Iraq troop withdrawal to begin this summer.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13530762/

 

 

Sounds good to me.

[WCSox]

Agreed. The Iraqis should be in a position to protect their nation soon.

[Gregory Pratt]

We're cutting our losses, is what we're doing.

That's the way I view it, and I think that because of the Khali Memo from the other thread about Iraq being in a miserable state.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would contend this is being done as a combined move to appease not only voters in the U.S., but the major controlling factions of Iraqi government. The gamble they are taking is that they can still control things with a small-scale withdrawal.

 

Given how tenuous things clearly are over there, I'd characterize that as russian roulette with out troops. I'd be pretty unhappy with it if I was in the military over there. Nuke, I'm kinda surprised you are OK with this.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I would contend this is being done as a combined move to appease not only voters in the U.S., but the major controlling factions of Iraqi government. The gamble they are taking is that they can still control things with a small-scale withdrawal.

 

Given how tenuous things clearly are over there, I'd characterize that as russian roulette with out troops. I'd be pretty unhappy with it if I was in the military over there. Nuke, I'm kinda surprised you are OK with this.

 

Military official acknowledge that the New York Times' story reflects more of the political reality here at home than the security situation on the ground in Iraq, saying it's impossible to predict with any precision the number of forces that could be withdrawn that far in advance, (the end of 2007). According to one official, "The number (to be withdrawn), could be lower or it could be higher" depending entirely upon the security situation in Iraq at the time.

 

So, this story really didn't say *anything* because if the security situation deems it necessary, there's not going to be a rollback in troops.

 

While it is good that some of them may be coming home -- given the security situation in Iraq, I'm going to put that they're going to be able to pull this off at about the same belief I gave to the claims of "candy and flowers" being thrown at the Army as they were greeted on the streets.

[minors]

belief I gave to the claims of "candy and flowers" being thrown at the Army as they were greeted on the streets.

 

 

That is the way it should be every town should have a parade to welcome back there soliders. That was how it use to be in the good ole days. But of course all of that stopped with the hippies during Vietnam all they did was treat our soliders like s*** and it has continued ever since. That is was really the start of the downfall of society.

[Rex Kickass]

I thought that the downfall started when grammar was left by the wayside in school.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

That is the way it should be every town should have a parade to welcome back there soliders. That was how it use to be in the good ole days. But of course all of that stopped with the hippies during Vietnam all they did was treat our soliders like s*** and it has continued ever since. That is was really the start of the downfall of society.

Actually I was talking about the claims the administration made regarding our soldiers going to Iraq being showered with flowers and candy.

 

But nice try, now to dive headlong into the thorns. (check out the bold portions especially)

 

The hippies during Vietnam thing is really tired out. While it is impossible to prove that something never happened, there is no historical record (police reports, news accounts, etc.) proving that these "spitting incidents" in specific took place. According to Vietnam veteran and author Jerry Lembcke: There is nothing in the historical record — news or police reports, for example — suggesting the spitting incidents really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.

 

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men — some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of."

 

So...yeah. He couldn't find a single shred of evidence in the historical record for the urban myth of spat upon soldiers.

 

And oh yes...John Llewelyn from Wake Forest:

I have studied urban legends for nearly 20 years and have been certified as an expert on the subject in the federal courts. Nonetheless, it dawned on me only recently that the spitting story was a rumor that has grown into an urban legend. I never wanted to believe the story but I was afraid to investigate it for fear that it could be true.

 

Why could I not identify this fiction sooner? The power of the story and the passion of its advocates offer a powerful alchemy of guilt and fear -- emotions not associated with clearheadedness.

 

Labeling the spitting story an urban legend does not mean that something of this sort did not happen to someone somewhere. You cannot prove the negative -- that something never happened. However, most accounts of spitting emerged in the mid-1980s only after a newspaper columnist asked his readers who were Vietnam vets if they had been spit upon after the war (an odd and leading question to ask a decade after the war's end). The framing of the question seemed to beg for an affirmative answer.

 

In 1998 sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." He recounts a study of 495 news stories on returning veterans published from 1965 to 1971. That study shows only a handful (32) of instances were presented as in any way antagonistic to the soldiers. There were no instances of spitting on soldiers; what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters.

 

Opinion polls of the time show no animosity between soldiers and opponents of the war. Only 3 percent of returning soldiers recounted any unfriendly experiences upon their return.

 

So records from that era offer no support for the spitting stories. Lembcke's research does show that similar spitting rumors arose in Germany after World War I and in France after its Indochina war. One of the persistent markers of urban legends is the re-emergence of certain themes across time and space.

