From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Fonda
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:49:36 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'm not defending the actions of folks who called US soldiers 
rl> baby killers", nor am I defending the actions of folks who spat 
rl> on US servicemen. 

In article <1992Nov17.193915.4993@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
kw> Yeah you are. We're talking about the same people.  I suspect 
kw> that if you'd been older, you would have been one of them.

This generalization is grossly illogical.  Were you under the 
impression that every person (including servicemen) who 
criticized US involvement in Vietnam was guilty of spitting on 
servicemen?  If memory serves, a vietnam war vet named Ron Kovic 
("Born on the Fourth of July") was spat upon at the Republican 
National Convention in Miami Beach back in 1972 because some of 
the solid citizens in attendance didn't appreciate his anti-war 
philosophy.  Would you say that Ron Kovic was a "communist" who 
deserved such treatment, in spite of the fact that he was 
permanently confined to a wheelchair because of a wound received 
in action?    Incidently, Kovic had enlisted; he wasn't drafted.
And he later came to the conclusion that the war was grossly
immoral.

> ...
rl> ... in accordance with your notions of what "good germans" ought 
rl> to do when their leaders tell them who to kill?  Do the citizens 
rl> of the US owe their duty to a group of politicians waging an 
rl> undeclared war that was initially shaped by the policies of the 
rl> McCarthy era?  Or, do they owe their duty to the principles on 
rl> which their country was founded?  

kw> Well...actually it was John F. Kennedy who got us involved in 
kw> Viet Nam, and LBJ who got us mired there, but I don't expect that 
kw> sits well with your leftist leanings, so feel free to ignore the 
kw> facts if you like.  

Actually, it was the Dulles brothers serving under Ike who got us 
involved initially, albeit covertly.  John Foster Dulles, as 
Secretary of State, was the original author of the "domino 
theory".  His brother, Allen, was the legendary director of the 
CIA who sent Edward Lansdale (the original "ugly american") into 
South Vietnam to build up a pro-US puppet regime in violation of 
the Geneva Agreement of 1954.  

rl> SS soldiers were also serving their country, or so they thought.

kw> Russell, you really are starting to sound like a mindless bag of 
kw> wind...  Thanks for publicly displaying your true colors to 
kw> everybody like this.  (Care to go over to an army base and 
kw> compare the troops to the SS for having joined?  It might make 
kw> for a real interesting "debate".) 

I'm not saying that all americans think like nazis, but it's 
clear from various polls that many americans do think that way.  

Be that as it may, I suppose we could distinguish the real 
americans from the nazis by following the suggestion that you've 
outlined above.  The real americans are the folks who use facts 
and reason to debate opposing views, whereas the nazis are the 
guys who think that rights are a function of brute force.  
Hitler's brownshirts were the same way.  

rl> Your comments about Ellsberg are intriguing.  Given two men, each 
rl> holding similar convictions that the war was flatout wrong, I don't
rl> understand why why you'd excuse the opposition of one while 
rl> condemning the opposition of the other.  You seem to be saying that
rl> it was ok for a 40 year old bureaucrat to oppose the war, but not
rl> ok for a young man of draft age to express his opposition.

kw> Ellsburg was too old to be drafted, so it's pretty hard to suspect
kw> him of using his opposition to the war as a handy justification
kw> for trying to run from the draft.  Clinton did a handy little
kw> two-step in order to avoid the draft, while still trying to
kw> "preserve his political viability"...

Thanks for displaying your irrational prejudice.

Let's suppose Ellsberg had been a younger man.  In such a case, would
you have accused him of cowardice, and subsequently argued that he
was using opposition to the war as a "handy justification"?  

kw> Considering he signed up for ROTC, it's a real stretch of the 
kw> imaginiation to believe that he thought the war was "flat out 
kw> wrong".  

Most anti-war protestors in the late 60's and early 70's had, at 
one point or another, been in favor of the war until they got a 
better grip on the facts.  Generally speaking, it's a sign of 
intelligence when a person changes his/her opinions in response 
to factual information and rational arguments.  You, on the other 
hand, seem to think that people ought to be committed to a mental 
set of constants.  

Hint: On the whole, we gauge intelligence by the ability of an animal 
to change his mental behavior in response to experience;  we 
gauge stupidity, on the other hand, by mental constancy.  

kw> I think (and apparently quite a few other do too) he was just 
kw> trying to save himself from danger.  

So you say.

> ...
rl> I'm an advocate of rights, Ken.  And I strongly believe that 
rl> people should have the right to determine the way they choose to 
rl> live their own lives.   Does that make me a "communist"?  Or does
rl> that make me an "american"?

kw> It doesn't make you anything.  Of course, if you really want to 
kw> believe that people under a Communist regime have any right to 
kw> choose how to live their own lives, maybe you should talk to 
kw> somebody from Eastern Europe. 

Or maybe we should talk to one of the buddhists from South Vietnam
who was tortured during the Diem dictatorship.  Or better still,
we could talk to americans who were persecuted during the McCarthy
era by "patriotic" men who believed that their political beliefs
were more important than basic human freedom.

kw> But that wasn't my question, now was it?  (Nice try AGAIN, but no 
kw> cigar...) So, let's get back to my original question: Are you 
kw> anti-American?  In this thread you've done your best to show how 
kw> little regard you hold this country and those who have put their 
kw> lives on the line for her;  you sure SOUND anti- American...  Are 
kw> you pro-Communist?  

No.

kw> I have several hundred lines from you on this thread that sure 
kw> sounds like it.  You seem to have an awful lot of good things to 
kw> say about them, and very little good to say about us.  

As I said previously, Ken, I'm a strong supporter of the principles
on which the US was founded, including the rights of human beings to
express their ideas as well as choose their own form of government.

> ...
kw> Now, we've dealt with your questions and comments, so let's get back to
kw> the stuff you deleted and/or conveniently overlooked:
kw> 
kw> How old are you?  Do you have any firsthand knowledge of this 
kw> subject, or just what you've read?  What were YOU doing during 
kw> the war in Viet Nam, Russell?  Were you protesting, or just 
kw> sitting around in your playpen eating boogers?  Why can't you 
kw> accept the fact that many, (NOT ALL) of those who dodged the 
kw> draft did so out of a desire to protect their own hides?  Are we 
kw> talking about your father?  I guess my point is, if all you can 
kw> do is quote history books to me, keep it to yourself.  "History 
kw> book knowledge" is too cheaply attained to impress me very much, 
kw> not terribly accurate, and I'm certainly not inclined to suffer 
kw> fools who try to use it to lecture me on something I have 
kw> first-hand knowledge of.  

I doubt that you have first-hand knowledge of the material that 
led to Clinton's or Fonda's or Ellsberg's opposition to the war.  
Were you on hand during the Vietnamese resistance against the 
Japanese/French government?  Were you on hand during the initial 
post-WWII revolution?  Were you on hand during the Diem era?  

If you knew my age, do you think it would help you to:
  -- measure my patriotism?
  -- gauge my respect for human rights?
  -- determine simplistically whether I'm one of them con-sarned,
     dad-blasted communist bastards or just another good ole boy
     who thinks that the flag is more important than the principles
     for which it stands?

I don't think my age is relevant.  If you think I've 
misrepresented the facts in some way, please challenge me and 
I'll be happy to point you to some appropriate references.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals