Fight or fight the draft???

At this point, in United States history, each man and woman (citizen) has the right to serve or not serve. Their reasoning matters not. As a soldier, I fought (thinking in retrospect) for that right. I applaude those who do. But those who do not, for reasons of conscience, I will not attack or feel less for. My own dad, who was a very ahead of his time, a Republican (fiscal conservative), did not support the Vietnam war. He told his family he would take us (his family) to Canada before he put his life on the line for that fraudulent action.

I often wonder what he would've thought about me, his kid, fighting in the Gulf War. I have been told he would be proud of me. Who knows? I could only hope he would've supported me and been proud.

This thread is not about this time in history. The thread is about the draft. With all due respect to your father's memory, the war in Vietnam was not a fraudulent action. It was in accordance with the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and in fulfillment of a request from the sovereign and lawful government of South Vietnam. All the nations of SEATO had troops committed to that action, including New Zealand, Australia, and South Korea, except, and not surprisingly, in retrospect, France and Pakistan, who chose not to honor their commitment to the treaty, leading ultimately to its demise in 1977. Those who opposed American involvement in Vietnam have been surprisingly quiet about the genocidal regime of North Veitnam and the subsquent war in Cambodia. Apparently, genocide carried out in the name of communism is okay with the left. What am I thinking? Of course, it's okay. They supported the communists--silly me.

www.infoplease.com...


[edit on 2005/7/15 by GradyPhilpott]

With all due respect to you and your position, the action was a loser from the get-go, from a flesh-offering sense. The guys in the military/industrial complex made out great, but we, the common man, didn't.

My dad was smart enought, and valued himself (and us) enough to say hell no I won't go! He saw it for the fraud it was and he said no. Thank God he never had to choose.

[edit on 7/15/05 by EastCoastKid]

Just for the record.. my dad died when he was 25. He was a very healthy, athletic man. The problem was, he was stricken at birth with a very rare disease (of the heart), Wolf Parkinson White Disease. He was laying there watching a football game one (vacation) day, and he had a heart attack, basically. He quit breathing and became brain damaged. To a vegetative state. I will always remember what my mom said about him, dad, before they unplugged him. She said he stared at her with an intense 'let me go.' Thankfully she honored that. And he went.. forever into our memories that smart and charming young man.

I was there ECK. When I left in February 1969, we were kicking their butts. The Tet Offensive of 1969, during the early hours of which I was wounded, was an even greater loss to the communists than Tet '68. It all started going downhill when we started leaving in late 1969 and Vietnam was dead in the water when we removed all US combat troops in April of 1973. South Vietnam did not fall until April of 1975.

It wasn't a loser from the beginning ECK and no matter how many times you repeat the lie, it won't make it true. America abandoned its ally S. Vietnam and trampled on its veterans and have done its best to rewrite the history to support its crime. Those like myself will be here until we die to make sure that the truth is heard. We are profoundly outnumbered by our unscrupulous brethren, but we will be heard. John Kerry heard us.

You and those like you do a grave disservice to the sacrifice of over 58,000 Americans who lost their lives to that noble cause every time you repeat the lie and ignore the staggering loss of innocent life that ensued after the fall of Saigon.

Edit: Corrected Date

[edit on 2005/7/16 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You are not an American, at all. You might be a citizen of the US and a beneficiary of all the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but you're no American.

I won't argue this. Maybe I'm not an American by the standards you--or even everyone else--hold an American to. But at the same time, as much of a cliche as it may be, I honestly do feel that old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." Show me the nation getting ready to invade America and I'll stand right next to you on the front line if you'll have me. Show me a nation that will make for decent PR if we invade it and I'll sit that one out.

There is a quality attached to the name American that is not attached to the condition of being a citizen. Those who would refuse the call of their nation in dire times do not, by definition, possess the requisite character.

With all due respect Grady, what are these dire times that require me to take arms? We are being threatened by terrorist activities, I will in no way deny that. But how exactly will me being forced to join the military prevent a bomb from going off in a bus, or another plane hitting another building? Will I happen to be the lucky one to take out bin Laden and bring all of al Qaeda to its knees? I doubt it. Even if I were fortunate enough to fire that particular shot, the rest of the operation would still continue, and perhaps even worse--they'd feel even greater reason to attack the US.

Keeping in line with the above quote, I consider WWII dire times for the US, and for the world in general. Even Desert Storm I hold in higher esteem than many previous actions, as well as the current Iraqi action. At least in Desert Storm there was an obvious invasion happening, an overt violation of national boundaries. The initial attacks in Afghanistan in search of bin Laden I feel were necessary, and had my services been demanded at the time I would have gone without a question.

