The Four Color Media Monitor: This is what Marvel wants Captain America doing during the Vietnam war

Polygon gushes over a new Spider-Man miniseries where Cap makes an appearance, in a tale that looks like it makes the US out to be the bad guy, and Cap is seemingly going against the goodies:

There may be a panoply of Spider-Man comics on the shelves these days, but Spider-Man: Life Story #1 stands apart. It’s a re-examination of Peter Parker’s earliest days as a web-slinger, chronicled in real time. With issue #1 focusing on the 1960s — the era in which the first Spider-Man comic was published — Life Story is taking a decade-by-decade approach to Peter’s life and times, mixing the real-life history that informed his published adventures with those very same adventures.

There are, unfortunately, too many bad Spidey comics on the shelves these days, and it's leading nowhere. The Inferior Dr. Octopus was a definite nadir. Based on how this latest item is written, it'll fit down there quite nicely alongside it. And mixing real life with fiction is nothing novel either.

So it’s no surprise that Spider-Man: Life Story #1 is a Spider-Man story — except for when it isn’t. Sure, it’s definitely about Peter in the ’60s, not long after he was bitten by everyone’s favorite radioactive spider, but it’s also a look into just what some of Marvel’s other A-Listers were doing at the time. By revising Marvel Comics history with a modern eye and blending it with Marvel Universe history, Life Story #1 does what the real comics of the ’60s didn’t, couldn’t.

Oh really, what couldn't they do? They couldn't set their stories during WW2, as Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos did? Or Vietnam, as Spidey did when Flash Thompson was drafted, and Iron Man's early premise was built on that too? Or even behind the Iron Curtain, as at least a few Marvel protagonists like Ant-Man, IM and the Hulk were written into? I don't follow their logic here. But what comes next explains exactly why it was better if they didn't:

Captain America comics have never really addressed the Vietnam War, despite existing contemporaneously. The newly returned Captain America series of the 1960s spent most of its time trying to sort out Steve Rogers’ newly formed identity, and Steve’s stories have not had the chance retrospectively address the Vietnam War thanks to the slip-and-slide Marvel’s timeline.

But Spider-Man: Life Story #1, isn’t just playing on our retrospective understanding of America’s role in the Vietnam War, it’s playing on our modern understanding of Captain America. In 2019, Steve has a very clear place in the world. And that place is standing up against bullies, no matter where they’re from.

Well gee, I don't think Daredevil ever officially addressed the Vietnam war either, but neither did they make communists out to be the good guys in every sense. Let's also remember Black Widow was a defect and dissident from the original Soviet Union. And why does this dreadful site think Steve's place in 2019 is any more clearer than any other era? They naturally forget that just a few years ago, Axel Alonso approved one of the most notorious tales of all - Steve Rogers as Nazi/Hydra agent. Under that premise, Cap's place definitely wasn't clear at all. And he didn't just spend time sorting out his identity after being unfrozen and readjusting to the modern world. He continued fighting various villains of both the sci-fi and and organized syndicate variety, and even fell in love with Agent 13 (Sharon Carter) from SHIELD, whose boss, former WW2 commander Nick Fury, was now a top director for.

Let's also note that during the Golden Age, there were plenty of comics that, even as they brought up WW2, the superheroes were kept on the sidelines of the war, because when you're dealing with beings wielding titanic power, they could end much of the war in a short time, unlike the allied militaries in real life, and to put sci-fi superheroes into a real life war risks insulting the soldiers working very hard to defeat the Nazis and Soviets, and have no fantasy-based powers to help them. So why is it such a big deal to put Cap, or any costumed heroes, into these real life settings when it can run the gauntlet of being farfetched and making a mockery of reality? Answer: because for the social justice propagandists, this is all meaningless; their partisan politics matter far more.

And what is our exact understanding of the role in Vietnam? That it was all a waste of time because the enemy was communist rather than National Socialist? Honestly, I'm just not sure I understand what they mean by "modern" when it's all in the eye of the beholder in the end. They go on to discuss Cap's allegedly never addressing 'Nam, and say:

In real time, Steve was unfrozen in a 1964 comic — but in Marvel time, that doesn’t work anymore. The characters of the Marvel universe rarely age, and as stories compound on one another, the history that they’ve experienced gets more and more vague. In order to keep Steve as “modern” as possible, the dates in which he was unfrozen and the Avengers were formed keep wiggling around, meaning the Steve Rogers in comics today did not wake to see the ’60s.

Wow, cryogenic freezing literally doesn't work anymore? I guess the big irony here is that they must not like Mark Millar's Ultimates, even though it was made to appeal to the leftist who thinks cheap sensationalism is a great idea to boot. In that book, IIRC, the frozen-in-ice premise was still employed, only more around the turn of the century this time. But if it so matters, why don't they complain the premise of Nick Fury taking some kind of drug to keep him ageless and living as long or longer than Wolverine might doesn't work anymore either? One could argue this is the perfect time to lean more towards what was a workable premise in some sci-fi tales, with cryogenic freezing keeping people in suspended animation for an epoch until they could be thawed without concern over illnesses that led to it in the first place. I remember an episode from Star Trek: TNG featuring cryogenics, and even Sylvester Stallone's Demolition Man from 1993 made use of the idea. Why not try it in comics too? Who knows, even Magneto might work well under that premise, seeing as his own background as a WW2 Holocaust survivor could be considered aging along with everything else.

But what about Steve’s actual ’60s stories?

That’s where things get even weirder. The Steve Rogers of the 1960s wasn’t just unfrozen in fiction, but revived in reality. When he re-debuted in 1964’s The Avengers #4, a Captain America comic hadn’t been in regular publication since 1949.

He was a character born out of war who was resurfacing into an era defined by a totally different war, and the creatives behind him were still figuring out who the character would be for a new generation. Steve’s actual published stories during the Vietnam era didn’t really touch Vietnam at all. There were glimpses — Steve interacted with the occasional countercultural activist, vaguely weighed in on military responsibility, and so on — but no one seemed to think Captain America should serve any more than he already had.

If memory serves, there were a handful of Cap stories in the early 50s where he actually fought commies, though for some reason at that time, they didn't work out, were written off as non-canon, and it would only be in the 60s that Cap would finally brought back into continuity successfully, and even battle commie-style villains too, including the Crimson Dynamo. And while there were a handful of comics at the time that did allude to 'Nam, much like with WW2, they refrained from serious involvement for the same reasons, because again, superpowered beings could end a war much faster than real life mortals. Just think of what Thor could do with the weather spells in his magic Uru hammer against the Viet Cong! That's why even a guy like Cap, though his powers and skills are far from as elaborate as Thor's, would otherwise not work out well in a Vietnam setting, unless maybe it were confined to the sidelines as before.

By and large, Steve’s stories in the ’60s and ’70s revolved around his adventures on the homefront, with plenty of extreme metaphor mixed with camp-infused slice-of-life drama. This doesn’t mean that Steve’s stories in the ’60s and ’70s were completely sanitized of real world politics. Events like the original Secret Empire tackled metaphorical Watergate-level scandals and pressed questions about the morality of American government, even if Cap himself was never questioned about whether or not he’d go overseas.

And why is this so important he take part in a real life war? The same people who'd claim certain ideas today like combatting Islamic terrorism are outdated have no problem if the story at hand serves their agenda. Indeed, how fascinating they think it's such a big deal Cap be plunked into the middle of 'Nam proper, but not that he combat the modern crisis of Islamic terrorism anywhere.

Keep in mind that at this point Cap not only had a secret identity to maintain, but also had no real defined origin story or history — comics were still trying to sort out just who Steve Rogers even was, what his powers were, and where he fit into the Marvel Universe at large.

Perhaps even more importantly, the era of the “super soldier” had shifted dramatically by the time Steve was put back into print. Captain America did the job for World War II comics, but for the Vietnam era, Marvel created new soldier-heroes like Frank Castle (the Punisher), representing a more “extreme,” guns-a-blazing, hard-boiled (and costly) patriotism that reflected the national mood. Frank was as much a Captain America in the Vietnam era as Steve was for WWII — and a metaphorical fish hook on which any of Steve’s timely Vietnam-based stories would have snagged.

Oh, please. I thought Steve did have an origin of some sort set up, where he was a patriotic-minded New York native who took up the serum project the US government was working in the Golden Age MCU origins, and soon found a sidekick in Bucky, though Stan Lee, who disliked the concept of teen sidekicks proper, did away with that when he and Jack Kirby brought Cap back in the Silver Age. As for Frank Castle, by the time his Vietnam origins were more fully explored in the mid-80s, Vietnam had become something of an afterthought. I do think the MCU did go a bit far with using real life settings like those, as it complicated use of characters introduced during those periods, like Sha-Shan, the girl who almost married Flash Thompson after they'd met during 'Nam, and she was phased out in the late 80s. IMO, this could all be modified by retconning the real life settings later on so that the characters could've been connected to fictional wars and stuff like that. Yet, as this new miniseries demonstrates, Marvel's still making themselves look ridiculous under the stewardship of C.B. Cebulski, wasting tons of resources for the sake of stories that are little more than far-left political statements. And at the end of the slimy article:

Steve, meanwhile, has gone “traitor.” His place in the war is revealed to be not as a jingoistic WW2-redux representation of America’s fighting men, but as a protector of Vietnamese civilians caught in the conflict. This particular take would have never flown in 1964 — but it’s the perfect statement of purpose and growth for Captain America in 2019.

And this confirms the very disturbing premise the story's built upon, which the panel on the side hints at: it goes by a narrative that Walter Cronkite may have been a leading advocate of, that US soldiers made no distinctions between enemy soldier and innocent civilian during the war. I take issue with the notion that premise wouldn't have flown in the 60s; it most certainly would with the anti-war, pro-communist leftist crowd that rode around in Volkswagens. Additionally disturbing is how Iron Man is made to look bad here, as Tony Stark is depicted as the weapons supplier for the US army, which Cap takes issue with.

And that's why, this new Spidey miniseries is just more waste of resources for the sake of churning out propaganda to appeal to a far-left crowd that probably won't even buy the books, seeing how specialty stores continue to close down as nobody cares about the products they're selling anymore. On which note, whatever happened to the retailers who slammed Axel Alonso 2 years ago at a business summit for foisting all that garbage that cost them customers? If they're not protesting now, that's pretty strange indeed, since this current product is little more than an outgrowth of the same politics that led to the downfall of the specialty store in the first place.

Labels: bad editors, Captain America, Iron Man, marvel comics, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Spider-Man, violence

"same reasons, because again, superpowered beings could end a war much faster than real life mortals. Just think of what Thor could do with the weather spells in his magic Uru hammer against the Viet Cong! That's why even a guy like Cap, though his powers and skills are far from as elaborate as Thor's, would otherwise not work out well in a Vietnam setting, unless maybe it were confined to the sidelines as before."

Thor visited Vietnam in journey into Mystery 117.

Posted by Anonymous | 8:17 AM

"I take issue with the notion that premise wouldn't have flown in the 60s; it most certainly would with the anti-war, pro-communist leftist crowd that rode around in Volkswagens."

Heck, that would have flown well with George Lucas and his ilk, especially when they were making Star Wars (yes, Star Wars was written by Lucas specifically to be an anti-Vietnam War/pro-Vietcong tract, and he manipulated a LOT of American people as a result. That's ALSO why I'm rooting for the Galactic Empire starting on 2016, since I am NOT fond of being manipulated into rooting for the Vietcong by making them out to be American, especially when I am NOT fond of rooting for Commies or being tricked into doing so especially.).

And yeah, I feared this might eventually happen. Quite frankly, it was better off if they DIDN'T push that at all back in the 1960s. And I wasn't fond of Cronkite's backstabbing us. I also fear that they'll do something similar with Indiana Jones when 5 comes out inevitably (have Indiana side with the Vietcong over America. They narrowly dodged a bullet by making the Soviets bad guys, yet at the same time, they still demonized McCarthyism and underestimated the Soviets' scope of influence. Lucas made Star Wars as pro-Vietcong propaganda, and even Spielberg pretty much supported the likes of Castro's Cuba.).

Posted by eotness | 9:21 AM

There were plenty of comics during Vietnam which addressed the Vietnam war, US government oppression at home and lots of SJW issues. They were called "underground comics" and they had an adult perspective. For a large percentage of "the elite" in this country e.g. Disney executives, it's always 1968 because that was the most memorable period in their lives. They got to be self righteous little revolutionaries throwing rocks at the police, protesting against the draft and for the communists, holding marches and trying really hard to be best friends with black people. The leaders of the movement were the sons and daughters of the elite then, which smoothed their way to being elite today. Now they sit in their mansions in Malibu on the beach and muse nostalgically about how they can continue the revolution using the facilities of the multinational media company they control.

Posted by Mr. Bee | 10:00 PM

"There were plenty of comics during Vietnam which addressed the Vietnam war, US government oppression at home and lots of SJW issues. They were called "underground comics" and they had an adult perspective."

These times are different. Sjws are not content to keep their message to receptive adults in .

They have enough power to mandate that all comics address their topics of interest with their point of view at all times. yet retain the amatuerish level of craft that plagued many alternative comics.

Remember, the grand strategy for the American comic industry these days is to use comics as teaching tools, tools that teach progressive values, in k-12 schools. A Captain America comic that shows Captain America siding with a New Left coalition of communists, women and minorities against an unpopular "white supremacist" war, "in the age of Trump" could readily be ordered by many woke teachers and librarians and that would give some sjw creators some work.

I mean, we already have this
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/books/superman-versus-the-ku-klux-klan-by-rick-bowers/
https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/superman-versus-the-ku-klux-klan

and this
"The most arresting of the currently announced titles comes from award-winning YA cartoonist Gene Yang, creator of the award-winning graphic novels American Born Chinese and Boxers and Saints. Yang, currently writing New Super-Man at DC Comics, is working with DC Zoom on Superman Smashes the Klan, which will be released in a serial format before being collected into a single edition. "
https://www.polygon.com/comics/2018/2/5/16974926/dc-comics-kids-books-super-hero-girls

so Captain America vs the Establishment is not such far reach.

Posted by Saber Tooth Tiger Mike | 11:47 AM

The cultural climate has changed a lot since the undies were published. Richard Nixon would be considered a SJW today. Don Trump's history of draft evasion and his isolationism, and his foreign policy in general, would have made him anathema to 1960 s conservatives. The war in Vietnam was generally unpopular; it was a war tumbled into by accident with no real military goal, one that America continued fighting only because the government did not want to look weak by abandoning it. Nobody, right or left, wanted to fight the war. They only differed on how to get out of it. In the comics, Nick Fury came out as being against the war; past 1965 no heroes came out in favour of it, except maybe the guys in some of the Charlton romance books.

None of the underground artists were trying to be the black man's best friend. Many underground artists modelled their portrayals of black people on old comics, not life; their Negro characters often looked and talked like exaggerated versions of old fashioned racist stereotypes, enough to make Ebony White seem like an NAACP public service message. Angelfood McSpade didn't earn Robert Crumb many friends amongst his black brothers and sisters. As for other artists, guys like Grass Green probably had enough black relatives that they weren't worried about forcing themselves to be the black man's best friend. The violence towards women in the work of many of the male undergrounders was already controversial at the time and would seem even more abhorrent now to anyone with even a smidgen of social conscience.

Most of the undergrounders came from working class or middle class backgrounds; some did time in the army; can't think of any who came from the elite.

Posted by Anonymous | 9:48 PM

First of all, the Vietnam War contrary to contemporary history was not unpopular. As a matter of fact, Nixon won reelection by a landslide against a very anti-war candidate, and if that's not enough to convince you, the third-largest parade in New York during that time was in fact a pro-Vietnam War parade. If anything, the anti-war protestors (which, contrary to the moniker, most of them were actually pro-Communist rather than truly anti-war) were a vocal minority, only given airtime because the left-wing media also happened to be biased against the war.

Second of all, we actually HAD a very clear-cut goal when we went to Vietnam, and in fact it was the same as any and all wars we had involvement in during the Cold War: It was to stop Communism. Now, you could argue that we didn't really have an effective strategy (which to be fair was mostly because the higher-ups wanted to avoid a nuclear war with the Soviets or the Chinese), but we most certainly had a coherent goal of trying to stop Communism.

Third of all, Trump did not evade the draft. He did get a deferment from serving due to an illness, yes, but that is NOT the same thing as draft evasion.

Posted by eotness | 1:07 AM

The goal of fiction is not uplift black people. If black people are stereotyped a certain way, it is because there is a certain percentage of them reinforcing the stereotypes. Many attempts have been made to "uplift black people" but the vast majority of them just aren't doing well in STEM fields, or want to live in two-parent households. O

I found some of Howard Crumb's portrayals of Negros to be realistic--particularly his biography of a blues musician. Working class American black people do behave and they way he portrayed them. I think the real issue is that these underground cartoonists were WHITE and were not allowed to show black people as they are the way black comedians and entertainers are allowed to. White people are only allowed to portray black people like Obama, well-spoken, highly educated and well-socialized in the hopes that these portrayals will fix the problems of black underachievement. They ignore the fact that a good number of blacks DON'T WANT TO ASSIMILATE into white society and reject the Huxtables as being "Too white" and that many black people fail to do as well as whites even when trying and need lower standards to get into college.

Violence against women in fiction is not the same thing as violence against women in real life. Only a moron would think that a women being decapitated in some indie comic is an incitement to kill women in real life. Morons come in all shapes and persuasions, liberal and conservative.

Posted by Saber Tooth Tiger Mike | 4:44 AM

"Trump did not evade the draft. He did get a deferment from serving due to an illness, yes, but that is NOT the same thing as draft evasion."

Trump's dad got one of his doctor tenants to write a letter that Donnie should be kept home from the draft because of bone spurs. But bless your heart for thinking that is a legitimate reason for draft deferral.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/12/27/trump-vietnam-war-bone-spur-diagnosis/2420475002/

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/show-us-bone-spurs-ex-nebraska-senator-demands-trumps-x-rays-dont-grow/

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/military-refuses-to-participate-in-trumps-parade-citing-bone-spurs

Posted by Anonymous | 12:46 PM

" Nixon won reelection by a landslide against a very anti-war candidate, and if that's not enough to convince you, the third-largest parade in New York during that time was in fact a pro-Vietnam War parade."

Nixon was actually the peace candidate, pushing for more negotiation with communist nations. He won the 1968 election because Vietnam was a Democratic war, started under Kennedy and escalated under LBJ.

Stopping communism is not a sensible goal for a war; wars are about land and resources and security, not vague ideology. It is no wonder that no-one knew what they were doing there or how to accomplish it,

Posted by Anonymous | 12:55 PM

"Trump's dad got one of his doctor tenants to write a letter that Donnie should be kept home from the draft because of bone spurs. But bless your heart for thinking that is a legitimate reason for draft deferral."

That's still not the same thing as draft dodging. Draft dodging, last I checked, involved burning draft cards or fleeing to Canada. Trump isn't a draft dodger any more than George Lucas was from being exempt via being diabetic. Heck, by your logic, Steve Rogers was a draft dodger simply because he was too sickly to even be allowed to fight in World War II.

"Nixon was actually the peace candidate, pushing for more negotiation with communist nations. He won the 1968 election because Vietnam was a Democratic war, started under Kennedy and escalated under LBJ."

No, he was not the peace candidate, that was George McGovern, his opponent. Also, he did the Christmas Bombing of Cambodia back in 1972 in order to force the North Vietnamese over to the talks, and had even orchestrated a means to ensure South Vietnam could still fight off the North and remain free. Prager University even detailed this plan right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk If ANYONE is to be blamed for the mess that happened afterward, it was the Democrat congress that decided to exploit Watergate to take over both parts of that place and reneign on the deal that Nixon made by cutting all military funding, including the one for one plan, essentially leaving the South Vietnamese more helpless than Castle Wyvern when Hakon sabotaged the bow strings in the Gargoyles pilot.

"Stopping communism is not a sensible goal for a war; wars are about land and resources and security, not vague ideology. It is no wonder that no-one knew what they were doing there or how to accomplish it,"

If stopping Nazism or, heck, even getting revenge on Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor, is considered a sensible goal for a war via World War II, then stopping Communism's spread most certainly is one as well. Heck, I've seen an instance where a war was fought over the literal results of a soccer game, so halting Communism is most certainly a sensible goal overall (for goodness sakes, the Cold War's entire POINT was to stop communism, and guess what? Ronald Reagan more than proved that to be a sensible goal, let alone an accomplishable goal by having the USSR collapse). Here's another Prager U video for why we fought in Vietnam, BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EunyfX-Zjo4

Posted by eotness | 1:25 PM

Correction, it was actually the Captain of the Guard who did the sabotage, but my point still stands.

Posted by eotness | 1:33 PM

Nixon ran in 1968 against Hubert Humphrey, not George McGovern. Humphrey had been vp under Johnson and was saddled with the legacy of LBJ's war. Nixon was the peace candidate in 1968. His goal in 1972 was still to get out of the war, but he thought it had to be done through a show of force so as not to lose face.

Trump was not a draft dodger. He was a draft evader. His illness was not enough to keep anyone out of the war who did not have a rich father and a sympathetic Doctor.

World War 2 had definite military goals: prevent invasion of England, liberate occupied territories, defeat Hitler. There was an ideological component to the war, but it had concrete achievable goals. In Vietnam, the only goal was how do we get out without looking weak.

The big pro war parade was probably the one in 1967. By another year or two, popular opinion had strongly shifted against the war.

Posted by Anonymous | 2:09 PM

"to put sci-fi superheroes into a real life war risks insulting the soldiers working very hard to defeat the Nazis and Soviets, and have no fantasy-based powers to help them."
What soldiers working very hard to defeat the soviets? The USSR fought on the side of America during world war II, and America has never gone to war with Russia. Any clashes have been minor or through proxies. The only soldiers who worked hard to defeat the soviets were nazi soldiers.
The members of the Justice Society all joined branches of the military when war broke out; Captain America, the human torch, Namor, many of the other Timely heroes all fought in the war. Sparky Watts used his superpowers to fight in the war. Green Lantern used his power ring against German planes. Namor and the Torch turned back a German invasion of Britain. The Quality Comics heroes seemed to break in and out of concentration camps every month.

Posted by Anonymous | 2:12 PM

Article: In real time, Steve was unfrozen in a 1964 comic — but in Marvel time, that doesn’t work anymore. The characters of the Marvel universe rarely age, and as stories compound on one another, the history that they’ve experienced gets more and more vague. In order to keep Steve as “modern” as possible, the dates in which he was unfrozen and the Avengers were formed keep wiggling around, meaning the Steve Rogers in comics today did not wake to see the ’60s.
Avi's comment: Wow, cryogenic freezing literally doesn't work anymore?

Freezing still works for Steve; it is the 1964 date that doesn't work anymore. He is getting unfrozen later and later to keep him from becoming a senior citizen.

