws are a ridiculous disaster and cause more problems than the drugs do.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I was no fan of Saddam, but what we have in Iraq now is not an improvement.


An on-the-ground perspective:



> I was listening to the radio this morning and the first headline was 'Policeman killed in an explosion south of Baghdad'. The story later explains that 'south of Baghdad' actually meant Babil. Babil is actually 60 miles away from Baghdad. The misleading headline underscored again how most media try to associate every piece of bad news with Baghdad to maintain the image of violence associated with the city.
> No doubt people who follow the news as it is being reported in the West get the impression that we're fighting a lost war, and I feel that there won't be a day when our struggle to live a normal life and what we achieve in this path will make headlines that run above those of death.
> 
> You look around in Baghdad now and see hundreds of men working in the streets to pick up garbage; to plant flowers and paint the blast walls in joyful colors. Many of Baghdad's squares are becoming green and clean. The picture isn't perfect, but it's a clear attempt to beat violence and ease pain through giving the spring a chance to shine.
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I was no fan of Saddam, but what we have in Iraq now is not an improvement.


I think that's just a totally wrong statement for so many reasons and ignores the reality of life in Iraq during Saddam's reign.

Here's one:

As bad as the situation might be, it's comparatively better by far IMHO. It also has better long term prospects.

Many Iraqi refugees and exiles have gone back. I think that's evidence they at least they think it's better too.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Its curious that the opponents of our efforts in Iraq always allude to the argument that "life was better under Saddam." That statement always begs the question "whose life was better?" Certainly those propping up Saddam but what about the other 80% of the population. I'm sure those who had family members buried in those graves and the Kurds who were gassed would stand in contrast. 

Though far from perfect, with all the violence and hatred there now at least the Iraqis for the first time in a long time are in control of their own destiny and have the power to make the changes necessary. That is definitely something not possible under Saddam.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Come, get out of the way, boys
> Quick, get out of the way
> You'd better watch what you say, boys
> Better watch what you say
> ...


How can someone live in a country they think so little of?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> How can someone live in a country they think so little of?


If that was a general question, I love my country. I also believe we're at least 150 years overdue for another revolution. Many of our founding fathers never envisioned the obscenely bloated federal government that's in place today -- a self-supporting, self-promoting monster with no viable methods for the people to reduce its size, let alone replace it -- although Ben Franklin did predict the eventual outcome:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

Benjamin Franklin, Speech to the Continental Congress
September 17, 1787


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Karl's posts if nothing else are the gausinos in our mescal. We may choose to do nothing proactive against any number of regimes because of expediency, but pleading ignorance is a double hypocrisy.Free Burma!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If that was a general question, I love my country. I also believe we're at least 150 years overdue for another revolution. Many of our founding fathers never envisioned the obscenely bloated federal government that's in place today -- a self-supporting, self-promoting monster with no viable methods for the people to reduce its size, let alone replace it -- although Ben Franklin did predict the eventual outcome:
> 
> "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
> 
> ...


Geez, Frank! You're sooo transparent sometimes. You really should impose some self-restraint on your discussion of history and economics. It's clear that you haven't truly studied them, but simply enjoy regurgitating self-serving, out-of-context quotes you get from DU. Franklin's true intent read in the full context is the exact opposite of what you purport it to be. He wasn't predicting it's demise, he was accepting his own fallibility. That'd be a good lesson for you to learn 

"In these sentiments" ... clearly refers to the preceeding sentiments.

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right - Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

Yes, it has your few quoted lines then it continues after your post with ...

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? * It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does;* and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. 
*Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.* If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

*On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.*

Full text can be found here:
https://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nothing in the remaining portions of Franklin's speech counters the portion of it that I quoted. He did believe our government would end in despotism, and did predict that the people would eventually be incapable of any other form of government.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Nothing in the remaining portions of Franklin's speech counters the portion of it that I quoted. He did believe our government would end in despotism, and did predict that the people would eventually be incapable of any other form of government.


ROFLMAO!

If you would read the notes by Madison you would find this was the nature of their objections:

Mr. GORHAM said if it was not too late he could wish, for the purpose of lessening objections to the Constitution, that the clause declaring "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand" which had produced so much discussion, might be yet reconsidered, in order to strike out 40,000 & insert "thirty thousand." This would not he remarked establish that as an absolute rule, but only give Congress a greater latitude which could not be thought unreasonable.

Mr. KING & Mr. CARROL seconded & supported the idea of Mr. Gorham.

When the PRESIDENT rose, for the purpose of putting the question, he said that although his situation had hitherto restrained him from offering his sentiments on questions depending in the House, and it might be thought, ought now to impose silence on him, yet he could not forbear expressing his wish that the alteration proposed might take place. It was much to be desired that the objections to the plan recommended might be made as few as possible. *The smallness of the proportion of Representatives had been considered by many members of the Convention an insufficient security for the rights & interests of the people. *He acknowledged that it had always appeared to himself among the exceptionable parts of the plan, and late as the present moment was for admitting amendments, he thought this of so much consequence that it would give [FN3] much satisfaction to see it adopted [FN4]

No opposition was made to the proposition of Mr. Gorham and it was agreed to unanimously.

On the question to agree to the Constitution enrolled in order to be signed. It was agreed to all the States [FN6] answering ay.

* Frank, Are you really proposing that Franklin would advocate for 10,000 members in Congress today? Or that he predicted we could not succeed without a congress of such size to solve our problems better?*


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> *Frank, Are you really proposing that Franklin would advocate for 10,000 members in Congress today? Or that he predicted we could not succeed without a congress of such size to solve our problems better?*


I'm saying Franklin understood "government" is just a fancy label for oligarchy, i.e. one group of people being given control over the rest, and he also understood that all oligarchies end the same way: in despotism.

Jefferson understood this as well, which is what gave rise to his statement about the Revolution:

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen states independent [for] eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? *And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.* The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? *The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.*"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'm saying Franklin understood "government" is just a fancy label for oligarchy, i.e. one group of people being given control over the rest, and he also understood that all oligarchies end the same way: in despotism.


Since all citizens over the age of 18, with very few restrictions, can vote, the US is anything but an oligarchy. In fact, it is even less of an oligarchy than during the time of the Framers, since the voting pool has expanded so enormously, i.e. women can vote, non-whites, etc.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Since all citizens over the age of 18, with very few restrictions, can vote, the US is anything but an oligarchy. In fact, it is even less of an oligarchy than during the time of the Framers, since the voting pool has expanded so enormously, i.e. women can vote, non-whites, etc.


And what if, as polls indicate, a majority of Americans believe their government is corrupt, and believe their elected officials and candidates put forth by a corrupt two-party cartel no longer represent their views? What is the mechanism for replacing our corrupt government, when a majority of Americans want it replaced?

Since 1940 it has been a federal crime to advocate revolution. The Declaration of Independence was gutted. It was rendered null and void. What is the remedy for this, and what is the inevitable result? I suggest it's exactly what we've seen since 1940.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And what if, as polls indicate, a majority of Americans believe their government is corrupt, and believe their elected officials and candidates put forth by a corrupt two-party cartel no longer represent their views? What is the mechanism for replacing our corrupt government, when a majority of Americans want it replaced?
> 
> Since 1940 it has been a federal crime to advocate revolution. The Declaration of Independence was gutted. It was rendered null and void. What is the remedy for this, and what is the inevitable result? I suggest it's exactly what we've seen since 1940.


None of that changes the definition of "oligarchy".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> None of that changes the definition of "oligarchy".


"Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families."

It's coming up on 20 years since we had a president who wasn't named Bush or Clinton, with a good possibility of it becoming 24 or 28 years.

Not to mention the Senate and House, which have become institutions for protected career politicians.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families."
> 
> It's coming up on 20 years since we had a president who wasn't named Bush or Clinton, with a good possibility of it becoming 24 or 28 years.
> 
> Not to mention the Senate and House, which have become institutions for protected career politicians.


That is a very myopic and selective attempt at definition. Would you like a good modern example of one? South Africa before apartheid was ended. That was a true oligarchy. The fact that, as I said, every citizen over the age of 18, with very few restrictions, can vote, contradicts the very definition of oligarchy. Yes, some crazies will try to make the case the US has an oligarchy for a government, but this does not make them correct. They are usually the same people that tried the "bullet as pathogen" crap in the 1990s.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> That is a very myopic and selective attempt at definition.


That's how it's listed in my dictionary. How does yours define oligarchy?

As is always the case, you can have the final word here. If you believe our political system isn't fundamentally broken, more power to you. But in 45+ years I've never seen such levels of discontent and cynicism among people in our country, and numbers of Americans who both recognize their government is corrupt yet believe they are powerless to fix the problem, even partially.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's how it's listed in my dictionary. How does yours define oligarchy?
> 
> As is always the case, you can have the final word here. If you believe our political system isn't fundamentally broken, more power to you. But in 45+ years I've never seen such levels of discontent and cynicism among people in our country, and numbers of Americans who both recognize their government is corrupt yet believe they are powerless to fix the problem, even partially.


Frank, you can never quite seperate lines of thought. This is not meant as an insult, merely an observation. You ask here, "If you believe our political system isn't fundamentally broken...". That has absolutely zero...nadda...to do with the definition of oligarchy. Just to make sure I was not in error, I went and checked out several websites to see what an oligarchy entails. It specifically entails a large, officially dis-enfranchised from voting or power, segment of the population. All of my research indicates my example of South Africa during apartheid is a perfect example.

So your whole little rant about discontent, blah blah blah is totally irrelevant. My one and only statement to you was, the US is not an oligarchy and your diatribe does not change the definition.

Thank you for the last word.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Come, get out of the way, boys
> Quick, get out of the way
> You'd better watch what you say, boys
> Better watch what you say
> ...


I prefer the "Draft Dodger Rag" myself.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Free Burma indeed. Anytime and anywhere people are deprived of liberty we are all less free. 

I just wonder if Jack and his comtemporaries who are so proud of their efforts to end our defense of South Vietnam, ever protested against the Soviet Union or China for their aiding and supporting North Vietnamese aggression. I wonder if he picketed the Soviet mission to the UN after the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, especially since the Soviet mission was only a few subway stops away from where he attended high school.

Somehow I doubt it. But surpise me Jack, tell me how you rallied the good citizens of Montpelier to support Solidarity in Poland during the 80's or how you earnestly wrote letters to the editor condemning the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - I bet you went apoplectic over Grenada. 

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

And one more thing - referencing Phil Ochs hardly helps establish your commitment to liberty. Ochs participated in a concert in 1975 that celebrated the North Vietnamese conquest of South Vietnam. Sadly I don't remember any Lefty organized concert for the Vietnamese boat people and all the political refugees who risked their lives fleeing a Communist Vietnam.

I will take Havel, Walesa, Aung San Suu Kyi and Lazlo Tokes and you can keep your mentally unstable, alcoholic folk singers who apologized for tyranny.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'm saying Franklin understood "government" is just a fancy label for oligarchy, i.e. one group of people being given control over the rest, and he also understood that all oligarchies end the same way: in despotism.
> 
> Jefferson understood this as well, which is what gave rise to his statement about the Revolution:
> 
> "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen states independent [for] eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? *And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.* The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? *The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.*"


Frank, You are being consistent with your application of Jefferson. So, it's hard for me to really disagree. Much better post/example of your view IMHO. Cheers!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, You are being consistent with your application of Jefferson. So, it's hard for me to really disagree. Much better post/example of your view IMHO. Cheers!


I'm always amused at how liberals and those on the left love to quote Jefferson and Franklin while completely ignoring Madison, Hamilton and Washington.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm always amused at how liberals and those on the left love to quote Jefferson and Franklin while completely ignoring Madison, Hamilton and Washington.


Ignore Madison? Are you kidding?? I regularly quote every one of these:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question [of] whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power."

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

"Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."

"The Constitution of the United States was created by the people of the United States composing the respective states, who alone had the right."

"The essence of Government is power. And power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Ignore Madison? Are you kidding?? I regularly quote every one of these:


Quoting someone is always witty but to quote someone is not to cite the wisdom of their philosophy or to embrace their notion of government. Its merely a cheap rhetorical tool that belongs more to the Dr. Phil or Daily Show school of government.

I don't know if you have ever read the _Federalist _but if you have and paid attention to what Hamilton and Madison were saying it stands in contrast to the anti-federalist position of Jefferson. The federalists advocated a strong central government with a strong executive empowered to make foreign policy decisions without interference from the congress who because of their short tenure in office are always fickle. It also advocates a strong military (navy in particular) in order to defend U.S. interests.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Quoting someone is always witty but to quote someone is not to cite the wisdom of their philosophy or to embrace their notion of government. Its merely a cheap rhetorical tool that belongs more to the Dr. Phil or Daily Show school of government.
> 
> I don't know if you have ever read the _Federalist _but if you have and paid attention to what Hamilton and Madison were saying it stands in contrast to the anti-federalist position of Jefferson. The federalists advocated a strong central government with a strong executive empowered to make foreign policy decisions without interference from the congress who because of their short tenure in office are always fickle. It also advocates a strong military (navy in particular) in order to defend U.S. interests.


I have studied the Federalist, and you'll need to show us where it advocates dictatorial war powers for a president, the issuance of "signing statements" by a president that essentially bypass all laws and court decisions as they apply to the Executive Branch, etc.

There's a major difference between a strong Executive and an overreaching one. Madison supported the former but gave abundant warnings about the latter.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I have studied the Federalist, and you'll need to show us where it advocates dictatorial war powers for a president, the issuance of "signing statements" by a president that essentially bypass all laws and court decisions as they apply to the Executive Branch, etc.
> 
> There's a major difference between a strong Executive and an overreaching one. Madison supported the former but gave abundant warnings about the latter.


I suppose the notion of "over-reaching" and the usurping of power is a subjective one. Presidential signing statements date back to the Monroe administration so please lets have some perspective about this. If the Congress truly feels that these signing statements are unconstitutional then they should sue the administration in court. Have they?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I suppose the notion of "over-reaching" and the usurping of power is a subjective one. Presidential signing statements date back to the Monroe administration so please lets have some perspective about this. If the Congress truly feels that these signing statements are unconstitutional then they should sue the administration in court. Have they?


No one's claiming signing statements are unconstitutional. However, it's safe to say no one foresaw a president who would be so morally bankrupt as to use them to effectively turn himself into a dictator, and give himself what amounts to a line-item veto power for all laws and court orders on an almost daily basis. Bush has raised over 800 constitutional challenges to laws and court orders made since 2001, more than all previous U.S. presidents COMBINED.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that some powers, such as a line-item veto are unconstitutional for a president, but that didn't stop Bush from using signing statements to accomplish the same thing. He was never called on his trampling of the Constitution and law by his Neocon shills in Congress, but he certainly will be called on it by the Democrats.

In case anyone is interested:

https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/04/bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> However, it's safe to say no one foresaw a president who would be so morally bankrupt as to use them to effectively turn himself into a dictator


With statements like that I'm afraid its hard to take you seriously so respond back if you will but I'm afraid that you're being so quick to play the "dictator" card shows that you've run out of ideas. Have a nice day.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> With statements like that I'm afraid its hard to take you seriously so respond back if you will but I'm afraid that you're being so quick to play the "dictator" card shows that you've run out of ideas. Have a nice day.


Ideas? You can't manage to counter facts, let alone ideas.

Here's an even shorter and simpler explanation of why Bush, by any reasonable logic, qualifies as a dictator:

https://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Ideas? You can't manage to counter facts, let alone ideas.
> 
> Here's an even shorter and simpler explanation of why Bush, by any reasonable logic, qualifies as a dictator:
> 
> https://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html


Well I guess Dubya is going to give you the ultimate rebut when he leaves office. One of the main properties of dictators is they do not yield power through democratic processes. When Dubya refuses to give up the reigns and/or declares martial law Frank, I will post here that you were correct (for once) and I was incorrect.

Until then, you are just making yourself look like an ill-informed extremest.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Cheney, Chancellor for Life!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I read your article link. Jennifer Van Bergen is your source now Frank? I decided to Google her. I cannot find where she got her JD, but as she claims to teach at some non-accredited university, that should be indicative. She writes for www.truthout.org as a major contributor it seems. For instance, here's one of her fascinating pieces:



> The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11
> by Jennifer Van Bergen
> 20 May 2002
> t r u t h o u t


Available at: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PAplndbefore.html

Or this little post where she is the "informant".



> The White House Is Being Served a Bill of Indictment on 1/10/2006





> Named in the indictment are:
> 
> President of the United States George W. Bush,
> Vice President Richard Cheney,
> ...





> 3) Destruction of the Global Environment, particular reference to systematic policies; contributing to the effects of global warming;
> 
> 4) Attacks on Global Public Health and Reproductive Rights, particular reference to the genocidal effects of forcing international agencies to promote "abstinence only" in the midst of a global AIDS epidemic;


Available at: https://omega.twoday.net/stories/1374865/

Interesting stuff. I like the thought that "abstinence only" = genocide. I guess Jennifer and her buddies feel no babies are conceived within the parameters of marriage or a monogamous relationship. Certainly does not inspire my confidence in her ability and desire to write rational, cogent pieces, but interesting stuff. I would be interested in a review by her on tinfoil hats; bespoke or OTR.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Well I guess Dubya is going to give you the ultimate rebut when he leaves office. One of the main properties of dictators is they do not yield power through democratic processes. When Dubya refuses to give up the reigns and/or declares martial law Frank, I will post here that you were correct (for once) and I was incorrect.
> 
> Until then, you are just making yourself look like an ill-informed extremest.


That's unqualified nonsense. The word dictator comes from the Romans, who appointed almost 100 dictators during their history -- none of whom were self-appointed, every one of whom were limited to a single six month term, and none of whom were given control over any public monies. It refers specifically to a _type_ of power, not _how_ that power is yielded or maintained.

Then again, you usually confuse facts with what you want to hear. It's a right-wing thing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Hey frank, If you don't like the news, go out and make some.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Then again, you usually confuse facts with what you want to hear. It's a right-wing thing.


Ah yes, I disagree with you so I am "right-wing". Gotcha.

Also Frankie, since you like to quote dictionary definitions, here's the one for "dictator"



> 1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively


https://www.webster.com/dictionary/dictator

Unless Dubya has been appointed by the senate of ancient Rome, he is no dictator. Please notice the qualifier adjectives of "absolute" and "complete". Even in the most dire situations, 100% of the power is never concentrated in the President's hands. I know you will argue this, but pay close attention to that "absolute" and "complete".

I am puzzled though....first you try to tell us we have an oligarchy, which includes as part of its definition that fact power is in the hands of an elite few. Few =! one person. Now you claim Dubya is the dictator. Dictator = one person. You have set up a thread here where you are arguing two different and mutually exclusive things to be true. Which is it?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Hey frank, If you don't like the news, go out and make some.


Heh. Isn't that a Scoop Nisker line?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, I disagree with you so I am "right-wing". Gotcha.
> 
> Also Frankie, since you like to quote dictionary definitions, here's the one for "dictator"
> 
> ...


Excuse me, you had just claimed it was necessary for Bush to refuse to relinquish power before he could be called a dictator. Now you're claiming his power must be "absolute" and "complete". I'd say you need to pick up a better dictionary.



Wayfarer said:


> I am puzzled though....first you try to tell us we have an oligarchy, which includes as part of its definition that fact power is in the hands of an elite few. Few =! one person. Now you claim Dubya is the dictator. Dictator = one person. You have set up a thread here where you are arguing two different and mutually exclusive things to be true. Which is it?


They're not mutually exclusive. Dictatorship is one of the symptoms (if not eventualities) of oligarchy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Excuse me, you had just claimed it was necessary for Bush to refuse to relinquish power before he could be called a dictator. Now you're claiming his power must be "absolute" and "complete". I'd say you need to pick up a better dictionary.


Better dictionary? "Claiming"? Go read the Webster's link I supplied. Tell them their "claims" are wrong and that good old Mirriam is a bad dictionary. And Frank, as for the word coming from ancient Roman times....a hint here, we are in the 21st century. Please give me a list of dictators from the 20th century that relinquished power in the course of that country's normal election process.

Now tell me Jennifer Van Bergen is actually an esteemed academic and writer.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*A Better Dictionary?*

I doubt it, as you will disagree with Wiki too:



> autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. It has two possible meanings:
> 
> * Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was neither arbitrary or unaccountable, however, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
> ** In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.*


Please note that bothersome word "absolute" again. Go get 'em Frankie.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Better dictionary? "Claiming"? Go read the Webster's link I supplied. Tell them their "claims" are wrong and that good old Mirriam is a bad dictionary. And Frank, as for the word coming from ancient Roman times....a hint here, we are in the 21st century. Please give me a list of dictators from the 20th century that relinquished power in the course of that country's normal election process.


Your arguments are those of an emotionally retarded six year-old. Try and drive this debate into ridiculous semantics if that's all you know how to do, but I'd much prefer if you and pt4-whatever could address the issue at hand: Bush's usurping of power and abdication of his oath of office by the usage of signing statements. If Van Bergen is not to your liking, try the board of governors of the American Bar Association (which was referenced in my earlier post):

https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/04/bar_group_will_review_bushs_legal_challenges/


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

"Ridiculous semantics"? Sorry if I take issue with your outlandish claims backed up with citations from nutcases. I am sort of funny that way.

I will ignore the personal insult but would like to point out emotionally retarded people often exhibit keen logical abilities. Even your insults lack a sound argument.

Regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Here's somethng that might help either or both of you 

https://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/aristotlepolitics.htm


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Updated with Video


----------