You comment later on about "conscientious objector" status. While your statement is true, with all due respect once again, it honestly has no bearing. I wasn't discussing trying to get out of the draft through legal means; I was saying that I would leave the country.

There was a concept I learned in a poli sci class a while back that struck me as a rather ingenious definition and blatantly obvious, and I hope I do not come off as condescending or sounding like a school-brat in describing it here. It's called "voting with your feet." When your city council does something fairly bad, you vote against them in the next election--rather obvious. If they do something that you just flat-out cannot live with, if it gets really bad, then you move. Instead of voting with the ballot, well, you get the idea.

That's what I would be doing. If the leaders of this country do something that I flat out do not agree with, and I absolutely cannot live with, then I move. There's plenty of other nations in this world that, while they aren't as good as America, are reasonable alternatives. We all have our own opinions of what America is, and in holding with my own opinion I will always be an American no matter where I live. But if the USA turns into a nation that I personally feel is un-American, then why should I stay here?

Based upon McCory1's knowledge of the war in Vietnam, I would suspect that he doesn't have sufficient understanding of the war on terror to pass judgement on its validity. He would do well to think long and hard about the benefits of his citizenship and what he believes those benefits are worth. He might also consider all those who have laid down their lives all around the world and in countless conflicts to further the cause of liberty that he so cavalierly exercises.

I do not claim to be an expert on any war, and I honestly would appreciate you pointing out where I am wrong with my understanding of Vietnam. As far as my claim as to Ho Chi Mihn trying to found a sovereign nation, I cite www.historyinfilm.com...:

1945

Ho Chi Minh declares Vietnam's independence. The French refuse to acknowledge this and reoccupy Indochina as a colony.

Similar information can be found from www.english.uiuc.edu..., or a Google Search. Granted, it most definitely is not the whole story, but it's the start of it. I know that I cannot comment on the validity of the war on terror. I only know what I hear on CNN, which is rare, on here, and second hand from those who half-way keep up with it. I'm not privy to cabinet meetings or senate commitee discussions, so I'm sure there's quite a bit going on that I have absolutely no knowledge of.

I know Iraq was alledgedly harboring terrorists. I say alledgedly because I honestly don't know for sure, not because I doubt it. As far as that goes, there could be many countries harboring terrorists that we would never expect, countries with hidden agendas that far surpass anything Saddam or Kim Jong might have/have had. It depends on how paranoid you want to be. I know Saddam was supposed to have had WMD's. If he did and there wasn't any way that we would've been able to stop them with NORAD and all of our monitoring and anti-ICBM technology, then we really should be spending a bit more on R&D. Yes, he could have supplied terrorists with them, but so could any of the other nuclear capable nations, even those we think are our allies.

Will any of this fighting ever stop terrorism? I don't think so, unless we completely level and restructure all of those countries that are against us in our own image. I personally don't think that's the way to do it, but of course I'm not running the show (I can hear the sighs of relief right as I type....) I'm a firm believer in "to each their own," and as ECK referenced, "turn the other cheek."

In regards to those who have died for our liberties, I have nothing but the utmost respect for them, although I'm sure you'll find that hard to believe. In regards to those who have died for a politician's glory, they have my respect as well, and my honest sorrow that they had to die. But there is most definitely a dividing line between the two. There was a point in time where we might have ended up speaking German, Italian, or Japanese. I highly doubt we'd ever have been speaking Vietnamese, Korean, or Iraqi. Those men and women had no reason to die. They could have been the next president, governor, mayor, scientist, anything that may have benefited society even in the slightest. Even if it was just the person who gave you a smile while you filled your tank and made your day a touch brighter. They didn't need to die.

If that makes me un-American, then so be it.

I'm very sorry about your father. If he suffered the illness you say, he would have never been called to action and rightfully so. I have done my best to keep your father out of this issue, but I will not acquiesce in this matter. The truth is too important and the cost of ignoring it is too high.

I think that what happened in Vietnam was a shame. Personally I think it was a politician's war. Notice how the twits in D.C. committed themselves to preventing the spread of communism, but weren't commited enough to give the military free reign. We would have easily won that war if we had simply allowed the military to do their job, instead of holding their hands behind their backs to maintain a good public image for the politicians.

Grady, I have a lot of respect for you. But I have to ask, was it really worth it? 58,000 brave Americans lost forever because of a war controlled by politics? The reason so many people are against the Vietnam war is because many of us don't think that the lives of people like you were worth losing.

Originally posted by MCory1
There was a point in time where we might have ended up speaking German, Italian, or Japanese. I highly doubt we'd ever have been speaking Vietnamese, Korean, or Iraqi.