Posted by Anonymous | 2:13 PM

"Nixon ran in 1968 against Hubert Humphrey, not George McGovern. Humphrey had been vp under Johnson and was saddled with the legacy of LBJ's war. Nixon was the peace candidate in 1968. His goal in 1972 was still to get out of the war, but he thought it had to be done through a show of force so as not to lose face."

Hubert Humphrey, however, was his candidate in 1972, and actually WAS the peace candidate. That ALONE shows that Nixon was fighting to end the war with us Americans and the Free World as victors. He was NEVER the peace candidate. If he was, he would have lost 1972 due to Humphrey being even MORE of one, by your logic. And quite frankly, I would have done the same. I would NOT have abandoned Vietnam to the Communists, and instead, I would have fought it to win it. Also, the actual reason McGovern lost was because his running mate happened to be a lunatic. It had absolutely nothing to do with Vietnam.

"Trump was not a draft dodger. He was a draft evader. His illness was not enough to keep anyone out of the war who did not have a rich father and a sympathetic Doctor."

Dodge and Evasion have the exact same meaning (to avoid something), so no, when you say he's a draft evader, you essentially mean he's a draft dodger, since they mean literally the same thing.

"World War 2 had definite military goals: prevent invasion of England, liberate occupied territories, defeat Hitler. There was an ideological component to the war, but it had concrete achievable goals. In Vietnam, the only goal was how do we get out without looking weak."

Actually, our reason for even BEING in Vietnam in the first place also dealt with definite military goals. Specifically, to prevent Communism from overtaking Indochina. And guess what? When our Congress backstabbed the South Vietnamese, the Domino Theory was ultimate proven right. It's pretty much the same reason why we fought the Korean War, heck, why there was even a Cold War at all (since the whole reason the Cold War even exists is in order to stop Communism. By your logic, the Cold War itself has an unfeasible military strategy as a whole).

"The big pro war parade was probably the one in 1967. By another year or two, popular opinion had strongly shifted against the war."

Actually, even after 1968, public opinion was firmly for the war. Actually, if anything, Tet had the American populace demanding we double down on the war. Heck, a Harris poll dated 1969 actually made it clear that less than 10% of the American populace wanted to pull out if it meant a Communist victory. Not to mention, use common sense, if popular opinion had truly shifted against the war, don't you think Hubert Humphrey would have easily won the election in 1972 instead of Nixon winning reelection by a landslide?

Posted by eotness | 2:48 PM

"had even orchestrated a means to ensure South Vietnam could still fight off the North and remain free. Prager University even detailed this plan right here: "

There is no Prager University. PragerU, or PragerUnited, is a forum for a radio conspiracy theorist to sound off on his issues. It has no academic standing and he doesn't teach or give academic degrees. It is no different from watching AJ, except that it is even phonier because of the deceptive name that leads the gullible to think a real university is behind the videos.

In American English, draft dodgers usually means the guys who were drafted and committed a crime by refusing to serve, as for example by going to Canada, while draft evaders were the ones who used technically legal means to get out of their obligation to serve. But the terms are often used loosely and overlap, so yes, if you insist, Trump is a draft dodger.

You still have the candidates mixed up! Nixon ran against Humphrey in 1968. Nixon was the peace candidate in that election. He ran against McGovern in 1972. According to one authority, "the actual reason McGovern lost was because his running mate happened to be a lunatic. It had absolutely nothing to do with Vietnam."

It is hard to take seriously an analysis of an election by someone who does not know who the candidates were!

Posted by Anonymous | 7:22 AM

"There is no Prager University. PragerU, or PragerUnited, is a forum for a radio conspiracy theorist to sound off on his issues. It has no academic standing and he doesn't teach or give academic degrees. It is no different from watching AJ, except that it is even phonier because of the deceptive name that leads the gullible to think a real university is behind the videos."

It's an online university, and besides, it's still closer to an actual university than our sorry excuses of the university systems where they give out completely useless "academic" degrees in, say, basket weaving or socialist theories by the left wing (why do you THINK Antifa, BLM, OWS, and the like got created? Bill Ayers even bragged about using the current university system to continue with the revolution). At least it teaches actual history instead of Howard Zinn stuff (unless you think Zinn's material is actual history?).

"In American English, draft dodgers usually means the guys who were drafted and committed a crime by refusing to serve, as for example by going to Canada, while draft evaders were the ones who used technically legal means to get out of their obligation to serve. But the terms are often used loosely and overlap, so yes, if you insist, Trump is a draft dodger."

