On 29 Jan 2004 05:29:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to
more American deaths,


I couldn't disagree more.

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, whether moral or materiel
support, is still cheering the opposition.


That's like blaming the ambulance driver for the car
crash he responds to.
I don't see your connection. A better analogy would be protestors
blocking the road and claiming the crash victim didn't deserve
treatment because his car tags were expired.


Many americans at the time felt that war was both illegal
and immoral, and felt it their civic duty to protest US
presence. My personal feeling is that the politicians
of both flavor did not care about public opinion, and
the broad spectrum of anti-war feeling encouraged them
to end the war. Thereby preventing any more deaths from
it.
What? Did they care about public opinion or not?

The war was almost won in 1968/69. The NVA (the real enemy) would have
retreated if not for the vociferous protestors and waffling
politicians at home. That encouraged them to struggle on and outlast
our nation's resolve. Also to drag out the Paris Peace Negotiations.

If you look at battle and casualty maps, it is obvious this was a
border war. If the NVA had been pushed back into Laos and Cambodia,
the RVNs could have handled the Viet Cong.

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country. My opinion of the protestors/hooligans is that they were
a bunch of worthless, whiny *******s. We can discuss that if you like.


Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =