I guess I'm responding to this because the term "peacenik" comes across to me as negative. theres a big diference between a "peacenik" and spitting on a vet's face. I was only 4 or so when the war ended, I have no actual memories of it. I do know that I may not have supported that one either.... i would probably have been called a peacenik, however, i never would have done such a disgusting thing. And again, the suggestion is that its as simple as "against the war, therefore against the troops". I am not now, nor have i ever been against troops doing their job.

now, on a completely different note, i have heard again, and again, and again, stories that say OUR cia were the spitters, trying to rile folks up, and turn them against "peaceniks". is there ANY evidence to substantiate that rumour? again, i was four, so i have NO idea... just a question, not trying to pick a fight.
(I'm really not much of a fighter at all am i?)

Originally posted by jackiesdaisy1935
I enjoyed reading that story and realize not every single actor and actress is mindless in Hollywood. My husband Don, who is 74 now, served in VietNam as well as I know your husband did, Mugsy, and I never understood why these peaceniks would spit on our men coming home after they were willing to give their lives to help other people. I think that is the shame our country lives with, not the willingness of our young men going to war to help other people, but the way the soldiers were treated when they came home. They should have been treated as heros, I don't know anything that these peaceniks have accomplished besides carrying signs and disrupting the peace.
Jackie