From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:12:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.001226.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.230146.2376@unislc.uucp>, das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:
>> vsg001@acad.drake.edu wrote:
>> Hmm..  Vince, buddy, I think you completely missed the point.  You implied
>> Clinton was afraid to defend his country.  We cannot infer anything of the
>> kind from his unwillingness to fight in Vietnam.  Our country was in no
>> way threatened with invasion by North Vietnam, so I don't know how you
>> could call what we did in Vietnam defense of our country.  And I don't 
>> think it was even legally a war.. I was under the impression we never did
>> declare war on North Vietnam, it was another of our famous police actions.
>
>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.

Actually, if you read the history of the Vietnam conflict you will
find out that one of the primary reasons we were involved there in the
first place was to help France maintain control over one of its
territories (can you say Imperialism ?) and to prevent the Vietnamese
from doing what they wanted...

>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.
>

Ummm...sorry, ALL veterans DID NOT think that going to Vietnam was in
defense of our country...perhaps you thought the movie "Born on the
Fourth of July" was total fiction? From what I understand (i.e. my
friends who were there) the portion of military that did not support
the Vietnam conflict was about the same as that of the population as a
whole (around 50%).

I gather from your statements that you were never faced with being
drafted...care to compare draft cards? care to comment on how the
friends you had that did manage to come back were never the same again
(even the ones that had all their body parts...) ? care to comment how
you wanted to be just like them? Or perhaps you'd prefer to work to
try to prevent other friends from coming home either broken or in a
body bag...


>*Cowardice: (kauardis) n. Lacking the capacity to meet danger without giving
>way to fear. (according to The New Lexicon Webster Dictionary)
>Hmm... how felicitous.
>
Easy to call someone a coward when you haven't faced the same
choices...

>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.
>  

Glad you can read well enough to obtain that definition...Here in the
United States, a "War" (i.e. a declared war) MUST be approved by
Congress. The Vietnam conflict WAS NOT approved by Congress. It was a
continuing police action declared and run by the President...
Hmmm...wonder if many Vietnam Vets were right when they claimed that
the country didn't support them...The Government never did...

>> HERE endeth the lesson.
>Umm. No.
>--
>Here endith the Lesson

>--
>Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
>		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
>ps there is a reason why I spell it "endith" but thats something different.

For someone who claims to be providing a lesson, you sure have a lot
to learn...

John




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections