Monument to Vietnam deserters draws fire

[Mike F]

Bringing deserters from World War II into this is valid.

It demonstrates that both "good" wars and "bad" wars bring out a certain element who refuse to fight, making the issue of whether the conflict is proper or not somewhat moot to the question.

Were they drafted by a recognizable government for the purpose of serving their country?

Why is the the issue of whether the conflict is proper or not somewhat moot to the question? If the only relevant is question whether they were drafted by their country, then you'd have to lump all of those who refused to answer Hitler's call in the same boat as those who refused to fight in Vietnam.

No one in their right mind would call those who "ran" to the west rather than participate in Hiter's terror campaigns cowards, but they would be under your analysis.

On a more general point, why are these people either worthy of a monument or cowards? There is some middle ground there.

[peter12]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Sep 26 2004, 12:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Sep 26 2004, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Sep 26 2004, 05:54 PM
I realize that, I was just bringing it up for a bit of discussion. Though the actions at My Lai were condoned by a Captain. Interestingly enough, I have read that document you linked before.

The coverup itself actually supports my arguement a bit. It certainly was a mode of operation for the US Army, but it certainly wasn't exposed nearly as much as it should have been.

You do realize that the LT in this case was nothing more than a platoonleader and was not formulating strategy but was leading troops?

The fact that Calley was imprisoned and not given a medal for the massacre tells me that it was NOT the army's policy to murder villages.

The cover up that you alude to was not to cover up some Col or General officer's putting orders up to kill these people, but because the Military at the time was very PR Concious and felt that ripping this thing open would only hurt the moral of the troops, and the war effort at home.

Please show me any evidence that the common public policy of the U.S. Army was to kill woman and children on the order of somebody higher that a LT or Capt or Colonel. [/b][/quote]
Sorry Captain, I meant to put "wasn't a mode of operation". Just a typo.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 26 2004, 06:18 PM
On a more general point, why are these people either worthy of a monument or cowards? There is some middle ground there.

I can go with that. Personally, I would have never went out my way to see that they ever received a monument or recognition. I don't really care that much, I just have the same respect for them that I do for all people who gave up everything they had to live in peace. They are really not much different from refugees from other countries who fled to Canada (or where ever).

In Nelson however, and some other BC towns, where a significant percent of the population are either draft dodgers or decendents of draft dodgers, they should have a right to honour these people without others making a big stink about. It's their friends and families.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by peter12@Sep 26 2004, 06:00 PM
Not so in the Second World War, Canada made its own choice to join. Thats why the Canadian declaration of war was about a week after Britains.

In the 1st World War Canada was obligated to join with Britain.

If you don't think Canada was obligated to assist Britain in WWII you're off your rocker. Even if Canada was not an official colony at that point (not too sure) I'd assume there were legitimate treaties in place assuming the support of every single British colony in the world. And you know what? Every single British colony went w/ the Brits. Canada didn't have a choice.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 26 2004, 06:18 PM
Bringing deserters from World War II into this is valid.

It demonstrates that both "good" wars and "bad" wars bring out a certain element who refuse to fight, making the issue of whether the conflict is proper or not somewhat moot to the question.

Were they drafted by a recognizable government for the purpose of serving their country?

Why is the the issue of whether the conflict is proper or not somewhat moot to the question? If the only relevant is question whether they were drafted by their country, then you'd have to lump all of those who refused to answer Hitler's call in the same boat as those who refused to fight in Vietnam.

No one in their right mind would call those who "ran" to the west rather than participate in Hiter's terror campaigns cowards, but they would be under your analysis.

On a more general point, why are these people either worthy of a monument or cowards? There is some middle ground there.

Why is the the issue of whether the conflict is proper or not somewhat moot to the question? If the only relevant is question whether they were drafted by their country, then you'd have to lump all of those who refused to answer Hitler's call in the same boat as those who refused to fight in Vietnam.

No one in their right mind would call those who "ran" to the west rather than participate in Hiter's terror campaigns cowards, but they would be under your analysis.

I don't recall saying concientious objectors were cowards. Others did that. However, there's little doubt they ran to a safe place. Unlike Cassius Clay.

Aside from that, are you saying if one person defines a particular conflict as a "good war" then they are within their rights to label a person refusing to fight in it a deserter/concientious objector?

And, conversely, if one person thinks a conflict is a "bad war," then they have the right to be a deserter/concientious objector?

That's a pretty nebulous world isn't it?

It's not like the Nazi Party was unpopular. Defeating Poland in little over a month resulted in about 10,000 German dead . . . but there wasn't a lot of anguish about it. In fact, that "terror" campaign had much of the nation behind it as did the persecution of Jews. Does that make it "good" and it only became "bad" later? Does that mean if you were a concientious objector early in WWII on the Nazi side you were bad and if you were a deserter later you were "good?"

Lets face it, you're the guy deciding what's "good" and "bad."

I merely came along and said let's take personal opinion out of it and decide on a formula we can apply to all conflicts.

Or can we do that? Does it depend on your personal point of view whether these guys are heroes worthy of a monument? Can we understand the millions of American veterans who think these people are traitors and criminals?

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Isn't one of the greater questions here whether or not a country has the right to force its citizens to participate in war? If the draft itself is wrong, then avoiding the draft, through whichever means you choose, cannot be described as cowardice. It's about your priorities. If you believe that whatever the government tells you is equal to the word of God, then you should probably go and fight if you're drafted. If you believe that the government is made up of fallible politicians who quite often make mistakes, then maybe agreeing to go to war anyway is violating your principles.

