Vietnam

[jamesglewisf]

What do you all think of Clinton making a visit to Vietnam one of his parting acts as President? I'm especially interested in what people think who serve in the military. Do you think we should be kissing and making up with Vietnam? Has it been long enough?

Let's not turn this into a Clinton-bashing thread. If you do, I'll move it to the Great Debate. Right now, I think it is a Current Event.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/southeast/11/19/clinton.vietnam.02/index.html

[jamesglewisf]

Wow! Nobody has any comments on this? Or is everybody gone for the holidays. We need to get some more members. Things are slow around here this week.

[Military Mom]

MY H (unseen2) is absolutely unspeakable ticked. {fireblob}Here's a guy who dodged the draft - let others go in his place to get killed. Guess when your rich you can decide just how you choose to serve (or NOT serve) your country. He has a lot of nerve but is short on brains. What a creep - as if he hasn't already done enough to alienate the people of this nation.

Just what will his visit accomplish besides pubicity that hunderds of thousands of our troops {dude2} couldn't do with fire power? {dude}

Gee, why don't we send {pukeface} Jane Fonda over next time?

Butt out, you big Buttinski, Bill!


mm

[TWTCommish]

I'm not sure what to think - I don't really know what happened with Vietnam - not old enough to know more than a thing here or there.

I do know this though: while I sympathize with anyone who dodges a draft, I would not do it myself, even though I would be incredibly terrified.

[blinc]

It seems to me that they still have a long way to go to meet basic human rights issues. Until they do, I don't think our country should embrace them in any way.

[Military Mom]

I could NEVER sympathize with anyone who dodges a draft. I have about a hundred reasons for this, but I'm working night shift and gotta get ready to go.

Draft dodgers are cowards who put their own self worth above that of their fellow countrymen. I thought we were all created equal. Guess Clinton's support of equal rights stops when it comes to himself.

Now, I DO sympathize with someone who gets drafted - what a horribly scary feeling. No one wants that to happen to them. War sucks, period. I feel tremendous sadness for those men are called toleave their wives, children, careers, etc to fight a war they never wanted to be a part of or have happen anyway.

But countless men in our nation have faced the draft. And they are heroes. The ones who have left that sacrifice up to others are obviously NOT worthy of the status of hero. They don't have enough inner strength or intestinal fortitude to wear even the smallest medal or lowest rank on their chests. Too bad for them.

My Grandfather (WWII), my Uncle (Nam), and my husband (Gulf) have all served in wars. I am too young to have served in any major incidents. If I could go back in time to be anyone or do any thing, I would be a nurse during either WWII or Nam. I would be honored to give my life for my country. Yes it would be the most terrifying thing possible - and I wouldn't want to leave my family behind. But if it came down to it I would.

Even if Clinton is President.

That's why I cannot sympathize with cowardly, slovenly, dispecable draft dodgers.

mm

[Moe]

I've never really liked Clinton that much. I think he even let the Vietnam flag go ABOVE the American flag. I'll agree with you, Military Mom, that Clinton sure is/was a coward.

[Anat]

Just curiosity - when you're talking about being drafted you mean like in a major war, right? I thought you didn't have compulsory service like we do.

I wouldn't like my kids or brothers to be draft dodgers (my brothers were not - the youngest is still in service). My dad was in the army for almost 20 years. My one and only is doing his 12 year of service now (since he was 18 years old straight till this day). I just left after seven years. All my family (including all uncles, aunts, mom and grandparents) were in military service. But I guess things are just "a little bit different" over here :).

[TTP]

This is a very interesting topic for more than one reason. The first being when I went home this weekend I had a chance to sit down and talk with a veteran of war...which was very cool. This subject came up.
The second being that I'm pretty much with everyone who says I think it stinks.
I have never been in any part of our military, but I think that you should earn what you flaunt. I do not know where he got that uniform, although he is the Commander and Chief of our army, and I don't believe he in anyway earned it.
I don't know what made him think that it was his place to go over there, if someone had to go...there are far more worthy people to do so. John Faber for example was a helicopter gunner and earned medals over there for bravery and serving his country...the life expactancy for those guys was very low...don't quote me but something around 19 minutes...hard to believe, but true. A true hero and much more deserving. Any soldier would have been better fit to be there. IMHO

[Military Mom]

Here's some food for thought:

I am wondering how many men here might feel ever so slightly cynical about being drafted by a President who DODGED that draft?

Just a little question.

We know that this is not likely to happen. Clinton's last term is coming to a close, and I could be wrong, but unless something major happensI don't see the draft coming about again for the time being. But it's someting to think about.

I may be shooting my mouth off a little here (who, me?) but on the draft dodging principal alone I feel he should have never been ALLOWED to run for any public office - not even at a municipal level, let alone bear the honor of Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. How can a coward like him feel justified making decisions for an organization he was too =^.^= to join? How does that work? If I could stand in front of that man, I would ask him that one question.

mm

[TWTCommish]

He'd give you some bull answer about the politics of the war or how he's sorry - he'd either give you a bull answer, or he'd just say that he's not like that anymore.

But I see what you mean - and you're dead right.

[In_His_Shadow]

I have an uncle who was in Vietman. He flew rescue helicopters into battles to pick up the wounded and fly them out. He was shot down but was found and brought home. To this day he has not mentioned it. He will not talk about that time at all. They saw incredibly horrible stuff that our human brains I don't think can even comprehend or sort out.

My problem with Clinton and Gore with this election (actually one of many problems) is their not counting our military votes. My God if their votes don't count who's should. They are the ones risking their lifes for our country. Theirs should be the first votes counted in any election of this country. I have to wonder "if" a war were to break out once again and the draft was called like it was when I was in school, what young man would volunteerly serve for a country that treats it's military the way we do? It is detestable to me. They should be held in the highest honor and everything allowed and afforded to them. It is their lives they are giving for my freedom.

I certainly would think twice about giving my life for a man who doesn't consider my vote worthy of counting. What a sad commentary of our country.

CJ

[Military Mom]

I have been following the election news to the best of my stomach's tolerence, but I didn't know that it was old Billy's decision to NOT count military votes.

Well, he wanted to leave a legacy - and he sure is - a heck of a cruddy one.

Hoist this idiot of of office soon, please.

[jamesglewisf]

I don't think Clinton had anything to do with the counting of anything.

[blinc]

Wasn't Clinton an only son and therefore exempt from the draft? Absolutely not sure about him being the only boy... but it seems like I heard that somewhere before, when this whole issue was raised when he first ran for president.

[CommunistPanda]

I think it's time to get over the past, and look at peace and harmony towards Vietnam. Sure, the human rights abuses must be top priority in being stopped, but I don't think that's going to be stopped by remaining hostile towards the country. I think the only way is to support them towards a better future.

[Military Mom]

I don't recall seeing anyone here posting that they were hostile towards Vietnam. Although I do think the war was not the most noble intelligent move of the US (to say the least) I don't hold what happened against the Vietnamese people. I think that they are a beautiful culture, it's the government that is dispecable. The fact that at one time we were 'enemies' is over now - they fought for what they believed in, as US soldiers did. Many lives were tragically lost - far too many.

To me it's another example of the US being big buttinskis again. We were there supposedly trying to help 'save' them from a governnment which we as Americans saw as harmful, but ended up hurting the very people who we were giving our lives in blood for. Still doesn't make much sense to me, and I am glad it is over.

I still have a lot to learn about what happened and why else we saw fit to be over there. And I think it would be a boon if we as a nation could help the Vietnamese in a peaceful way. Even if the same government is still in place there.

But I DO NOT think that Clinton is the person to do it. Completely innapropriate for him to even try. Being the only son does not prevent you from being in the military, but prevents you from serving in a combat / hot zone. He could have served in the states, as many of our military population did - we still needed people back here to hold down the fort. But instead he sat on his butt in his little paid for by daddy college dorm room, uh, studying.

Not that Bush is any sort of foreign policy magician, but at least he served his time in the military. As they say in the bar when you've had too much and have been in there too long -

"Up you get and out you go!"

Woo-hoo!

mm

[jamesglewisf]

MM--It's great to see you again. Give us some posts in other areas. I'm going now to evolve your user title unless blinc already has.

[CommunistPanda]

Another thing I missed in yesterdays post.
Draft dodging.
I have no problem whatsoever with draft dodging in any way, shape or form. Except, in one circumstance, and that's if the country was being invaded. In that sense, you'd need conscription. However, in any other war, I do not believe in conscription, and hate the very idea of being in the military. Sure, someone's gotta do it, but that should be people who want to join the military, not being forced. Indeed, if Australia was to introduce conscription, I would dodge it. I will not be conscripted. However, again, there are two circumstances in which I would volunteer. If Australia was invaded - I would fight to defend it. The only other circumstance is in the case of a very-low-risk peacekeeping operation like East Timor, in which I would volunteer out of belief in what I was doing.

[Military Mom]

Note to self:

DOWN GIRL, DOWN GIRL, easy now..... easy now...

