Monument to Vietnam deserters draws fire

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2004, 07:15 PM

You are generalizing. He's said nothing to justify that image. Take your own medicine.

It's a combination of that phrase as well as other things he has said in the past. If I am off base, he's free to tell me so and I'll take him at his word. But I don't need you to 'give me my own medicine'. Especially considering the analogy you just used.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Sep 26 2004, 07:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Sep 26 2004, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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?

Your an idiot. There is a huge and I mean huge difference between the two situations.[/b][/quote]
There certainly are. I was replying to a sentence, that read, '...kind of silly to erect a monument saluting people who ran away'. I disagreed with the general nature of this quote. White people running from war and Black people running from slavery ARE different. Thank-you for opening my eyes to this.

I think 'your' the idiot.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

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.

He is stating that the real heros are the people who refused to fight, then by proxy he is stating that the people who did fight should not be treated like heros but rather in a manner which is less than those who ran. I would say that it is reasonable to state that Flamesaddiction would act in a manner such as the a-hole fools (I could go on) that spit on the real men who sacrificed more than the cowards who ran to canada.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2004, 07:19 PM

There certainly are. I was replying to a sentence, that read, '...kind of silly to erect a monument saluting people who ran away'. I disagreed with the general nature of this quote. White people running from war and Black people running from slavery ARE different. Thank-you for opening my eyes to this.

I think 'your' the idiot.

Given the topic of the thread and the general nature of the discussion I think "from serving in Vietnam" was understood and not required in text for MOST people to understand what he meant. I would question the intelligence or MOTIVE of anyone who did not understand exactly what Habernac meant.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2004, 07:19 PM

There certainly are. I was replying to a sentence, that read, '...kind of silly to erect a monument saluting people who ran away'. I disagreed with the general nature of this quote. White people running from war and Black people running from slavery ARE different. Thank-you for opening my eyes to this.

I think 'your' the idiot.

You compared the situations there is no way around this fact. you stated that the people who ran from being brought before a draft board should be thought of in the same manner as those who ran away from being enslaved. That is what your post put across.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 26 2004, 06:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 26 2004, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
Canadians - but not Quebecers - would have been outraged had Canada not tossed its hat in the ring. The government probably wouldn't have survived a no confidence vote of its OWN party had it decided to stay out.

As an example, why did Australia and New Zealand and other countries join in? Obviously, a European conflict had little to do with them. The answer is that the people wanted it and underlines that colonial ties still ran deep at that moment.

That's different than saying Canada didn't have a choice. Because it did.

From Mackenzie King's declaration of war speech:

...This morning, the king, speaking to his peoples at home and across the seas, appealed to all, to make their own, the cause of freedom, which Britain again has taken up. Canada has already answered that call. On Friday last, the government, speaking on behalf of the Canadian people, announced that in the event of the United Kingdom becoming engaged in war in the effort to resist aggression, they would, as soon as parliament meets, seek its authority for effective cooperation by Canada at the side of Britain.

...In what manner and to what extent Canada may most effectively be able to co-operate in the common cause is as I have stated, something which parliament itself will decide. All I need to add at the moment is that Canada, as a free nation of the British Commonwealth, is bringing her cooperation voluntarily. Our effort will be voluntary.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/courage/w.l.ma...gdeclaresw.html

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 26 2004, 07:08 PM
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?

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Draft-dodger


For years, draft dodgers were not allowed back into the U.S., and when they left, they could only take what they could carry. It's not like they were allowed to cross the border with a U-Haul, so yeah, they had to give up a lot to have a free choice.

That's really what is at the heart of this. Having free will and a choice. The people who came to Canada embody that spirit to me.

BTW, I don't think vets are "baby killers" any more than I think dodgers are cowards.

[Mike F]

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?

Absolutely.

Every argument about war is going to be rife with moral analyses. Aren't you the one that labels the Israeli tactics as acceptable and the Palestinians as atrocious because of the comparative morality of their tactics? I'm definately going to put a different label on someone who refuses to fight against an agressive, atrocity committing nation bent on world domination compared to someone who refuses to fight for that nation.

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

I happen to think the world is pretty nebulous. See my next answer.

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.

What it means is that if you were on the Nazi side and believed that the Jews were the root of all evil and Arians were destined to rule the world then those who fled to the west were cowards no matter when they did it, because the Nazi objective was noble and morally justifiable.

Trying to objectify things and take subjective opinion out of it isn't useful because each war is different based on it's motives, objectives and context.

