Vietnam war era cowards and draft dodgers reunion opens in British Columbia town

[Jeremiah]

For Craig Wiester of Minneapolis, fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft during the Vietnam war meant losing a country, a way of life - and his father.

"He felt it was a man's duty to go when his country called," Wiester said Thursday at the opening of a four-day reunion and peace event to honor U.S. draft resisters who fled to Canada and the Canadians who assisted them.

Organizers were expecting hundreds of draft resisters and their Canadian supporters to attend the gathering, which includes workshops and panel discussions at Selkirk College and the nearby Brilliant Cultural Center in this town about 120 miles north of Spokane, Wash.

Speakers and participants include former U.S. Sen. George McGovern, 83, the Democratic presidential candidate in 1972 who lost to Richard Nixon; former California state Sen. Tom Hayden, an anti-war student activist during the 1960s; and Arun Ghandi, grandson of Mahatma Ghandi.

Wiester, a native of Ohio, said his father, a World War II veteran, despised the Vietnam war but "wouldn't admit to any of his conservative friends ... that he hated it" and was even more upset when his son decided not to report for military service.

Learning that his father had called the FBI and his draft board, he fled north and lived for eight years in Montreal.



Wiester said he had never before done anything to either meet or avoid people like himself.

"I decided this was important for me. This was a way of validating that experience," he said. "The question is why are we dishonored still in American society?"

Michael Klein and his wife Barbara, parents of activist and author Naomi Klein, fled New York City in 1967 where he had been practicing family medicine for years.

Now living on the West Coast, they decided it was important to attend the reunion.

"For the resisters, you see some who lost their families, lost their friendships," Klein said. "Many people disowned them."

Hundreds of Vietnam war-era draft resisters settled in and around the Slocan Valley, about 370 miles east of Vancouver. They were among nearly 50,000 Americans of draft age who moved to Canada in the late 1960s and early '70s.

After then-President Jimmy Carter granted an amnesty in 1977, about half returned and the rest remained in Canada.

Reunion organizers noted that the scenic West Kootenay region also welcomed thousands of Doukhobors, pacifists who emigrated to Canada to escape religious persecution in Russia at the end of the 19th century.

Planning for the reunion began nearly two years ago and engendered a heated controversy when organizers announced plans for a sculpture to honor the resisters.

City officials in nearby Nelson initially welcomed the Welcoming Peace sculpture, a statue showing a Canadian with arms open to greet two Americans, but withdrew support in the ensuing flap.

In May, reunion organizers announced that the statue would be placed in the Doukhobor Village Museum in Castlegar, a half-hour drive from Nelson, but officials in Castlegar also said no.

The bronze statue now resides at a private art gallery in Nelson.


seattlepi.nwsource.com . . .

[PeoplesPoster]

Heh, shouldn't Mr.Bush Jr be making a visit? :)

[tyovan4]

Did the actual title of the article include "Cowards" or did you just put that in there yourself?

[Secret Squirrel]

I assume you'll be deployed soon Jeremiah? Certainly you're not a chicken-hawk right?

[Kaapeli]

I wouldn't want to die in some jungle hell in a war for a cause I don't care much for.
But I would gladly fight for my home, family and country.

Am I a coward?

[Macs.]

Did the actual title of the article include "Cowards" or did you just put that in there yourself?

Just like those other titles he edited:

From: Failed N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii
To: Failed N. Korean Missile Aimed At Hawaii
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=85455

From: America the Dangerous?
To: George Soros: US a rogue and dangerous country
(Nowhere in that article the word "rogue" is written)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=84737

From: Video shows Arabs fighting in Somalia
To: al-Qaida operating in Somalia-Video shows Arabs fighting in Somalia
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=85466

[HOLLiS]

I wouldn't want to die in some jungle hell in a war for a cause I don't care much for.
But I would gladly fight for my home, family and country.

Am I a coward?

Some 60,000 Americans and Allies would disagree with you on your first sentence about going. (They did not want to die their either)

As for your question, I guess you need to answer that one.

[Kaapeli]

Some 60,000 Americans and Allies would disagree with you on your first sentence about going. (They did not want to die their either)

All volunteers?

[HOLLiS]

All volunteers?

Most were, A friend Enlisted in the Marines, received orders for Viet-Nam, his three buddies were drafted, 2 went to Germany, 1 to Sweden.

Even the vast majority of Draftees, did the honorable thing, a few didn't.

http://my.eiis.net/cmart/vietwarstats.html
* 91% of actual Vietnam War veterans and 90% of those who saw heavy combat are proud to have served their country.
* 66% of Vietnam vets say they would serve again if called upon.

[Kaapeli]

Even the vast majority of Draftees, did the honorable thing, a few didn't.

The honourable thing is very subjective in this case.
I'm not saying your point of view is wrong but I understand the opposite view perfectly too.

[kaspur_eh]

String em up...

and yes they are cowards

[HOLLiS]

The honourable thing is very subjective in this case.
I'm not saying your point of view is wrong but I understand the opposite view perfectly too.

I don't know where you were back then or even if you know the alternatives to running to Canada.

Personally they took the easy way out. Many Americans did not opt out for the low road to Canada, they chose alternative service or JAIL. They challenge the war as American should. Those Americans I don't consider as cowards.

A country does not change if it's citizen desert it in Crisis. Those runners, not only deserted the military but the States too. If I was a Canadian I would not want them around me either. If Canada has to call upon it's people will these people run to, another country.

[Kaapeli]

I don't know where you were back then or even if you know the alternatives to running to Canada.

I remember reading that one guy got 2 years in prison for resisting the draft?

Personally they took the easy way out. Many Americans did not opt out for the low road to Canada, they chose alternative service or JAIL. They challenge the war as American should. Those Americans I don't consider as cowards.

Okay. I see your point here, again.

A country does not change if it's citizen desert it in Crisis. Those runners, not only deserted the military but the States too. If I was a Canadian I would not want them around me either. If Canada has to call upon it's people will these people run to, another country.

The thing is that USA wasn't exactly in crisis. Many felt that Vietnam war was a self inflicted crisis (and that mainly for the vietnamese) abroad for vague political gains that had nothing to do with protecting USA and it's people from it's enemies.

[HOLLiS]

The thing is that USA wasn't exactly in crisis. Many felt that Vietnam war was a self inflicted crisis (and that mainly for the vietnamese) abroad for vague political gains that had nothing to do with protecting USA and it's people from it's enemies.

I guess I can say that about Taxes, or anything I do not want to do. Carter offered amnesty, that works for me. Those that ran, were the least of the problem with the war at home.

[gaijinsamurai]

I agree with you Hollis. I think the Vietnam War was a tragic mistake, but there were legal alternatives. When my dad got his draft notice (around 1960 or 1962), he immediately joined the Oregon National Guard. Was it a "heroic" choice? Perhaps not, but he still served and has nothing to be ashamed of.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, we all knew we would have to go over there and fight. I was in the military at the time, and personally, thought the war was going to be waged for the wrong reasons. I was against it, but was also a corporal in the Marine Corps, and felt that as a professional military person, it wasn't my place to be second-guessing the decisions of the President. I went to the war, did my job, and made sure all my men got safely home (I was promoted to sergeant just before deploying). In hindsite, I think I was WRONG about my opposition to the war, and am glad I went. If I had chosen the cowardly way out, I would have been ashamed and regretful for the rest of my life.
But perhaps these people have different standards of patriotism, obligation, and sense of sacrifice.
I have some good ideas for their statue...How's about a hippie with a bong in one hand, and The Communist Manifesto in the other?

[California Joe]

Most of the guys I know that served when you did Hollis don't really give these guys much thought most of the time, except to say that they were probably better off because they didn't have to share a foxhole with them.



I guess they'd feel the same way about......um.....you know....a few high ranking current and former politicians......p-)

[HOLLiS]

Most of the guys I know that served when you did Hollis don't really give these guys much thought most of the time, except to say that they were probably better off because they didn't have to share a foxhole with them.



I guess they'd feel the same way about......um.....you know....a few high ranking current and former politicians......p-)

I don't think many cared one way or the other. The guys in the anti-war movement that earned my respect are those that went to Jail. I thought that was harder road to travel then the one I took.

Edited to add, Those yummy hippie chicks........ Damn I wanted to be a Jody so bad.........

[Secret Squirrel]

I guess they'd feel the same way about......um.....you know....a few high ranking current and former politicians......p-)

http://www.chickenhawkcards.com/A-SPADES.jpg

:D

[Happy]

I had a Hippie relative that decided he would not fight when he got drafted. He told everyone he was an honorable man, but he could not and would not kill people in Vietnam. He went though whatever process there was, and he ended up doing a couple of years of community service, in his own community. My father, a combat vet of both Korea and Vietnam, actually respected him for his stand. The hippie stayed, and of course tried to get America out of the war. but, my Dad always hated the cowards that ran away to Canada, if they weren't plain coward, they could stay and do some community service, but if they were cowards, they could run to Canada, and good riddance.

[HOLLiS]

Funny how those who has have never served are blasting the so called "chicken hawks" from previous wars.


Scat throwers are all the same.

[Secret Squirrel]

chicken hawk (CHIK.un.hawk) n. A person who now advocates war but who once took special measures to avoid military service. Also: chicken-hawk, chickenhawk. ref: see Dick Cheney. :D

[Jeremiah]

Just like those other titles he edited:

From: Failed N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii
To: Failed N. Korean Missile Aimed At Hawaii
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=85455

From: America the Dangerous?
To: George Soros: US a rogue and dangerous country
(Nowhere in that article the word "rogue" is written)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=84737

From: Video shows Arabs fighting in Somalia
To: al-Qaida operating in Somalia-Video shows Arabs fighting in Somalia
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=85466

So what, Is it against the rules to edit titles. People edit titles all the time.

[Urzza]

So what, Is it against the rules to edit titles. People edit titles all the time.

....Your kidding right? I mean, shortening a title is one things, but what he's being accused of is making misleading or false titles.

[Ordie]

Vietnam is history.

The Vietnamese have moved on to better things.

Why can't we?

[Bia]

My father was USMC 58-84 and spent the a majority of the 60's in Okinawa Japan. He never set foot in Vietnam....but trained many that did.
I was born the year after he retired and am grateful he never went.....and am also grateful for the work he did do though too.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Will the President and Vice-President be attending?

[Con-man]

My opinion is that the only way you can call these people cowards is if you actually went to the war, or have been in a different full-scale war. Otherwise its not exactly your place is it?

[budgie]

Will the President and Vice-President be attending?

Ditto. Some people didn't have important daddies so they left the country: Those guys pulled strings to avoid 'doing their duty' - that is, participating in a massive political failure. At least they're making up for it by creating one of their own.

[HOLLiS]

Let see what was the population of the USA at the time, Less than 3 Million Americans served in RVN........ I Guess all the chicken scats out there are going to say the USA is nothing but cowards for not going?


BTW where was all this chicken scat discussion when Bill Clinton was president of the USA?


Maybe we Should whine about elected officals supporting fire departments who never fought a fire, or supporting Police departments who never arrested a drunk........ the chicken hawk arguement is "argumentum ad hominem" other words BS.......

Maybe the chicken hawk whiners can post their combat records and show how brave they are. BTW Paper cuts don't count.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

BTW where was all this chicken scat discussion when Bill Clinton was president of the USA?

I can remember Clinton getting plenty of stick from the right wing about not going to Vietnam


Maybe we Should whine about elected officals supporting fire departments who never fought a fire, or supporting Police departments who never arrested a drunk........ the chicken hawk arguement is "argumentum ad hominem" other words BS.......

But you're not exactly above making ad hominen attacks are you Holly:roll:
I've seen your glorious leader big timing it about being a 'War President' (to use his own words) etc yet when he had the opportunity to fight for his country and hundreds of thousands of his contemporaries were being drafted to do so he got daddy to pull strings to get him a very cushy posting.

[HOLLiS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_epithets) used in United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States) to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe prominent conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) and neoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) supporters of the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) who have themselves never been in combat. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics); most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29). The label is not usually applied to women (who traditionally are not expected to serve in combat) and to members of the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29), even those who voted to support the war but have never served in the military (as they are perceived as being less "hawkish"). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. The term is used most prominently by civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) to describe other civilians, and is not usually associated with current members of the military.
Opponents of the term argue that it is an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy), that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and that it suggests ideas that are contrary to certain fundamental principles of American democracy.

[ed316]

Vietnam had the draft

Today we don't.

Running away and shirking your duty that you took an oath to is disrepectful and cowardly. No one force this shytbird to join the Army. I bet he wasn't morally torn when he was recieivng his pay and benefit from the Army.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics))

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_epithets) used in United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States) to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe prominent conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) and neoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) supporters of the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) who have themselves never been in combat. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics); most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29). The label is not usually applied to women (who traditionally are not expected to serve in combat) and to members of the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29), even those who voted to support the war but have never served in the military (as they are perceived as being less "hawkish"). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. The term is used most prominently by civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) to describe other civilians, and is not usually associated with current members of the military.
Opponents of the term argue that it is an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy), that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and that it suggests ideas that are contrary to certain fundamental principles of American democracy.

There is nothing fallacious about the use of the term chickenhawk irt Bush or Cheney. They both fit the profile perfectly especially as they are not above trying to smear people who did actually serve in Vietnam. If they can't take it then they shouldn't dish it out.

[c62]

I wouldn't want to die in some jungle hell in a war for a cause I don't care much for.
If you're not willing to die for someone elses freedom, would you expect someone to die for yours? Like in A-stan?


Vietnam is history.

The Vietnamese have moved on to better things.

Why can't we?
I don't have a problem discussing it. Like the old cliche: Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. As far as the Vietnamese moving on to better things, would that include the re-education camps many in the south were forced into after the communist victory? Were the people of Cambodia better off with the Khmer Rouge victory? We lost the war and many people suffered for it.

[Kaapeli]

If you're not willing to die for someone elses freedom, would you expect someone to die for yours? Like in A-stan?

I don't expect anyone to die for me or my freedom. I'll do it myself if I really have to.

But I have made a pledge to defend my country from invaders and I will honour that promise if necessary.

[WARPIG]

The question on this thread seems to be.. are you a coward for dodging the draft? I don't think anyone missed this unspoken riddle, just that the answer seems to come from some pretty unrealistic thoughts.

My reason for serving has something to do with patriotism, more to do with my family history, but mostly because someone is fighting for me. If my neighbor takes up arms, I will stand with him.

I don't look down because draft dodgers disagree with the war. I don't see eye to eye on most wars myself. But, if my nation calls, and men are going to battle, I won't let them go alone. Draft dodgers basically said that "I" am more important than the rest of the draftees and they will have to go and fight without me. Is it cowardice? Technically, no. It is selfishness. Draft dodgers didn't put their safety before America, or before the war they didn't believe in. They put themselves before Americans.

[annihilation]

If you're not willing to die for someone elses freedom, would you expect someone to die for yours? Like in A-stan?



Why should I die for someone elses freedom when they themselves wont fight for their freedom?


I don't personally mind draft dodgers, not something I would ever do. If my nation calls, I will go because this is my country. But I also wouldn't provide amenisty either to them. They should have never been allowed to return to the USA. Citizenship revoked and removed.

[Kaapeli]

I would never fight and kill for a cause I don't believe in.
Of course it's different matter if you enlist voluntarily to fight where ever you are called to. But now we're talking about draft.

My reason for serving has something to do with patriotism, more to do with my family history, but mostly because someone is fighting for me. If my neighbor takes up arms, I will stand with him.

Even if you don't agree with what he's fighting for?
If your neighbour started a new civil war to reinstate slavery, would you fight beside him?

I don't look down because draft dodgers disagree with the war. I don't see eye to eye on most wars myself. But, if my nation calls, and men are going to battle, I won't let them go alone. Draft dodgers basically said that "I" am more important than the rest of the draftees and they will have to go and fight without me. Is it cowardice? Technically, no. It is selfishness. Draft dodgers didn't put their safety before America, or before the war they didn't believe in. They put themselves before Americans.

I find your view on this very alien. You should fight when you are told to no matter how unworthy or even simply evil the cause might be or you're selfish?
Maybe you don't remember how many unnecessary and evil wars there have been in the world or simply ignore the possibility of such a thing ever happening?

[annihilation]

I would never fight and kill for a cause I don't believe in.
Of course it's different matter if you enlist voluntarily to fight where ever you are called to. But now we're talking about draft.



Even if you don't agree with what he's fighting for?
If your neighbour started a new civil war to reinstate slavery, would you fight beside him?



I find your view on this very alien. You should fight when you are told to no matter how unworthy or even simply evil the cause might be or you're selfish?
Maybe you don't remember how many unnecessary and evil wars there have been in the world or simply ignore the possibility of such a thing ever happening?


We are talking about a democratic nation, if the war is unnecessary and evil (which all wars are to a degree) then that war shouldn't happen in the first place. The people should be able to voice their concern enough not to let it happen.

So if you feel you don't want to fight the war because its evil then don't. But you also shouldn't be allowed to live or return to that nation either.

[Kaapeli]

We are talking about a democratic nation, if the war is unnecessary and evil (which all wars are to a degree) then that war shouldn't happen in the first place. The people should be able to voice their concern enough not to let it happen.

In a perfect world yes. Unfortunately democracy is no guarantee of the right decisions. Blind faith in your leaders, even when democratically elected, doesn't help either.

[kosse]

In a perfect world yes. Unfortunately democracy is no guarantee of the right decisions. Blind faith in your leaders, even when democratically elected, doesn't help either.
I'd say that **** has already hit the fan really bad when people are accepting a draft to fight a war on a foreign soil for some dubious reasons. I think it's a time for a change of government if that happens and so should others.

[annihilation]

In a perfect world yes. Unfortunately democracy is no guarantee of the right decisions. Blind faith in your leaders, even when democratically elected, doesn't help either.

True but if the majority still are for it then what? There will always be those few who oppose any action regardless of the situation. It is to each persons choice what they do, but they also have to deal with the consequences. Whether that is leaving your home nation and never returning back or jail time.

[WARPIG]

I would never fight and kill for a cause I don't believe in.
Of course it's different matter if you enlist voluntarily to fight where ever you are called to. But now we're talking about draft.



Even if you don't agree with what he's fighting for?
If your neighbour started a new civil war to reinstate slavery, would you fight beside him?


I find your view on this very alien. You should fight when you are told to no matter how unworthy or even simply evil the cause might be or you're selfish?
Maybe you don't remember how many unnecessary and evil wars there have been in the world or simply ignore the possibility of such a thing ever happening?

I guess, I didn't make myself understood. I left out "trust." My patriotism isn't based on my location. I don't just swear allegience to the real estate I happen to find myself. I have faith and trust in my nation. Not all of my fellow Americans are trustworthy. Not all my neighbors are Patriots. Not every American is worthy of my sacrifice. They are imperfect.. as I am. But, as a whole, my faith in this nation is what gives me the ability to serve it. I don't have to know why or who I must defend it.. but that my fellow soldiers, fellow Americans will stand with me. It sounds sappy.. cheesy if you will.. but that is the factor that allows us to have a volunteer military that is second to none. We have the ability to project so much more power than we have.. we have so much more potential for evil things.. yet the worst complaints the world can muster is that we occupy Saddam Hussein's former dictatorship and combat terrorism without the UN's approval. Sure, the War in Iraq was started under false pretense... but the fight against terror goes on there. You mentioned slavery.. was our civil war started with the right intentions? Was our revolution? WWII??

So you see... the question "would I fight a war I didn't approve or believe in," doesn't apply. It isn't a realistic question to a patriot. The quote you failed to include mentions realistic thought.

I guess perspective is the key at this point. If I lose faith in my nation.. then it would be given that my service to that country would be questioned.

[Secret Squirrel]

So you see... the question "would I fight a war I didn't approve or believe in," doesn't apply. It isn't a realistic question to a patriot. The quote you failed to include mentions realistic thought.

I guess perspective is the key at this point. If I lose faith in my nation.. then it would be given that my service to that country would be questioned.

But isnt your opinion extremely biased since you choose to serve? And given the context of vietnam, many were forced to serve. Regardless of a draft or not, you still would have served so nothing would have changed for you. Why isnt is right then for someone to choose not to serve if that's their choice?

[haze99]

come on guys, you posted 4 pages worth of response to topic?

[MichaelF]

"The question is why are we dishonored still in American society?"


Because you are a bunch of ****ing cowards and no one here wants you breeding with their daughters?

[MichaelF]

We are talking about a democratic nation, if the war is unnecessary and evil (which all wars are to a degree) then that war shouldn't happen in the first place. The people should be able to voice their concern enough not to let it happen.

So if you feel you don't want to fight the war because its evil then don't. But you also shouldn't be allowed to live or return to that nation either.

Concur.


1234567890

[Minardiau]

Why should a draft dodger be refused entry back to the country he is from?

Why should he forfeit the rights of being a citizen because he refused to fight?

They are still citizens. They did no “choose” to serve. They did not “choose” to fight in Vietnam. It’s funny how back in 1972 returned veterans were spat on, refused employment, forgotten, refused pensions, and a whole host of other bad things. Now they are “Heroes” and the draft dodgers who were “heroes” in the 1960’s are now “cowards”

I ask anyone here who has called these people cowards this question.

You are sitting down doing your midterms, looking forward to graduation and starting a career as a doctor, computer programmer or maybe you are one who never went to college and decided to be a construction worker or what not. Anyway your getting married soon, might even have a kid on the way. You arrive home and there is a letter telling you to be at such and such military establishment to commence your military training. The letter has arrived completely out of the blue.

Now knowing that the military conflict your nation is involved in happening overseas in actions that are not directly defending your nation. You would you react?

I’d tell the government where to go to.

[Ratamacue]

Why should a draft dodger be refused entry back to the country he is from?

Why should he forfeit the rights of being a citizen because he refused to fight?The law says that every adult citizen of this country must register for selective service, and that they're supposed to ante up when the need for their service arises. If someone decides that they're above that law, and would prefer to go to another country where no such law exists, good for them. But I don't know why they should expect to be treated as a citizen of the United States if they rejected the responsibility that comes with that status.

You make a decision, you face the consequences. Simple as that.

[praetorian6]

The law says that every adult citizen of this country must register for selective service, and that they're supposed to ante up when the need for their service arises. If someone decides that they're above that law, and would prefer to go to another country where no such law exists, good for them. But I don't know why they should expect to be treated as a citizen of the United States if they rejected the responsibility that comes with that status.

You make a decision, you face the consequences. Simple as that.

Good response.

Now knowing that the military conflict your nation is involved in happening overseas in actions that are not directly defending your nation. You would you react?

I would do what is expected of me as a citizen.

[Lt. James Anderson]

If you're not willing to die for someone elses freedom, would you expect someone to die for yours? Like in A-stan?

No. I fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and it wasn't for nobody's freedom. It was for my own life and my buddies. There was a job that needed to be done and we did it. Don't give a fcuk about somebody's freedom. I'm not a Mother Theresa. To die for some abstract idea is the ultimate stupidity.

As for the article. All draft-dodgers are POSs.

[HOLLiS]

Why should a draft dodger be refused entry back to the country he is from?



Let me ask you, where were you then?

What about the Anti-War folks that went to Prison?

What about the Anti-War folks that did alternative service?

Those people did not leave the country to HIDE.

Those people I respect.

[MichaelF]

Now knowing that the military conflict your nation is involved in happening overseas in actions that are not directly defending your nation. You would you react?



Bitch and moan. Then do my duty.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Let me ask you where were you then?

What about the Anti-War folks that went to Prison?

What about the Anti-War folks that did alternative service?

Those people did not leave the country to HIDE.

Those people I respect.

So you don't respect the Chimp then - seeing as he got his rich daddy to pull strings to get a cushy posting?

[WARPIG]

But isnt your opinion extremely biased since you choose to serve? And given the context of vietnam, many were forced to serve. Regardless of a draft or not, you still would have served so nothing would have changed for you. Why isnt is right then for someone to choose not to serve if that's their choice?
I guess I can agree that my view point is biased. Today I have the benefit of serving with people who want to serve.
At the same time, part of my responsibility as a US citizen is to register with the Selective Service. That is the data base that a draft would pull names from if it were being used today. If I don't want to take the responsibility.. then my citizenship isn't being earned. That is the sticking point with the draft dodgers that go to Canada. They turned their backs on the US Citizens that decided to stay, fight, and earn their rights as citizens.
Whether my service is voluntary or not.. I am a patriot. So yes.. my view point is biased.

[Macs.]

You arrive home and there is a letter telling you to be at such and such military establishment to commence your military training. The letter has arrived completely out of the blue.

Now knowing that the military conflict your nation is involved in happening overseas in actions that are not directly defending your nation. You would you react?

Exactly that happened to me. p-)

[MichaelF]

So you don't respect the Chimp then - seeing as he got his rich daddy to pull strings to get a cushy posting?


Good going, mate. You just, by inferrance, tarred all National Guardsmen as cowards.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Good going, mate. You just, by inferrance, tarred all National Guardsmen as cowards.

No I didn't only the ones like Bush who had strings pulled for them to ensure a cushy posting. Read slower next time

[tyovan4]

The law says that every adult citizen of this country must register for selective service, and that they're supposed to ante up when the need for their service arises. If someone decides that they're above that law, and would prefer to go to another country where no such law exists, good for them. But I don't know why they should expect to be treated as a citizen of the United States if they rejected the responsibility that comes with that status.

You make a decision, you face the consequences. Simple as that.

I thought only us men have to register - I thought women didn't have to.
I registered with Selective Service when I turned 18.




The draft in a democracy raises an interesting question: Why should it be necessary? If, in a democracy, there are not enough volunteers for the war - then is the war worth fighting? If a democracy is under attack, and there are not enough volunteers willing to defend it - is it worth saving?

I'm not trying to insult anyone with these questions, just trying to start a philosophical discussion on this topic. :-)

[WARPIG]

I thought only us men have to register - I thought women didn't have to.
I registered with Selective Service when I turned 18.






The draft in a democracy raises an interesting question: Why should it be necessary? If, in a democracy, there are not enough volunteers for the war - then is the war worth fighting? If a democracy is under attack, and there are not enough volunteers willing to defend it - is it worth saving?

I'm not trying to insult anyone with these questions, just trying to start a philosophical discussion on this topic. :-)
No War is ever "worth" fighting when you are facing it. Wars are deemed worth the effort in hindsight only.

[MichaelF]

No I didn't only the ones like Bush who had strings pulled for them to ensure a cushy posting. Read slower next time


He was a Pilot, in the Air Guard. Flying an airframe infamous for "mishaps" (i.e. going into the ground like a ****ing dart). We sent very few Air Guard units to RVN, mostly airlift units.

Your point?

[annihilation]

He was a Pilot, in the Air Guard. Flying an airframe infamous for "mishaps" (i.e. going into the ground like a ****ing dart). We sent very few Air Guard units to RVN, mostly airlift units.

Your point?

Didn't he also check off that he didn't want to be sent to combat if given the option or something like that.

[MichaelF]

Didn't he also check off that he didn't want to be sent to combat if given the option or something like that.

Not that I'd heard.

[HOLLiS]

Didn't he also check off that he didn't want to be sent to combat if given the option or something like that.

Not what I heard, He was in a unit that had possibilities of going. That is more Kerry-ite anti-Bush BS.

Funny where was all the liberal saying this BS when Clintoon ran for office.

[Ezekiel25:17]

No War is ever "worth" fighting when you are facing it. Wars are deemed worth the effort in hindsight only.


X2. Wars are never fought for humanitarian goods just a country's intrest. Every country does it. Seems like this is a good thread for America haters.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

He was a Pilot, in the Air Guard. Flying an airframe infamous for "mishaps" (i.e. going into the ground like a ****ing dart). We sent very few Air Guard units to RVN, mostly airlift units.

Your point?

He had strings pulled to get into a unit tasked with air defence of the CONUS. So no danger of going to Vietnam.
And he didn't do much flying.

[WARPIG]

Hmm.. I didn't know there were so many Military Records experts on the forum.

Give me a break with this crap. Enough with the chickenhawk idiotspeak. You tools are derailing the thread with this misinformation. Keep on topic or I issue out bannings as well as kill the thread.

[HOLLiS]

On this thread the anti-Bushies are screaming for reconciliation for draft dodgers who fled to Canada, while their contemporaries did Jail time and alternative service.

NOW on this thread reconcilation is gone........ it is hang those who stayed in the US and did not serve. Or Hang those who served but did not leave CONUS.

Jeepers, What is it going to be?

[Con-man]

Well, if it is part as your duty as a citizen, and you abandon that duty when it is called upon, do you still deserve the privilage of being a citizen?
This is the best argument I have found for this so far, thanks to other users who have posted in this topic. My belief is that essentially the draft dodgers broke the law, and because of that they are lucky they are only being denied access into the US. Normally when you break the law the consequences are worse.

[Royal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_epithets) used in United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States) to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe prominent conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) and neoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) supporters of the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) who have themselves never been in combat. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics); most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29). The label is not usually applied to women (who traditionally are not expected to serve in combat) and to members of the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29), even those who voted to support the war but have never served in the military (as they are perceived as being less "hawkish"). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. The term is used most prominently by civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) to describe other civilians, and is not usually associated with current members of the military.
Opponents of the term argue that it is an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy), that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and that it suggests ideas that are contrary to certain fundamental principles of American democracy.

I happen to think that ChickenHawk is a perfect description for our current leaders on this side of the pond too. They marched for CND, Troops Out (of Northern Ireland) and rallied for the US pulling out of Vietnam - I doubt that Bliar would much like being described as a NeoCon - and I'm certainly no left winger.

"Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war." I'd go with that as a pretty fair description.

[HOLLiS]

I happen to think that ChickenHawk is a perfect description for our current leaders on this side of the pond too. They marched for CND, Troops Out (of Northern Ireland) and rallied for the US pulling out of Vietnam - I doubt that Bliar would much like being described as a NeoCon - and I'm certainly no left winger.

"Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war." I'd go with that as a pretty fair description.

Personally Thirty years is a long time. A person can change. Bill Clinton, I guess would fall into that definition too. I guess if this is the worse mud that can be slung at the various leaders, it really does not add up to much.

For the guys who went to Canada, the less said about it the better. I think probably what gets people up set is that there is a desire to add some kind of Hero status to what they did. The heros in the anti war movement would be those that stay and went to Jail.

[gotalliwanted]

was wanting any info on charles moyar 67- 70 1st /9th marines walking dead we r having a surprise party 4 him and like info any that may have served with him