 

There is also a common-sense method for debunking this urban legend. One frequent test is the story's plausibility: how likely is it that the incident could have happened as described? Do we really believe that a "dirty hippie" would spit upon a fit and trained soldier? If such a confrontation had occurred, would that combat-hardened soldier have just ignored the insult? Would there not be pictures, arrest reports, a trial record or a coroner's report after such an event? Years of research have produced no such records.

[minors]

Actually I was talking about the claims the administration made regarding our soldiers going to Iraq being showered with flowers and candy.

 

But nice try, now to dive headlong into the thorns. (check out the bold portions especially)

 

The hippies during Vietnam thing is really tired out. While it is impossible to prove that something never happened, there is no historical record (police reports, news accounts, etc.) proving that these "spitting incidents" in specific took place. According to Vietnam veteran and author Jerry Lembcke: There is nothing in the historical record — news or police reports, for example — suggesting the spitting incidents really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.

 

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus.

 

 

 

Except when your mother f***ING SEEN THEM DO IT SO DON'T f***ING TELL ME THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I don't care what this little motherf***er said it would sure be nice if someone went over there and beat the s*** out of his pathetic ass

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I'm having trouble following the logic that we must respect the military yet some are ready to "beat the s*** out of his pathetic ass" with other ones so respectfully called "little motherf***er(s)".

 

Which is it? Respect the military or just kick the s*** out of the ones whose research we don't happen to agree with?

[Gregory Pratt]

Except when your mother f***ING SEEN THEM DO IT SO DON'T f***ING TELL ME THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I don't care what this little motherf***er said it would sure be nice if someone went over there and beat the s*** out of his pathetic ass

 

I second that motion, sensible as it is.

We can not allow the Liberal Hippies to go unchecked, and if that means bashing the skulls of those elitist researchers then it shall be done!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Actually I was talking about the claims the administration made regarding our soldiers going to Iraq being showered with flowers and candy.

 

But nice try, now to dive headlong into the thorns. (check out the bold portions especially)

 

The hippies during Vietnam thing is really tired out. While it is impossible to prove that something never happened, there is no historical record (police reports, news accounts, etc.) proving that these "spitting incidents" in specific took place. According to Vietnam veteran and author Jerry Lembcke: There is nothing in the historical record — news or police reports, for example — suggesting the spitting incidents really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.

 

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men — some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of."

 

So...yeah. He couldn't find a single shred of evidence in the historical record for the urban myth of spat upon soldiers.

 

And oh yes...John Llewelyn from Wake Forest:

I have studied urban legends for nearly 20 years and have been certified as an expert on the subject in the federal courts. Nonetheless, it dawned on me only recently that the spitting story was a rumor that has grown into an urban legend. I never wanted to believe the story but I was afraid to investigate it for fear that it could be true.

 

Why could I not identify this fiction sooner? The power of the story and the passion of its advocates offer a powerful alchemy of guilt and fear -- emotions not associated with clearheadedness.

 

Labeling the spitting story an urban legend does not mean that something of this sort did not happen to someone somewhere. You cannot prove the negative -- that something never happened. However, most accounts of spitting emerged in the mid-1980s only after a newspaper columnist asked his readers who were Vietnam vets if they had been spit upon after the war (an odd and leading question to ask a decade after the war's end). The framing of the question seemed to beg for an affirmative answer.

 

In 1998 sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." He recounts a study of 495 news stories on returning veterans published from 1965 to 1971. That study shows only a handful (32) of instances were presented as in any way antagonistic to the soldiers. There were no instances of spitting on soldiers; what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters.

 

Opinion polls of the time show no animosity between soldiers and opponents of the war. Only 3 percent of returning soldiers recounted any unfriendly experiences upon their return.

 

So records from that era offer no support for the spitting stories. Lembcke's research does show that similar spitting rumors arose in Germany after World War I and in France after its Indochina war. One of the persistent markers of urban legends is the re-emergence of certain themes across time and space.

 

There is also a common-sense method for debunking this urban legend. One frequent test is the story's plausibility: how likely is it that the incident could have happened as described? Do we really believe that a "dirty hippie" would spit upon a fit and trained soldier? If such a confrontation had occurred, would that combat-hardened soldier have just ignored the insult? Would there not be pictures, arrest reports, a trial record or a coroner's report after such an event? Years of research have produced no such records.

 

 

Sorry LCR. I already exposed Lenbecke for the piece of s***, lying cock-sucker anti-war hippie that he really is in a previous post. This guy has a smear the military agenda from hell and when you invoke his name and try to pass off the nonsense he spews as fact it makes me laugh.

[KipWellsFan]

Do we really have to debate whether Vietnam vets were spit on or not? Can't we just ridicule minors' idea that those events, whether real or not, had any effect on American society. Perhaps the War itself just may have had a little bit larger of an effect on American society...

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Do we really have to debate whether Vietnam vets were spit on or not? Can't we just ridicule minors' idea that those events, whether real or not, had any effect on American society. Perhaps the War itself just may have had a little bit larger of an effect on American society...

 

 

How bout we ridicule you instead for failing to realize that the treatment of veterans when they arrived home from the war was absolutely reprehensible and these hippie cock suckers spitting on them as they returned home, calling them baby-killer and other assorted vile garbage was just insult to injury.

 

It was bad enough they had to go fight a war that the politicians would not let them win but to come home and listen to and endure garbage like that from people like you made it an order of magnitude worse.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, you just said he was a member of VVAW. You never addressed the sources or methodology of his research.

 

I personally just find it more fun that we're told to respect the military yet you and Minors are slandering veterans who develop an anti-war opinion as a result calling them every name in the book because they dare to criticize.

 

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity.

-Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, you just said he was a member of VVAW. You never addressed the sources or methodology of his research.

 

I personally just find it more fun that we're told to respect the military yet you and Minors are slandering veterans who develop an anti-war opinion as a result calling them every name in the book because they dare to criticize.

 

 

Having an opinion against the war is one thing. These VVAW people were a bunch of lying cock-suckers.

 

They took people who never saw combat or never served at all and stood them in front of the United States Senate and had them make up fairy tales about atrocities that never happened. That's all I need to know about these scumbags.

 

f*** these guys.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Having an opinion against the war is one thing. These VVAW people were a bunch of lying cock-suckers.

 

They took people who never saw combat or never served at all and stood them in front of the United States Senate and had them make up fairy tales about atrocities that never happened. That's all I need to know about these scumbags.

 

f*** these guys.

Discrediting an organization he happened to join does not mean that his research and methodology is incorrect. If I was to follow your line of logic, I could say "Well Lt. Calley killed a bunch of people in My Lai so that's all I need to know about (your words here --) these scumbags." Its misrepresenting research and a really easy end around legitimate debate.

 

But please -- explain to me how we're all to have reverent respect and be in awe of soldiers ("Spitting hippies = Bad!) yet it is okay to call others "dumb motherf***ers" and "lying cocksuckers".

 

I'm just wondering why there's the double standard when one standard will work just fine.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Discrediting an organization he happened to join does not mean that his research and methodology is incorrect. If I was to follow your line of logic, I could say "Well Lt. Calley killed a bunch of people in My Lai so that's all I need to know about (your words here --) these scumbags." Its misrepresenting research and a really easy end around legitimate debate.

 

But please -- explain to me how we're all to have reverent respect and be in awe of soldiers ("Spitting hippies = Bad!) yet it is okay to call others "dumb motherf***ers" and "lying cocksuckers".

 

I'm just wondering why there's the double standard when one standard will work just fine.

 

 

I don't expect you or anyone else to respect soldiers thats a choice for people to make on their own. I do, however, expect those who do not respect soldiers to at least have the common decency to stay away from them. I do expect them not to perjure themselves in front of the United States Senate by sending phony veterans to the stand to make up phony stories about atrocities that never happened. I do expect those who dont respect what we do for a living to politely keep their opinions to themselves. The minute they voice their vile opinions of us in the open is the same minute I voice my opinions about them.

[minors]

I second that motion, sensible as it is.

We can not allow the Liberal Hippies to go unchecked, and if that means bashing the skulls of those elitist researchers then it shall be done!

 

 

So your little f***ing researcher went to all the 58,000+ funerals and all of the homecomeings to see himself? Answer no f***ing way which means he doesn't f***ing know plain and simple

 

Discrediting an organization he happened to join does not mean that his research and methodology is incorrect. If I was to follow your line of logic, I could say "Well Lt. Calley killed a bunch of people in My Lai so that's all I need to know about (your words here --) these scumbags." Its misrepresenting research and a really easy end around legitimate debate.

 

But please -- explain to me how we're all to have reverent respect and be in awe of soldiers ("Spitting hippies = Bad!) yet it is okay to call others "dumb motherf***ers" and "lying cocksuckers".

 

I'm just wondering why there's the double standard when one standard will work just fine.