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?

We can understand it (even if we disagree with it) if they believe that any war your government decides to wage is right. Again, the people on the low end of my totem pole were those that didn't believe in the war, but went to kill Vietnamese anyway, not those who fought because they thought it was just and necessary.

[FlamesAddiction]

CBC has a pretty keen archive page about draft dodgers. It has some historical footage that is pretty interesting:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-71-348/confl.../draft_dodgers/

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 26 2004, 08:52 PM
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?

Absolutely.

Every argument about war is going to be rife with moral analyses. Aren't you the one that labels the Israeli tactics as acceptable and the Palestinians as atrocious because of the comparative morality of their tactics? I'm definately going to put a different label on someone who refuses to fight against an agressive, atrocity committing nation bent on world domination compared to someone who refuses to fight for that nation.

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

I happen to think the world is pretty nebulous. See my next answer.

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.

What it means is that if you were on the Nazi side and believed that the Jews were the root of all evil and Arians were destined to rule the world then those who fled to the west were cowards no matter when they did it, because the Nazi objective was noble and morally justifiable.

Trying to objectify things and take subjective opinion out of it isn't useful because each war is different based on it's motives, objectives and context.

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?

We can understand it (even if we disagree with it) if they believe that any war your government decides to wage is right. Again, the people on the low end of my totem pole were those that didn't believe in the war, but went to kill Vietnamese anyway, not those who fought because they thought it was just and necessary.

So, I think I hear you saying the winners write the history books and, as a consequence, are most frequently the good guys.

Meanwhile, in a small town in British Columbia, a group of people believe those who ran away to safety, for whatever reason, when their country called on them, are heroes.

That, of course, is their opinion. It goes without saying, a memorial like that could only be built outside the USA given the overwhelming majority of Americans, even today, would regard them with disdain.

Aren't you the one that labels the Israeli tactics as acceptable and the Palestinians as atrocious because of the comparative morality of their tactics?

Actually no. I said Palestinians are idiots because they continue to thump their head against the wall for no apparent purpose, engaging in a war that they can't possibly win while condemning their people to a perpetual cycle of poverty and repression in the process. Since the Israeli's have demonstrated in the past they will trade land for peace and have honoured those agreements, I suggested the Palestinians stop shooting and start negotiating seriously. In turn, they would probably get a lot more global sympathy from dickheads like me regarding Israeli tactics, which could only help them, and they would probably have a country by now if they had already done so. That is what I said. Basically, I said the Palestinians are morons.

We can understand it (even if we disagree with it) if they believe that any war your government decides to wage is right. Again, the people on the low end of my totem pole were those that didn't believe in the war, but went to kill Vietnamese anyway, not those who fought because they thought it was just and necessary.

At that particular moment in history, I would think most thought they were fighting communism. Had the objectors reduced it to "killing Vietnamese?" Sounded like it from Cassius Clay's comments. Let's face it, whether we were looking at it then or looking at it now, Vietnam was a worthless place that wouldn't attract anyone's interest, least of all a global superpower, unless put in the context of the global struggle of democracy versus communism.

A conflict of ideals. Right or wrong. Others viewed it differently and objected. Right or wrong.

Getting back to the original thought though, will there be statues and memorials in Germany for those who ran the other way? Or do we find that millions of Germans of that era consider them with disdain?

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 26 2004, 10:17 PM
Meanwhile, in a small town in British Columbia, a group of people believe those who ran away to safety, for whatever reason, when their country called on them, are heroes.

That, of course, is their opinion. It goes without saying, a memorial like that could only be built outside the USA given the overwhelming majority of Americans, even today, would regard them with disdain.

Seriously though, isn't it pretty much the truth to say (in hindsite of course) that the war resisters in the 1960's were right? Can't we all admit that now?

We know that the threat of communism spreading in Southeast Asia was no threat. The communists took over Vietnam in '76, and the world never collapsed.

Vietnam was a political war, and all those guys that died should never have been sent there, and wouldn't have if it wasn't for the egos.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Do you not think that communism was an international threat, because it was. Could the United States intervention in Vietnam slowed the spread of communism so much so that it would be illogial for nations to start a communist uprising. It is only the fool who resorts to the What if's of history for there is no telling what would have happened.

Communists were a very real threat to the Western way of life, so why wouldn't the West (The USA) protect itself.

[FlamesAddiction]

I disagree. It was certainly the perception that communism was a global threat, but that has never been proven. Nuclear war was global threat, but the communists were not the only bully on the block.

[transplant99]

It was certainly the perception that communism was a global threat, but that has never been proven.

Ever hear about a little incident called the Bay of Pigs?? The Soviets (ie...communism) were most certainly a huge threat to the ways of the western world...for decades. Never mind the amount of countries they flat out rolled through with guns and tanks blazing all over Europe. Yes they werent only a "global" threat, they were a global terror by actually doing it.

Revisionist history...gotta love it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 26 2004, 10:54 PM
It was certainly the perception that communism was a global threat, but that has never been proven.

Ever hear about a little incident called the Bay of Pigs?? The Soviets (ie...communism) were most certainly a huge threat to the ways of the western world...for decades. Never mind the amount of countries they flat out rolled through with guns and tanks blazing all over Europe. Yes they werent only a "global" threat, they were a global terror by actually doing it.

Revisionist history...gotta love it.

Who had missiles pointing at who first? I can assure you that people in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere felt just as terrorized about U.S. missiles and their aggressive behaviour in countries like Vietnam.

The threat was from the clashing of the U.S. and U.S.S.R., not the spread of communism into Vietnam. The threat was in the minds of the people, which paranoia and anxiety put into motion. The spread of communism into Vietnam is pretty insignifcant looking back at it now.

The Soviets could not even conquer Afghanistan, I doubt they would have conquered the world. Countries that did fall to communism only did so because there were significant communities in those countries that supported communism. No country without a large number of communist sympathizers was ever taken. In general, most western countries were safe. Not to mention that most Eastern European countries were negotiated to the Soviets at the end of WWII.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 26 2004, 11:05 PM
I can assure you that people in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere felt just as terrorized about U.S. missiles and their aggressive behaviour in countries like Vietnam.


The Soviets could not even conquer Afghanistan, I doubt they would have conquered the world. Countries that did fall to communism only did so because there were significant communities in those countries that supported communism. No country without a large number of communist sympathizers was ever taken. In general, most western countries were safe.

I can assure you that people in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere felt just as terrorized about U.S. missiles and their aggressive behaviour in countries like Vietnam.

Actually, we know now they were more terrorized by their own government than by a fear of USA missiles and "aggressive behaviour in other countries." I guess you forgot about the Soviet Union/China/Cuba when you were typing that sentence.

Regarding Vietnam, as I said earlier, it was one of many, many proxy conflicts between countries that couldn't risk a direct confrontation due to being nuclear armed.

Suggesting that it would have been alright for the USA to return home, put the shutters up on the windows and ignore the spread of communism is downright laughable.

Both sides chose despicable people and governments as their proxies. There were no innocent sides.

The Soviets could not even conquer Afghanistan, I doubt they would have conquered the world.

Another proxy war. The decisive tipping point there was the USA supplying Stinger missiles to the opposition, thereby negating Soviet air power, particularly helicopters.

For a moment there in Iraq, there were surface to air missiles flying around and the USA lost a lot of helicopters but that seems to have largely disappeared.

Countries that did fall to communism only did so because there were significant communities in those countries that supported communism. No country without a large number of communist sympathizers was ever taken. In general, most western countries were safe.

You sound like the protesters, massed at 500,000 at a time in 1983-84, calling for unilateral disamament by the West as a show of good faith to the Soviet Union.

As we know now, that would have been suicidally stupid.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

I sound like a disarmament protestor - except that I didn't say anything about disarmament? I don't follow.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 26 2004, 11:43 PM

Both sides chose despicable people and governments as their proxies. There were no innocent sides.

I agree with most of your post and this part especially. I mean, that is my whole point.

It's easy to say the spread of communism was the major threat all the while ignoring that their were power hungry, aggressive egomaniacs at work in the west too. I frown upon both sides. I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

The threat was the competition between east and west, but not just one or the other.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 26 2004, 11:44 PM
I sound like a disarmament protestor - except that I didn't say anything about disarmament? I don't follow.

You had said democracies had nothing to worry about from the spread of communism. You labelled said principal democracy an aggressor.

In other words, similar to the rose coloured glasses of a disarmament movement that was more dangerous than it knew. (wait'll Vulcan gets a hold of that one!!)

Cowperson

[Thunderball]

yet another dark moment in Canadian history... celebrating draft dodgers too cowardly to face prison time for their "convictions".

Yet, we as Canadians wonder why Bush and many other Americans don't exactly think that highly of us...