I'm not sure why someone would be obligated to tell the government 'no' and be thrown in jail rather than go to Canada. I don't see how cowardice has anything to do w/ it. These people valued their 'freedom'. Part of their 'freedom' was that they were free not to fight in a war. In order to protect their 'freedom', they did what they had to do; they left the country of their origins. A painful, difficult thing to do.

I don't support a monument to 'heroes', but i have no problems commemorating a historic event. I'm sure there are monuments to that ship that blew up half of Halifax, were those people heroes? (other than the guy that stopped the train) And yet, despite their having little/no evidence of bravery, they've got a monument.

Does the monument specifically say 'Hero' on it? Otherwise, I think a lot of people are blowing this way out of proportion.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 26 2004, 06:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 26 2004, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Sep 26 2004, 06:00 PM
Not so in the Second World War, Canada made its own choice to join. Thats why the Canadian declaration of war was about a week after Britains.

In the 1st World War Canada was obligated to join with Britain.

If you don't think Canada was obligated to assist Britain in WWII you're off your rocker. Even if Canada was not an official colony at that point (not too sure) I'd assume there were legitimate treaties in place assuming the support of every single British colony in the world. And you know what? Every single British colony went w/ the Brits. Canada didn't have a choice. [/b][/quote]
Canada had a choice. There were no mutual defence treaties with Britain.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 26 2004, 06:35 PM
Canada had a choice. There were no mutual defence treaties with Britain.

Cowperson

Could be. I still believe that there was little 'choice'. Do you honestly believe that Canada could have chosen not to involve itself in WWII? My history prof's don't seem to agree with this.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 26 2004, 06:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 26 2004, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 26 2004, 05:14 PM
Is the Quebecer (how does someone actually spell that) who refused to fight in world war II a hero.

No, and as far as I know, no monument has been made for them [/b][/quote]
Then why should the Americans who dodged the draft in Vietnam be given the status of hero. Why should a monument be built for them.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 26 2004, 01:28 AM
I think it's great to have a monument for these guys who had the courage to be an individual and refuse to do something wrong just because their president wanted them to. They're the real heros.

Ah, if only you'd been an American in the Vietnam era....I could see you fitting right in with those who stood in line to call returning soldiers baby killers and spit in their faces.

[habernac]

I think someone offered earlier the most appropriate viewpoint. Erecting a monument to people who deserted is probably not needed since they literally did nothing that would give us pause to remember them in any kind of light. They certainly weren't heroes.

Let them fade into the darkness of history.

Yep. Kind of silly to erect a monument saluting people who ran away.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

It is sort of a nice statue though.

Although I still think the original idea was nicer.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Sep 26 2004, 06:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Sep 26 2004, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

No, and as far as I know, no monument has been made for them

Then why should the Americans who dodged the draft in Vietnam be given the status of hero. Why should a monument be built for them. [/b][/quote]
Refresh my memory here: The Quebecois who objected to assisting Britain, did they have to sacrifice their property, seeing their families, and their citizenship to choose not going to war?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by habernac@Sep 26 2004, 06:45 PM
I think someone offered earlier the most appropriate viewpoint. Erecting a monument to people who deserted is probably not needed since they literally did nothing that would give us pause to remember them in any kind of light. They certainly weren't heroes.

Let them fade into the darkness of history.

Yep. Kind of silly to erect a monument saluting people who ran away.

What about slaves from the US who came to Canada? I suppose they could have stood up for what they believed in and gotten lynched. What a bunch of cowards, running away.... right?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 26 2004, 06:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 26 2004, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Sep 26 2004, 01:28 AM
I think it's great to have a monument for these guys who had the courage to be an individual and refuse to do something wrong just because their president wanted them to. They're the real heros.

Ah, if only you'd been an American in the Vietnam era....I could see you fitting right in with those who stood in line to call returning soldiers baby killers and spit in their faces.[/b][/quote]
Lol, while we're generalizing I assume you'd fit right in with the National Guardsmen at Kent State? Give me a break...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2004, 07:03 PM

Lol, while we're generalizing I assume you'd fit right in with the National Guardsmen at Kent State? Give me a break...

The prhase, "They're the real heroes" pretty much paints that picture for me. I don't think I'm generalizing at all....and nothing I have ever said would paint the picture of me firing an automatic weapon at unarmed protestors. Nothing.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2004, 06:57 PM

What about slaves from the US who came to Canada? I suppose they could have stood up for what they believed in and gotten lynched. What a bunch of cowards, running away.... right?

Yeah, that's a legitimate analogy.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Their citizenship? Their property? Could you provide links stating that happened. They still had American Citizenship and I have never read anything about property.

You seem to think these people are heros for what they lost. Should the men who died be considered uber-heros as they sacrificed their lives?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 26 2004, 06:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 26 2004, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-habernac@Sep 26 2004, 06:45 PM
I think someone offered earlier the most appropriate viewpoint. Erecting a monument to people who deserted is probably not needed since they literally did nothing that would give us pause to remember them in any kind of light. They certainly weren't heroes.

Let them fade into the darkness of history.

Yep. Kind of silly to erect a monument saluting people who ran away.

What about slaves from the US who came to Canada? I suppose they could have stood up for what they believed in and gotten lynched. What a bunch of cowards, running away.... right? [/b][/quote]
Your an idiot. There is a huge and I mean huge difference between the two situations.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 26 2004, 07:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 26 2004, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Sep 26 2004, 07:03 PM

Lol, while we're generalizing I assume you'd fit right in with the National Guardsmen at Kent State? Give me a break...

The prhase, "They're the real heroes" pretty much paints that picture for me. I don't think I'm generalizing at all....and nothing I have ever said would paint the picture of me firing an automatic weapon at unarmed protestors. Nothing.[/b][/quote]
You are generalizing. He's said nothing to justify that image. Take your own medicine.