If you observe a woman drowning, is it right to ignore her because, by ignoring her, you will not drown? Is it right to ignore her because, by responding, you might drown?

[edit on 2005/7/15 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It wasn't a loser from the beginning ECK and no matter how many times you repeat the lie, it won't make it true. America abandoned its ally S. Vietnam and trampled on its veterans and have done its best to rewrite the history to support its crime. Those like myself will be here until we die to make sure that the truth is heard. We are profoundly outnumbered by our unscrupulous brethren, but we will be heard. John Kerry heard us.

That's it, in a nutshell. No need to say anything more. Invoke JFK. At least that's the most real thing I've ever heard of. His heinous assassination.

You and those like you do a grave disservice to the sacrifice of over 58,000 Americans who lost their lives to that nobel cause every time you repeat the lie and ignore the staggering loss of innocent life that ensued after the fall of Saigon.

I do no one a disservice. I served honorably and proudly with those men and women.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You are not an American, at all. You might be a citizen of the US and a beneficiary of all the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but you're no American.

I really don't like this statement. You're not the only one who has made it, Gradey; I just happened by the thread when you were being quoted. I don't know the context, this I will admit. If (s)he was preaching death to the Americans, I take back everything I am about to say as it regards to the individual you have addressed.

You have noted that they are, legally, an American, yet not an American. That's the beauty of this country. You can disagree with this country's ideals and focus without ramifications. You and I, Gradey, we support our country. I would give my life for my country. Not for the land, not for worthless dirt, but for the ideal for which America stands. For human liberty. Yet there are things that take place in this great nation that I do not like, and I will be very vocal about them. My words, in that respect, are far more effective and cutting than my actions. I would phrase my answers in such a way as to cut down and destroy the arguement from the other side. Why? Because I believe that some policies are, in my opinion, inherently unamerican in their nature. Unamerican as it relates to the ideal. Yet, that is my opinion. That is how I feel about the facts presented me. It is not a fact, it is an opinion. I may think Ted Kennedy is the worst enemy America has right now. That doesn't mean Ted Kennedy isn't an American. If anything, it means he is more of an American than I am, because he is willing and able to voice an opinion contrary to popular belief. That's what America's all about, and that's why it's such a successful country. Diversity on all levels, most importantly on the level of ideas.

I hope you don't mind me ragging you on this, Gradey. You, too, are completely entitled to that belief that they are unamerican in their actions. Yet, in doing so they are being American, just as you are by letting us know how you feel and what your opinion is. That's the ideal of America. America is diverse on all levels, and that is why she'll continue to be an incredible superpower. As soon as we take that away, we take the backbone out of America and she falls to the Earth, crippled.

That's my take. That's why I don't like that expression. As I said, there are plenty of policies I don't think are American, on the level of what America stands for. I do not, however, think that the individuals who support those policies aren't Americans, nor do I think they are trying to subvert America. They are trying to help America achive her ideal just as you are, they just disagree on the means through which to do it.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If you observe a woman drowning, is it right to ignore her because, by ignoring her, you will not drown? Is it right to ignore her because, by responding, you might drown?

Is it right to send everyone in the neighborhood to dive in to save her when you won't go yourself? And when they keep drowning, you just send more?

EDIT: spelling

[edit on 7/15/2005 by MCory1]

Originally posted by MCory1

Is it right to send everyone in the neighborhood to dive in to save her when you won't go yourself? And when they keep drowning, you just send more?

At what point do we decide that the woman's life is not worth saving? What is the likelihood that everyone in the neighborhood would drown? Someone has to direct the operation.

But, let's dispense with analogies. Why is it right to let an ally nation fall to a common enemy just because the loss of that nation will not result in the loss of our own nation? Where is the integrity in that? Where is the honor? Are we only bound to aid our allies when their defeat will result in our own demise? How many allies must we allow to be defeated before our own demise is imminent? Why should we expect to have allies when we will not honor our mutual commitments? Do we only go to war to preserve our language? Where is your honor?

Originally posted by MCory1

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If you observe a woman drowning, is it right to ignore her because, by ignoring her, you will not drown? Is it right to ignore her because, by responding, you might drown?

Is it right to send everyone in the neighborhood to dive in to save her when you won't go yourself? And when they keep drowning, you just send more?

EDIT: spelling

To be fair, Grady has served.

And the whole operation is sick and wrong.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Grady, I have a lot of respect for you. But I have to ask, was it really worth it? 58,000 brave Americans lost forever because of a war controlled by politics? The reason so many people are against the Vietnam war is because many of us don't think that the lives of people like you were worth losing.

It was worth it. By fighting in Vietnam, the US sent a clear message to the communists of the military supremacy of US equipment, training, strategies and tactics. The lunacy of Washington not withstanding, the USSR and China could see very well what direct contact could mean for their nations.