Good thing you're an Aussie, kiddo {palmtree}. BTW, what a beautiful place to live!

Why would you dodge a draft? Can you please explain your reasoning becasue I really can't understand that point of veiw at all in a positive light.

Ok, we aren't really debating The Draft here, so maybe this isn't the place for it. Like I said, I just have yet to ever hear one good arguement for dodging the draft. In America, anyway. Maybe things are different Down Under. Duuno.

Enlighten me?

mm

[CommunistPanda]

Well, I don't think it can hurt too much to discuss it here, as it is kinda related to Vietnam.
I am completely against conscription. I believe throwing yourself into the front line of a war is personal choice, and personal choice only. If I choose to fight, then that is my choice, but it is not anyone else's right to force that on me. Had I been born at the time of Vietnam and had I been conscripted, I would have dodged the draft. There would be no way I would give my life away for such a pointless war, and I would be much more value to society at home.

[Anat]

Originally posted by CommunistPanda
I have no problem whatsoever with draft dodging in any way, shape or form. Except, in one circumstance, and that's if the country was being invaded.

CP, what if your country was involved in a war and threatened to be invaded. Would you actually wait for them to come and get you? What about something like WW2, when Australian fought with the allies, or rather as the allies, all over the world. Would you have dodged the draft then? The point I'm trying to make is that sometime you have to defend your country even if it's not invaded at that very moment.

I can see why some wars can be questionable and why you wouldn't want to join the military to fight them. We had a similar case witht the war at Lebanon. It was actually the first was where we had a problem of people not wanting to serve (I wouldn't call it draft dodgers exactly - those people joined the military, but refused to be positioned in Lebanon and had no complaint over serving that time in prison instead - more like conciounessintal (sp?) objectors).

I think that if you feel that your country is involved in an unjust war, you should protest it very strongly and be willing to pay a price for what you do. I don't consider any outside involvement as unjust by principle. You mentioned East Timor as a point in case. That's an excellent example. If people there need help (and they do!) and your country as a regional force can provide it, I think it's the moral thing to do. I don't see how it's being a low-risk mission has anything to do with it though. Fighting the Nazis in WW2 was anything but low-risk and yet people from all over the world (inc. Oz) joined forces and sacrificed their lives for it.

Interesting discussion!

[CommunistPanda]

You've got a point there.
As I said in an earlier post, I'm actually not totally opposed to the idea of conscription. In the situation of an invasion, or that of a third World War, then conscription would be extremely important for the sake of the free world - as it is a state of emergency. However, I'm very much against conscription as it existed in Vietnam, conscription as suggested for East Timor, and the entire idea of national service.

[Zephyrus]

I'm sure that in the situation that it came to WWIII, not many people would have to worry about conscription! By the way Panda, I'm from OZ as well :)

I agree with Panda in that I disagree with all forms of conscription related to political wars. For example, the US wasn't in any danger of invasion/attack from Vietnam, and the war was waged protecting certain political ideologies. Again, the East Timor situation can be viewed from the same angle, Australia is in no danger of any kind, and the intervention is more a political one.

However, if your country is being directly attacked or invaded, then I believe that no one that is capable of firing a gun should be spared of conscription.

Oh yeah, one example of famous draft dodging was Mohammed Ali, who thought that the Nam war was extremely unjust and duly served his sentence in jail (I think he did four years).

[keithster]

Saint Augustine (and others) came up with the Just War Theory to be used to determine if a country should go to war.

A country should not enter a war unless:
1. It's a just cause (Nazi aggression)
2. It has the lawful authority (Congress says so)
3. Just intent (to gain peace in the end)
4. Reasonable hope of success
Once in a war, a country should
1. Avoid destroying non-combatants
2. Use proportional force

Have we adhered to this in the last decade?

Is there anything in your life for which you would be willing to put your life on the line? My family for certain. My country? I believe so.

If I'm not mistaken (which does happen), Mohammed Ali was sentenced to 5 years but never served any time. I think his case was appealed immediately and was overturned by the Supreme Court. He did however miss 3 1/2 years of boxing in his prime. There never was a boxer like Ali. One of a kind.

[Zephyrus]

Hmm, I can see how a few of those points could be biased...for example, who defines the "just" intent/cause? For example, Nam could have been viewed as a just intent on behalf of the US, but to the people of Nam it certainly didn't seem just.

"Avoid destroying non-combatants"

In wars, it's usually the civillians which sustain the greatest casualties...

On the other hand, I believe that the only time that a country should go into war is to defend itself from attack.