 

 

Becuase these soliders are defending your freedoms while liberals go out and make them look like thugs. That is why you should honor those. But hey if you don't no big deal just no one should dare do the things these hippes did back them

[kapkomet]

Side note, IT DID HAPPEN. I know vets that were in the situation, and that's all I'm going to say about it.

[minors]

I personally just find it more fun that we're told to respect the military yet you and Minors are slandering veterans who develop an anti-war opinion as a result calling them every name in the book because they dare to criticize.

 

What are you talking about? Anti-war views is one thing lying out of your teeth and spitting a dead veterans is a completely different thing and neither you or any other liberal can say other wise.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Side note, IT DID HAPPEN. I know vets that were in the situation, and that's all I'm going to say about it.

It's impossible to prove a negative. The vast preponderance of evidence in the historical record shows that it was not some mass problem (since there's not one case of it being found in the record) The spitting was the vast exception (especially because there were no police reports, etc. in the historical record showing that it was some wide epidemic) And oh yes, Minors -- homecomings take place on military bases, so please explain to me how lines of hippies would gain access and be able to spit all over returning veterans without being arrested first (and wouldn't that make the news or at least a police report?)

 

And minors, you never did respond to the fact that this "f***ing researcher" is a Vietnam veteran himself. How do you square your vitriol towards him with your demands that everybody love the military?

 

What are you talking about? Anti-war views is one thing lying out of your teeth and spitting a dead veterans is a completely different thing and neither you or any other liberal can say other wise.

The writer of the book I was sourcing is a VIETNAM VETERAN. So, that's what I was saying -- funny how your vitriol was okay for sliming some veterans but yet we're supposed to (at the same time since they defended our freedom) hold them up on a pedestal.

[minors]

It's impossible to prove a negative. The vast preponderance of evidence in the historical record shows that it was not some mass problem (since there's not one case of it being found in the record) The spitting was the vast exception (especially because there were no police reports, etc. in the historical record showing that it was some wide epidemic) And oh yes, Minors -- homecomings take place on military bases, so please explain to me how lines of hippies would gain access and be able to spit all over returning veterans without being arrested first (and wouldn't that make the news or at least a police report?)

 

And minors, you never did respond to the fact that this "f***ing researcher" is a Vietnam veteran himself. How do you square your vitriol towards him with your demands that everybody love the military?

The writer of the book I was sourcing is a VIETNAM VETERAN. So, that's what I was saying -- funny how your vitriol was okay for sliming some veterans but yet we're supposed to (at the same time since they defended our freedom) hold them up on a pedestal.

 

 

I don't appericate anybody telling me that something I know happened didn't happen when he wasn't even their it really pissed me off. And for your record they didn't get him at the base they acted like cowards and were at the funeral home. And I personally don't care how you think of vetrans if you want to respect them fine but I wouldn't even spit on this SOB casket.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It's impossible to prove a negative. The vast preponderance of evidence in the historical record shows that it was not some mass problem (since there's not one case of it being found in the record) The spitting was the vast exception (especially because there were no police reports, etc. in the historical record showing that it was some wide epidemic) And oh yes, Minors -- homecomings take place on military bases, so please explain to me how lines of hippies would gain access and be able to spit all over returning veterans without being arrested first (and wouldn't that make the news or at least a police report?)

 

And minors, you never did respond to the fact that this "f***ing researcher" is a Vietnam veteran himself. How do you square your vitriol towards him with your demands that everybody love the military?

The writer of the book I was sourcing is a VIETNAM VETERAN. So, that's what I was saying -- funny how your vitriol was okay for sliming some veterans but yet we're supposed to (at the same time since they defended our freedom) hold them up on a pedestal.

 

 

Oh so now we've gone from "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!" to "Well it might of happened but it wasn't a huge problem"

 

LOL!

 

The fact that it happened AT ALL is a testament to the utter disgrace that was the post-Vietnam era treatment of veterans.

 

Just because he wore the uniform doesn't make him any less wrong for his lies and slander about his fellow soldiers. What this "man" is is a disgrace to everyone who ever wore that uniform.

Edited June 27, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[minors]

Oh so now we've gone from "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!" to "Well it might of happened but it wasn't a huge problem"

 

LOL!

 

The fact that it happened AT ALL is a testament to the utter disgrace that was the post-Vietnam era treatment of veterans.

 

Just because he wore the uniform doesn't make him any less wrong for his lies and slander about his fellow soldiers. What this "man" is is a disgrace to everyone who ever wore that uniform.

 

That is correct Nuke, I believe you have won this debate

Edited June 27, 2006 by minors