On the other hand, the success of the enemy in our midst and the subversive actions of their fellow travelers sent a very different message to the world and that message still gives motivation to our enemies. Bin Laden and Saddam both believed that the actions of the US in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia were their guarantee of success. Both believed that whatever they did, they could get away with it because the US lacks the resolve to engage in any military action without capitulation. Qaddafi believed that, as well. He has since had something of a change of heart. Does America have the resolve to see this threat neutralized? Only time will tell. Your children will be able to answer that question.

I have never regretted my service in Vietnam. I have never taken personally the disrespect of my nation, although in the early years it was painful. I know what I did was right. I am equally unaffected by the pathetic efforts of those who now want to make amends with "Welcome Home" events and whatnot. The time to say "Welcome Home" is when someone comes home, not ten, twenty, or thirty years later. A simple "Thank You" will suffice.

I do wish the sacrifice of those who died was held in higher esteem, but that is something that cannot be faked or rectified. Once their memory has been defiled by a generation, it cannot be restored. It will be up to a future generation to venerate their sacrifice. But, they are dead. I've always believed that they were the lucky ones. They didn't have to come home and face the traitors who capitalized from their sacrifice and who got a head start on all those who put their lives and aspirations on hold. They didn't have to observe the disgrace of their once great nation and the devaluation of their fundamental values. They were the lucky ones.


[edit on 2005/7/16 by GradyPhilpott]

I would definatley do my duty, however, I think I'm a little too old to be drafted.

Grady, back to the analogy for a moment: what makes that woman's life more valuable than anyone elses? And aside from that, it's still a matter of perspective as well. In the instance of Vietnam for example, the drowning person can be viewed as South Vietnam, but it could also be viewed as those who were forced to fight for a cause they may not have believed in. Who was going to save them from drowning?

To say they did not believe in that particular cause is not to say they weren't Americans. That's what makes America great, is that we are allowed to disagree with the government, we're allowed to have our own opinions. How can it be un-American to excersize that right?

While in the bigger picture it may be worth it to send our troops out to send a message as you referred--and that is a viewpoint I never considered; that does honestly make sense--what about the smaller picture? Can you honestly think a mother or father would be truly comforted knowing that their child was killed? Would a wife be able to rest better at night knowing her husband died for that message instead of in her arms forty or fifty years down the road? Let's say for whatever reason my fiance were drafted right now and I wasn't; if she died in a desert halfway across the world I'd be devastated. No amount of political glory attained through her military involvement would bring her back to me. Had I a child who were drafted--instead of going of their own volition--and he or she were killed in battle I would despise this country, and I would gladly renounce any citizenship without hesitation. If they were to go by their own choice, then they made that descision themselves, as an American excersizing their right to choose. But to not have that decision would make this nation no better than the communist dictatorships we have touted as evil for so long.

Grady, believe it or not I truly respect your service for this nation. But that service, along with the countless souls who fought before you, was done in order to give us the liberties we have. The choice to fight or not is one of those liberties that Americans have fought for since the 18th century, and to remove that choice--to reinstate the draft--is not part of the American ideal in my opinion.

Originally posted by MCory1
The choice to fight or not is one of those liberties that Americans have fought for since the 18th century, and to remove that choice--to reinstate the draft--is not part of the American ideal in my opinion.

That's not really true. In the 19th century, Abe Lincoln instituted the draft to bring down the rebellion taking place in the south. Since the, it's always been on the table. It was instituted in just about every war we've fought since, except for the wars we've had in Iraq. World Wars 1 and 2 there was a draft, and Korea and Vietnam had drafts. This is the first war America has fought since the Civil War that has not incorporated a draft. I find it extremely ironic that Geroge Bush is being condemned for that.

Originally posted by junglejake
This is the first war America has fought since the Civil War that has not incorporated a draft. I find it extremely ironic that Geroge Bush is being condemned for that.

Incorrect. Those who fought and served during the Persian Gulf War and in Afghanistan were all volunteer.

The United States has employed conscription (mandatory military service, also called "the draft") several times, usually during war but also during the nominal peace of the Cold War. The U.S. discontinued the draft in 1973. Today, the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency; young men are required to register so that a draft can be more readily resumed. The U.S. armed forces are now designated as "all-volunteer", although, beginning in 2004, some enlisted personnel were involuntarily kept in the Army after their initial commitments had expired.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 7/16/05 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Incorrect. Those who fought and served during the Persian Gulf War and in Afghanistan were all volunteer.

You're right. I had meant both Iraq wars, because we didn't finish the job last time, and I totally forgot about Afghanistan.