Are you sure that Ali didn't go to prison? I know he was absent from boxing for a while, and that he was never quite the same after his return, but I thought that he had gone to prison...I'll have to look into this.

[keithster]

There are many folks who belive that the United States had no business intervening in Europe against Germany. The world would be a very different place today if we hadn't.

[nb]

Well, I'd say that all the folks against a rapprochement with Viet Nam had better go turn in all their Japanese, German, and Italian cars (not to mention a myriad of other products).

[nb]

Military Mom said:" but at least he served his time in the military."

***Please..........the Weekend Warrior - who didn't even show up at his assigned place of duty - "served his time"? I would prefer an honest draft dodger anyday over someone who used his family name to avoid REAL military service.

[keithster]

Honest draft dodger? Clinton? Honest? Come now. :)

[Zephyrus]

Well, I'd say that all the folks against a rapprochement with Viet Nam had better go turn in all their Japanese, German, and Italian cars (not to mention a myriad of other products).

Can you explain the relevance of the US intervention to Japan, Germany and Italy??

[nb]

Originally posted by Zephyrus
Well, I'd say that all the folks against a rapprochement with Viet Nam had better go turn in all their Japanese, German, and Italian cars (not to mention a myriad of other products).

Can you explain the relevance of the US intervention to Japan, Germany and Italy??




**Quite simple, old chap.........they are all former "enemies", as is Viet Nam. We obviously forgave them - at Detroit's expense - so why shouldn't we forgive Viet Nam? If you can't support rapprochement with Viet Nam, yet drive one of our former "enemies" products, I think you're being just a tad bit hypocritical.

[jamesglewisf]

I couldn't find a post in this thread against rapprochement with Vietnam. Most of the posts were about whether or not Clinton should make visiting Vietnam one of his parting acts.

[Zephyrus]

Well, in any case I believe that after wars, former enemies should make up...after all, we're all trading with the Germans and (especially) the Japanese...

The difference with the Germans, Italians and Japs is that it was all during WWII, so there is some excuse/basis for the war...

It was different with Nam, but I think that past grievances should be forgotten (by both sides). It was a right thing for Clinton to do, in my opinion. It didn't smack of cowardice, but rather of one step to making peace and rapprochemnt possible.

[nb]

Originally posted by jamesglewisf
I couldn't find a post in this thread against rapprochement with Vietnam. Most of the posts were about whether or not Clinton should make visiting Vietnam one of his parting acts.

***Wouldn't President Clinton's visit be a step in furthering rapprochement?

[jamesglewisf]

The original post was about a) Whether or not Clinton should make visiting Vietnam one of his parting acts, and b) Whether or not it was time to make peace.

Everybody seems to agree that it is time to make peace with Vietnam. What most people didn't like was the person who did it. The problem for many people with Clinton offering the olive branch to Vietnam is that it is a slap in the face to those who served in the military. According to this AP story (http://www.wfaa.com/wfaa/articledisplay/0,1002,16365,00.html)As a young man, Clinton "opposed and despised" the Vietnam War, organized protest marches and avoided the military draft. So, even though Clinton's visit is a step in furthering rapprochement with Vietnam, many feel it is a step in the wrong direction for him in furthering rapprochement with U.S. Vietnam vets.

[CommunistPanda]

So it might be, but the Vietnam vets are eventually going to have to accept that the war's been over now for a long time, and it's time to get on with peace. Do the US still hold grudges against Germany and Japan because of WWII vets? I don't think so.

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by CommunistPanda
So it might be, but the Vietnam vets are eventually going to have to accept that the war's been over now for a long time, and it's time to get on with peace. Do the US still hold grudges against Germany and Japan because of WWII vets? I don't think so. Nobody is arguing in this thread whether or not we should make peace with Vietnam. Nobody is arguing in this thread whether or not vets want to make peace with Vietnam.

The argument is whether or not Clinton should have gone to Vietnam in the last months of his presidency. The next President could have easily gone instead.

You have set up a straw man and are pummeling him to make a point that everyone already agrees with.

[Zephyrus]

Well, I think that Clinton was the person who should have gone (and did go) to Vietnam. He opposed the war, dodged the draft (because he wasn't willing to fight in what he saw as an ujust war), and then as the most powerful man in the world, decided it was time to make peace...

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by Zephyrus

Well, I think that Clinton was the person who should have gone (and did go) to Vietnam. He opposed the war, dodged the draft (because he wasn't willing to fight in what he saw as an ujust war), and then as the most powerful man in the world, decided it was time to make peace... That's fair. There's logic to that.

[CommunistPanda]

I agree.