Is there sufficient evidence in sources A-F to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States during the late 1960's and early 1970's?

Source C tells us the difficulties of fighting against the Guerrilla War Tactics. Many people will have seen this as a bias point of view, as it is written by an American journalist at the time. But as he reports that Not even the American Soldiers can handle the tactics, they have no chance of defeating them, as America has always been known for being the best, but as they cannot even tackle some "tactics" then the American's will be thinking they have no chance of defeating the Vietnamese. In addition as he is only a 'Journalist', he would have been writing a column for a newspaper, so in order for people to read it he may of over exaggerated just for his purpose, and as it only shows a extract, we do not know what he said before or after the section and it is also out of context. Moreover it tells us about what the Vietnamese did so it gave USA and excuse to use Napalm bombs. However protesters never saw this as an excuse, they should no have used those bombs because many innocent people will have been harmed. Also it was written at the time so it is primary this will mean it will of affected many peoples opinions.

Source D shows an image of a train and carriages, the carriages are being broke up and used for power. This enforces what President Johnson's ideas were. He planned on being more involved, and be more tunnel visioned. Also many cartoons had been produced in this time as they were more effective and many more people would look at them and would be able to get their point of view across. Many Americans will feel that he was more involved in harming the Vietnamese than looking after his own country. This will have had a more affect on the way they viewed their president. On the contrary, people will have seen this whilst the war was happening, is it was published in 1987.

Source E tells us that technology was increasing, and that colour TV's had been invented. And as people could view things in colour, it would have a great affect on people. And as the TV's had become more up-to-date many people could witness what had been going on , this would make more people more anti-militarse and anti-war than ever before. This had a bigger effect because people could view things in colour, as they could see blood which had come from people being shot and also could see the people suffering. Also it was written in 1970 this means it will of affected peoples opinions, also he would of been a shock to member of the British armed forcers who were about to join the war, as they could see what had actually been going on.

Finally in source F the film "Born of the fourth of July" will have not had an affect on many people as it was established after the war had finished. And as it was a large film, it was created by American's, and to defend themselves they may have been bias because it is a film and many of the films aims is to sell. Also in 1960 to 1970's many people were all about "love not war" and this will not have helped the American soldiers. But as they did not believe is strong force many of the people's protests will have not being that firm as they just want to get their point of view across softly, and they would just stand around and cause no problems.

In conclusion I believe that these 6 sources are powerful, but I think that there is not enough primary evidence to believe why their was an anti-war movement in the United States. I also thought that they may bad been bias as many of them were from an American point of view.