From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Date: 8 Oct 92 06:38:14 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <1992Oct8.001226.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
>What a tangled web we weave... At the time, our government called the American
>military forces to prevent the spread of Communism, something that was believed
>to ultimately defend American interests, and therefore in defense of the US.
>You would have a *very* difficult time trying to explain to my Father and his
>friends (all veterans) that what they did, was not in defense of their country.
>Clinton manipulated the draft system so that some one else went in his place.

Well, you would have one helluvan easy time explaining it to my uncle, the
Bird Colonel who did 3 (or 4) tours over there.  Or the County Commissioner
here who volunteered, or the 75% of the local Vietneam vets group, who,
when surveyed, said there was *no* national security interest that
supported our involvement, and that they now believed our government had
lied its way into the conflict.  Read some history, for cryin out loud.
We invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and got ourselves enmeshed in what
was a highly nationalistic movement.  The Vietnamese wanted Ho Chi Minh to
lead them after the French were defeated.  We interfered with their free
choice.

You father is not a historical source nor is his effort in Vietnam a
historical justification for the conflict.  I was a hawk.  I also have
continued to read.  Vietnam was a disaster that destroyed many many lives
for very unclear goals that had little chance of being achieved--especially
the way we went about the war.  You need to realize that everyone does not
agree with your father's viewpoint on that conflict or the effect of
serving there, or the validity of the war itself--and many of us were not
doves at the time, nor are we liberals today.

>*Cowardice: (kauardis) n. Lacking the capacity to meet danger without giving
>way to fear. (according to The New Lexicon Webster Dictionary)
>Hmm... how felicitous.

Oh, grow up.  That war had more political issues to it than any conflict
since the Civil War!  Good and decent people had strongly different
viewpoints which they held from principled positions.  People who refused
to fight were not "cowards" or "traitors" except to the narrow few to whom
any deviation from government military policy is cause for condemnation.
People like that tend to have a hard time in a democracy where people *do*
question decisions to engage in political wars that do not directly relate
to national survival.  The questioning of a war of abstract purpose, and
the refusal to fight in such a conflict has to be expected, especially when
we drift into the damn thing without a national concensus on what the hell
we're doing.  That is why things were done differently in the Gulf.

>Now this thing that there was not a Vietnam wsa not a war. How typical for
>liberals to try and avoid a subject with pathetic attempts to shroud an issue
>in NonPhilisophicPonderings such as if a fetus exists or not. (If you want
>education on this read anything that drieux writes) True, there was no formal
>declation but:
>
>*War: (wor) n. armed conflict between nations, tribes, or other groups
>Again, you would be *very* hard pressed to explain to *any* veteran that
>Vietnam was not war.

*Stupid War, Ineptly fought: n.  See "Vietnam".  A poorly conceived and
executed forray into SE Asia.  Long term goals not established prior to
entry in conflict.  Means of achieving goals not clearly articulated.  Cost
benefit analysis not conducted prior to commitment of US forces.  No
national concensus developed on reason for conflict, American troops, or
criteria of victory.

Face it:  governments can blow it.  When they blow it in a shooting
situation, some poor bastard will get killed in a conflict that is
ill-planned, poorly executed, and endless.  That does not make the war
correct, nor does the fact that someone else will be yanked into the
conflict create a moral obligation for an individual to go along with the
general insanity.  It creates an obligation for each individual to choose
or refuse and accept the consequences.
  
I have no expectation that you will understand any of this:  you are that
breed of conservative for whom government is gospel.  Some of us think
government is the problem:  stop calling us liberals kid.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15814 alt.politics.bush:8380 alt.politics.clinton:9357 alt.politics.perot:1922