From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 20:34:39 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <9OCT199200311434@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

---an awful lot of stuff where he judges the motivations
of those who disagree with him.  Let me respond in kind.

|> >>I don't expect young men to have enough experience to figure that out
|> >>though. The reason it's cowardice is that if you truly believe war is
|> >>wrong you should stand up for your belief inside the military, to 
|> >>balance out the militaristic extreme. I think the Quakers have that 
|> >>figured out -- they serve, but in medical and other positions.
|> > 
|> >Why?  By serving in the medical parts of the military you free up others
|> >to serve in the military part, allowing the war to continue.
|> 
|> I find this particualr point fascinating. First to answer your 
|> question, I'm assuming that those against war would actively promote
|> their beliefs, and all the more powerfully because of their personal
|> commitment. I was such an idealist when I joined the military --
|> consciously a Pacifist -- but I knew that if it were *I* making the
|> decision on whether or not to pull the trigger or drop the bomb,
|> then I could have a direct and meaningful impact. Of course the
|> military changed me, and I found that there are things, ideas, and
|> people that I'm willing to live and die for -- likewise there are
|> those I will kill. And I'm completely at peace with that since
|> I know how so-very-short life is for any of us, and how brief our
|> collective history has been. (Only an option in extremis.)
|> 

I don't believe you were a Pacifist when you joined the military.
Even you should have known that once in the military you don't
have the decision whether or not to pull the trigger or drop
the bomb.

|> It's been said before and remains true -- it does not matter whether
|> we live or die -- but it does matter *how we live* while here.
|> 
|> As to this question "of being on the inside of an organization you want 
|> to change"... as to why it fascinates me -- and why it also applies to
|> the issue of criticizing the country from abroad (such as Clinton did),
|> or protesting war here in our country when we go to war (which is also 
|> germane)... It fascinates me because it shows where your loyalties are. 
|> 

This is a very roundabout way of saying that criticism implies
disloyalty.  I think you apply this principle very selectively
to smear criticism of things you like.

|> Those who are pro-life or pro-peace, place more value on their beliefs
|> than they do the nation. To me the abstracts are always secondary, and
|> the real concerns involve you and I -- who we are -- and our neighbors
|> and families, real living people, those we work with and those we grow 
|> older with, sharing a generation. So *I* feel slighted whenever another
|> objectifies some goings-on. And loyalty, and betrayal are deeply felt
|> when another acts in a way which is clearly outside of community. 
|> 

Why only those who are pro-life or pro-peace?  Why not those who
are pro-war?  Translating this gobbledegook into English one
gets: "My viewpoint is 'community values'; your viewpoint is
'abstract ideology'".


|> I act to show others my outlook, and would rather deal directly to 
|> convey my stance than stand outside and throw stones. It's easy to
|> throw stones, as I demonstrated in the "Brave Bill..." posting, (even 
|> though our hyperbole has escalated them to hand-grenades now). 
|> 

Since you don't like abstractions, please explain concretely
the correct approach for a pacifist or for an opponent
of a particular war to "deal directly" and "convey his stance"
by enlisting.


|> 
|> He could have provided moral leadership being involved. Many of the
|> "cripples" who came back home were emotional cripples -- a result of
|> not being taken care of -- either abandoned or attacked. Just children
|> though. If Bill Clinton's letter is indication, he was strong enough to
|> help others, to actually demostrate love of his countrymen, rather than
|> obsession with bloodless ideals. 
|> 

What --- you only like "bloody" ideals?

He took a principled stand that you disagreed with, and
provided leadership in a different direction than the one
you liked.  Does all the above mean anything more than
simply that you think the war should have been fought
and he didn't?

|> >How many people died because he wasn't there?  Maybe the person who went 
|> >in his place [as if such a person could be identified] was a *better* 
|> >leader and saved more people?
|> 
|> And more likely no one went. There was a void of leadership in Viet 
|> Nam -- even with all the heroic leaders that were there.
|> 
|> But he chose to stand outside and hurl stones. All the way outside
|> over in Britain. To me this says that Bill Clinton places ideology
|> over community, and would rather criticize than do something about 
|> it on an interpersonal level. 
|> 

What does this mean?  He should have gone to the White House
and punched LBJ in the nose?

It seems that Clinton did exactly what you suggest, and
is being criticized for it.  He participated in interpersonal
activities --- demonstrations against the war.  He did
his part in growing the anti-war movement.  He didn't
punch LBJ in the nose, but eventually LBJ resigned and
ending the war became a "community policy".  And Clinton
prepared himself to become a better president than LBJ was.

|> >>Instead, he was off "broadening his horizons" and during that time 
|> >>chose to go to the Soviet Union. He took a vacation. Others became
|> >>maimed, or died, leaving families broken. And Brave-Bill was on vacation. 
|> > 
|> >He was at Oxford.  They have a month off in January.  Would it have made
|> >you happier if he had watched TV instead of touring Europe?
|> 
|> I think Bill Clinton puts ideology before community. If so, what might
|> he do *to* our community to further that ideology? I think he went
|> abroad to serve that ideology. I think he went to Soviet Union and
|> Eastern Europe to serve that ideology. I think he protested to serve
|> that ideology. 

What is this "community" you keep talking about?
I still see all this writing as a code:  your
values are the "community"; your opponents' values
are an "ideology".  Why not turn the tables?
Bill Clinton seems to have a lead in the polls ---
apparently the mainstream "community" here seems
to agree with him?  Why are you attacking this
community to further *your* ideology?


|> 
|> He literally would have to be willing to give up the presidential bid,
|> to show that he places the well-being of the nation above his own, and
|> to demonstrate that he was not compromised. I can't see that happening 
|> -- he want's it *too* much. 
|> 

Gimme a break.  Pacifists should prove their honesty by
joining the military and working from within?  Clinton
should prove his fitness to be president by quitting the race?

Since the abstracts are secondary, and direct action
is more important, according to you, why don't you
follow your own advice?  Stop posting to Usenet.
Join the Clinton campaign and solve the problem
from within.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc