From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:28:00 GMT

cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
>

>Stephen Tice writes:
>>

>   >I sincerely regret the 50,000 American deaths in Vietnam, especially 
>   >since these men didn't, and couldn't, accomplish anything through their
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   >bravery--the cause never made sense.
> 
>>   1. So you see no reason to go into Yugoslavia or Somalia militarily now?
>>      And are there no parallels? 

>Well, I don't remember those situations being part of this discussion,
>but in fact I do see a reason to intervene in both situations.  
               ^^
I do too, as long as the intent is to extract the children in jeopardy.
Hopefully for them to return someday and rebuild on the ashes of their
parents' insanity. The chain of hate can be broken.

Our National Policy Objectives in Viet Nam were wrong. But the people 
sent to execute policy had a different one in mind. You and I likely 
have different policy objectives than the National Government today.
In that sense, the situations are the same.

[both of the following statements are mine. -Sdt]: 
>>   2. On the personal level of people involved in war, when common folk are
>>      forced to fight without exemption, can you offer reasons why those-who
>>      would-lead-this-country should stand apart? If indeed there is valid
>>      criticism to be made -- should it not be made from within the system.
>>      (At least so that one knows what there criticizing.)
>> 
>>   I question Bill Clinton's willingness to work within the system, and 
>>   moreso his ability to lead when he finds himself in a situation he does
>>   not personally support.

>I don't know what you mean by working within the system.  There's
>voting; we all voted as much as we could against the war, but the voting
>age was 21, so a lot of us couldn't.  Other than voting, the "nice" way
>to oppose the war was to demonstrate; the nasty way was to do nutty
>things like bombing labs.  Clinton took the nice route, as just about
>everyone did.  

A follower?

>As to his fitness to lead, well, I don't see that it's
>related.  He opposed the war; that's all there is to it.  Why would it
>be honorable to fight for a cause that you consider not just bad policy
>but morally wrong?  The govt put us all in a moral quandary back then,
>and I've never thought of a good resolution of it.  (I took Clinton's
>route myself.)

The Quakers give us a counter example by serving in non-combat roles. 

I'd have to look it up but I think many of the conscientious objectors 
went to jail, to stand up for their beliefs. Martin Luther King in a similar 
matter did serve time to resist an unjust cause. That's leadership. 

Bill Clinton left the country. 

Not every young person is ready to take a stand for their beliefs.
But anyone who would be president puts themselves in a position of
being compared to other past Presidents, and candidates who demon-
strated leadership talents from an early age. (Many on the battlefield.)

Bill Clinton does not measure up.

>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

-- Stephen Tice 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou