From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:34:18 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <BvKDFC.Dxu@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
> : rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
> 
> : > So what's your point?  Clinton's made no secret of his
> : > involvement in the Peace Movement -- in fact, like most
> : > Americans opposed to the War, he's proud of it.  The country
> : > was split down the middle on the Vietnam War, and to many,
> : > the draft evaders and deserters were heros who helped shorten
> : > the war, 
> : 
> : Shorten the war??  Draft-dodgers???? HOW??  The primary American
> : involvement was already almost eight years long.  And how did  
> : they "shorten the war" from a safe-haven perch in Canada or Sweden---
> : strum Peter, Paul, and Mary sweetpeace songs on a flowered guitar??
> 
> If enough people turn against the war, eventually Congress (or whatever
> the appropriate tyrannical body is) will have to listen to the people
> and quit the war, if only so that the Congressfolks can preserve their
> chances to get reelected.
> 
  In and of themselves, "draft dodgers and deserters" could not and
  did not constitute a credible influence on Congress, and much of
  the country certainly did not look upon them as heroes, then and
  even now.  The heroes have their name carved on a black stone
  memorial wall in Washington---with honor. 

> : > And Moscow had and has no monopoly on irresponsible arms-
> : > trafficking.
> : > 
> : Yeah, well at that time they were sure as heck trafficking a 
> : lot of arms to their North Viet compadres to kill and maim
> : American servicemen who were there.  
> 
> And I'm really sure that the Evil Empire just *loved* our supplying
> weapons to "the other side" (from their perspective) in most of
> the little squabbles they fought in.  So what's your point?
> 
The level of materiel support given by the Soviets on a proportional
basis was much greater than anything we ever gave to oppose their
squabble-proxies later on.  I don't remember the Afghan rebels or
the Nicaraguan contras possessing a) heavy armor  b) artillery, or
c) helicopter gunships supplied by the United States, do you?  On
the other hand, the Soviets and Cubans gave all that and much 
more to their Afghan government and Sandinista stooges. 

                                                H.R. Holm
*comment my own only; standard disclaimers
 post replies to the group only, please*

U
> : > It serves no useful purpose to reopen the divisions of the
> : > Vietnam era for cheap political purposes in 1992.  Americans
> : > on both sides acted in good faith -- and bad faith.  It was a
> : > great disaster and we *all* lost.  
> : 
> : It serves a hell of a purpose to keep it in mind for the future.
> : Especially since Clinton's the one so hep on starting in (the
> : former) Yugoslavia with air power.  Is that a disaster anyone
> : proposes we can *win* ??
> 
> Honest question, here: is Slick Willie planning to actually have our
> planes *involved* in the Balkan conflict, or does he just approve
> of using US military jets to escort US cargo planes flying in relief
> supplies?
> 
> Not that any of that will cause me to vote for him....
> 
> --
> Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
> Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
> Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
> Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
> UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    
> 
> Marrou/Lord in '92
> 
> 
>