From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re:  Re: Clinton/Fonda
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:01:49 GMT


From article <1992Nov16.151051.12272@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):
kw> See, cowardice isn't the same thing as fear.  I'll leave it up to
kw> you to try to figure out the difference...  

I understand the difference, Ken.  I also understand terms like 
"principles", "democracy", "freedom", "hypocrisy", and "intellectual 
courage". 

rl> Had you been more familiar with the historical facts, and less 
rl> embued with the propaganda about "communist aggression" that was 
rl> still commonplace in '66, is it possible that you would have 
rl> joined the ranks of the protestors?  Or, are you one of those 
rl> americans who endorsed the slogan, "My country, right or wrong"?

kw> No, I have to admit that I questioned the war, even as I was in the 
kw> service.  I remember thinking that if I was Vietnamese and I had a 
kw> bunch of foriegn soldiers in my country killing people, I'd probably
kw> have joined the NLF.  And after the war, I was active for awhile in
kw> trying to end it, not because I believed the propaganda  calling
kw> us baby killers, but because I just didn't want any more of my friends 
kw> to die fighting on behalf of Saigon "cycle cowboys" who let us do their
kw> fighting for them, or on behalf of people in the US who spit on us 
kw> for serving (you know, the ones you're defending). 

I'm not defending the actions of folks who called US soldiers 
"baby killers", nor am I defending the actions of folks who spat 
on US servicemen.  However, I take grave issue with anyone who 
thinks that a US citizen was a traitor or a coward...  simply 
because he/she openly opposed, and/or refused to join, a prolonged 
debacle that may well be the longest running series of political 
and moral blunders in US history.  

> ...
rl> Honor and duty to what, Ken?   The use of military force to bolster up
rl> a corrupt dictatorship that opposed the very principles on which the US
rl> was founded?  Or, do you owe your honor and duty to concepts like 
rl> honesty, freedom, and self-determination, as I do?

kw> Like I said in my original posting, I didn't think honor and duty were
kw> concepts you'd be able to understand. They have nothing whatsoever to
kw> do with avoiding service to one's country when called upon...  

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

rl> What exactly is it that you find
rl> offensive about the term, "good german"?   

kw> The phrase refers to those germans who feigned ignorance at the
kw> holocaust.  I object to the comparison.  

It refers to men and women who did what they were told, and never 
challenged the dictum, "My country -- right or wrong". 

> ...
rl> Phrases like "god,
rl> home, and country" and "law and order" were just as popular in
rl> germany in the early 1940's as their english equivalents were
rl> in the US in the late 60's.   Do you understand why many europeans,
rl> back in the mid-60's, openly compared US policies in vietnam to
rl> the policies of the SS in conquered segments of europe?

kw> Yeah, I did some of that myself.  I always maintained that we
kw> probably created more VC than we ever killed.  Let's face it, Russ.
kw> The war sucked.  Most of them do.  Sometimes they happen.  At the
kw> time, we didn't have an all-volunteer armed forces.  I was called.
kw> I didn't want to go, but I figured that was the case with most of
kw> the people who went. Because I lived here in this country, enjoyed
kw> her benefits, and was born with an obligation to serve on her behalf,
kw> I didn't run away when I was required to serve.  That's what duty is
kw> about.  Please don't compare me to the SS for having served my 
kw> country in one of her wars.

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

rl> In my opinion, it took a lot more courage and patriotism for Jane 
rl> Fonda and Bill Clinton and Daniel Ellsberg to stand up for the 
rl> principles that they believed in, than it took for "good germans" 
rl> to blindly carry out a set of policies that were founded on 
rl> ignorance, deceit, and prejudice.  

kw> 1.  Ellsburg.  I agree.  There was no reason for him to personally fear
kw>     going to fight, so I don't find his motivations at all suspect...
kw> 
kw> 2.  Clinton.  I have questions about him.  He obviously tried to avoid
kw>     serving, and like I say, I understand why.  But as far as this being
kw>     something that he did out of "courage" and "patriotism"...  Well, if
kw>     he'd stuck to his guns on it, instead of waffling back and forth
kw>     in order to "maintain his political viability", as he put it at the
kw>     time, I guess I'd be more convinced.  I think he just didn't want
kw>     to have to serve, and his waffling shows that his "principles"
kw>     were something he was more than willing to compromise on.

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

kw> 
kw> 3.  Fonda.  This is the same person who refused to criticize the Khmer Rouge
kw>     when the stories of their "killing field" atrocities became public
kw>     knowledge, saying something to the effect of, "I don't think that it's
kw>     appropriate to criticize "progressive regimes".  (I heard her say this
kw>     on TV, I'm not making it up or telling you about something I've only 
kw>     gotten second-hand.)  The same person who said about Communism "if
kw>     people only understood what Communism was really all about, you'd
kw>     pray for the day that America becomes Communist."  (These aren't
kw>     exact quotes, but the substance of the statements are accurate.)  Of 
kw>     course, maybe you'd agree with these statements, I don't know.  Care to
kw>     try to defend them? 

I'd be happy to defend her right to make such statements.  And, I'd
be happy to fight mock patriots who think that fighting "communism" 
grants them a special privilege to trample on human rights.

kw> Since you want to compare Viet Nam veterans to Nazis,
kw> how about if we deal with Traitor Jane's warm, fuzzy feelings about Joseph
kw> Stalin's party?  Is this REALLY worthy of honor?  Why do you PERSONALLY 
kw> feel a need to come to her defense?  Are YOU anti-American/pro-communist?

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

kw> I've always considered such statements to be nothing but cheap excuses
kw> for people trying to rationalize their own unwillingness to put themselves
kw> at risk on behalf of their country...

That's obvious.  Perhaps it would help if you'd throw away the 
crystal ball that gives you such remarkable insights into the 
motivations of people with political ideologies that you find 
disagreeable.  

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