Except he is not. Heck, his father was the one who insisted he not go, I don't think Trump ever gave ANY indication that he himself had any say in the decision. Bill Clinton came closer to being an ACTUAL draft dodger by, you know, deliberately ensuring he avoided the Vietnam War. I don't even consider George Lucas a draft dodger since he at least attempted to meet the draft despite not wanting to go to Vietnam and got exempted for diabeties, and I have a LOT of distaste for him especially after he tricked scores of Americans into rooting for the Vietcong via Star Wars. Besides, if we were to go by that logic, Steve Rogers ALSO is a draft dodger just because he was exempt five times from going to World War II.

"You still have the candidates mixed up! Nixon ran against Humphrey in 1968. Nixon was the peace candidate in that election. He ran against McGovern in 1972. According to one authority, "the actual reason McGovern lost was because his running mate happened to be a lunatic. It had absolutely nothing to do with Vietnam.""

1. I did not mix up the candidates. Heck, I even specifically said that McGovern would have won the 1972 election instead of Nixon winning REelection. And he was still not the peace candidate in 1968, either. He was elected to ensure Vietnam was a victory. A Harris poll in 1969 even made clear that no one in America wanted to leave Vietnam if it meant letting the Communists won. As far as McGovern and his running mate Thomas Eagleton, that actually was the case. Read here if you don't believe me: https://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election,_1972 Specifically, "The nominee after a nasty primary battle was South Dakota Senator George McGovern, and initially his running mate was Thomas Eagleton. Eagleton had a secret history of mental illness (complete with electric shock treatments to his brain) that was revealed after he accepted the nomination. Although McGovern said he was "1000% behind Eagleton," the insanity issue threatened to destroy the credibility of McGovern's crusade and Eagleton was forced off the ticket." Actually, if anything, McGovern was the peace candidate due to his insistence on granting amnesty to draft dodgers, which Nixon refused to do.

And honestly, you want to be taken seriously? How about you use your real name and account instead of listing your name as anonymous?

Posted by eotness | 7:47 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

Posted by Kevin Ryan | 8:03 AM

A bit of a correction, but it was an anonymous user making those accusations, not Sabre Tooth Tiger Mike. He if anything is more likely to agree with you. Agreed with everything else, however.

Posted by eotness | 8:26 AM

Anyone here reading the accusations regarding a "draft evasion" from Donald Trump should not be misled by the links to articles. They contain nothing of to indicate any wrong doing on Trump's part, nor to confirm Saber's wild fantasy.

1. The USA Today story is primarily an accusation by the daughters of the doctor who diagnosed Trump with bone spurs. they claim their father jeopardized his career and risked prison by falsifying medical diagnosis and records, just to do the Trump family "favors." All this is presented without any evidence.

2. The Rawstory link consists of Democrat Senator Bob Kerry demanding that Donald Trump undergo medical procedures to "prove" he had bone spurs which existed 50 years ago. Yep, that's the extent of that one.

3. The New Yorker article is literally a parody and contains no factual information of any kind regarding Trump.

So, the poster comes out of the these links posted to bolster his mythology not only having not proven a blsssed thing, but having shredded any credibility he might have had. So, please take this into account when reviewing his commentary on the wisdom of Marvel casting Captain America as an agent of the Vietcong. It worked so well for Marvel when they made Cap into a Nazi

Posted by Kevin Ryan | 1:15 PM

Prager U is an online university? With no real online courses, no exams or written assignments, no course credits and no degrees. And no regular faculty. Other than Youtube videos, which are described as five minute 'courses' with an optional quiz. Even Trump University, which purported to teach how to get rich on borrowed money and had to pay back millions in tuition to defrauded students, had more credibility than that.

On Trump, there is no dispute that he got out of being drafted first through four educational exemptions and then through a diagnosis of bone spurs. There is no dispute that the bone spurs did not interfere with his playing college running sports, and that his doctors now say he is in perfect health without mentioning them. The only surviving people with direct knowledge of the matter, other than Trump, say the bone spurs were a trumped up excuse. The doctor did not do anything unusual; there were doctors who wrote excuse notes for rich patient's families all the time, just like there were doctors who wrote medical prescriptions for alcohol during Prohibition, mostly on Fridays.

Steve Rogers tried to serve in the military and was refused, although he later was admitted once he used a drug to bulk up. Trump never made any effort to serve in the military.

Posted by Anonymous | 1:39 PM

"Prager U is an online university? With no real online courses, no exams or written assignments, no course credits and no degrees. And no regular faculty. Other than Youtube videos, which are described as five minute 'courses' with an optional quiz. Even Trump University, which purported to teach how to get rich on borrowed money and had to pay back millions in tuition to defrauded students, had more credibility than that."

Like I said, it's still a heck of a lot better than most of what comes out of so-called "universities" today, where most people are taught "gender studies", "critical race theory", "the phallus" (yes, such a course actually exists on the college curriculum), or teaching kids to be revolutionaries for socialism, many times leaving them ill-equipped to actually work in the work force, or even if they do technically teach stuff like Chaucer or stuff like that, that's more of a backdrop to pushing far left views such as promoting the Equal Rights Amendment or advocating for free sex. And I'd know, I had to sit through a few of those courses myself. Sure, you can get a degree in, say, "basket weaving", but it's a worthless degree especially when it comes to getting out in the real world.

"On Trump, there is no dispute that he got out of being drafted first through four educational exemptions and then through a diagnosis of bone spurs. There is no dispute that the bone spurs did not interfere with his playing college running sports, and that his doctors now say he is in perfect health without mentioning them. The only surviving people with direct knowledge of the matter, other than Trump, say the bone spurs were a trumped up excuse. The doctor did not do anything unusual; there were doctors who wrote excuse notes for rich patient's families all the time, just like there were doctors who wrote medical prescriptions for alcohol during Prohibition, mostly on Fridays."

So? Technically, being club-footed would not stop you from playing college running sports, yet it DOES make you exempt from being in the military, which requires a LOT more physical activity than college sports, and also is very dangerous since if some imperfection acts up during a combat situation, you'll risk countless of your own men just to get medical attention. This isn't anything like sports. And quite frankly, I don't see you condemning, say, Bill Clinton, who actually DID draft-dodge in the Vietnam War, and in the most despicable manner, too according to Col. Holmes Notarized Statement As Entered in Congressional Record (Page: H5551) 7/30/93 September 7, 1992. Heck, George Lucas came far closer to being a draft dodger with his contemptuous treatment of the American armed forces and promotion of the Viet Cong in various sources, including Star Wars, and even HE got exempt due to being diabetic.

"Steve Rogers tried to serve in the military and was refused, although he later was admitted once he used a drug to bulk up. Trump never made any effort to serve in the military."

Trump also never made any effort to draft dodge either (don't forget, it was his DAD who got him exempt). And believe me, if he were to draft dodge, he'd probably pull the same stunt Bill Clinton did to Holmes.

Posted by eotness | 3:35 PM

Clinton had respect for people who served in the military; Trump has contempt for McCain's military service and treats the military budget like his own little piggybank, taking money from the soldiers to pay for his pet boondoggle.

" (yes, such a course actually exists on the college curriculum), or teaching kids to be revolutionaries for socialism, many times leaving them ill-equipped to actually work in the work force, or even if they do technically teach stuff like Chaucer or stuff like that, that's more of a backdrop to pushing far left views such as promoting the Equal Rights Amendment or advocating for free sex. And I'd know, I had to sit through a few of those courses myself."
I take it these were electives? You could have taken a math course, you know. If you pick bird courses to get easy grades, don't complain thirty years later that they didn't have enough substance to them.

Posted by Anonymous | 4:28 PM

"Clinton had respect for people who served in the military; Trump has contempt for McCain's military service and treats the military budget like his own little piggybank, taking money from the soldiers to pay for his pet boondoggle."

Yeah, if you really think Clinton respects people who served in the military, I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you. Lt. Col. Tom McKinney makes it very clear that he if anything has utter contempt for the people in uniform, and if that's not enough, he orchestrated several anti-American protests as late as when Nixon was in office. Don't believe me? Here's the video proof: https://youtu.be/JEhzdZvQ1WM?t=4808 And the guy who carried the nuclear football, Lieutenant Colonel Patterson can also verify that much. Heck, their own daughter Chelsea openly referred to the Secret Service as "pigs", and even implied she picked up said insulting term from her parents in a context that indicated such was recent. As far as your comment about Trump and McCain, for all we know, the media made that claim up specifically to manipulate McCain into going against Trump, took advantage of him in other words. Wouldn't be the first time the mainstream media lied to him. I believe it was during the Vietnam War that a newsman claimed an "anonymous" major said that they had to burn the village in order to save it, and it turns out said "major" never even existed in the first place. Or hey, how about how ABC edited George Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound as though Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin simply for his race, when in the actual, unedited 911 call, Zimmerman only brought up Martin's race when the dispatch requested to know a basic description.

"I take it these were electives? You could have taken a math course, you know. If you pick bird courses to get easy grades, don't complain thirty years later that they didn't have enough substance to them."

I sat through Chaucer, World History up to the 1500s, and American Literature, sure. I did not sit through the other stuff, however. And quite frankly, I expect those courses to, you know, cover strictly Chaucer, strictly World History up to the 1500s, and strictly American writers of various classical literature. No ERA promotion, no free love promotion, no "Christians invented misogyny" propaganda, no left-wing stuff that's irrelevant to the actual course material, just the actual course material. Don't get me started on Common Core. And for the record, it wasn't thirty years later. Actually, this was as far back as 8 years ago, five at the earliest.

Posted by eotness | 8:13 PM