HP3000-L Archives

April 2003, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael Baier <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Michael Baier <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:16:28 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (124 lines)
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:26:08 -0700, fred White <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 08:27 AM, Dave Swanson wrote:
>
>> And this Ladies and Gentlemen is why Vietnam vets are called
>> "Baby-killers".
>> Because morally superior sanctimonious you-know-whats, running armchair
>> diplomacy make statements to the effect that a man trades in his
>> integrity
>> when he dons the uniform of his nation.
>
>Ooops, name calling. I have never called any vets "Baby Killers" even
>though others did. Every (wo)man trades in some of her/his integrity
>whenever (s)he joins any LARGE organization (political, religious,
>business or whatever). That's not even news. That just 'goes with the
>territory'.
>
>I traded in my integrity when I joined the Marine reserve in 1942 to
>avoid the possibility of being drafted into a LARGER organization. I
>was called to active duty in 1943 and served 30 months in WWII emerging
>as a 2nd Lt. with excellent fitness reports. I was recalled to active
>duty in 1950 and served in the Korean conflict for 32 months emerging
>as a Capt., again with excellent fitness reports.
>
>All of us make compromises to save our asses. That doesn't mean we do a
>lousy job for the group we (temporarily, in my case) join.
>
>By the way, Cheney avoided service in the Vietnam war. I like my
>compromise better than his (and others, like Clinton).
>
>> I really don't care if that is what you intended to say or not Fred.
>
>Apparently.
>

Here is what the rest did when duty called:
Now they are so proud of the military but please, without me. kill or hurt
somebody else but not me.

The Chicken Hawks' War
Vietnam Draft-Dodgers Are The Force Behind An Iraqi Invasion

George Johnson served in the Navy from 1962 to 1966. He is the Vice
Commander of American Legion Post 315 and a member of Veterans for Peace.

This past Veterans Day, I took time out of my busy schedule to remember the
many people, some of them my friends, who gave the greatest sacrifice for
their country. It's a commemoration I undertake every year, and always with
a heavy heart. But this year my thoughts are especially somber, because
this year I know that the United States is again headed for war, and that
other unnecessary deaths are likely to occur.

As a veteran of the U.S. Navy, I am strongly opposed to the proposed
invasion of Iraq. This war seems to me ill-considered and ill-planned.
Almost all the countries of the Middle East are opposed to a war with Iraq;
our allies in Europe think an invasion is foolhardy. A credible case has
not been made that Saddam Hussein poses a clear and present danger to the
United States. Most disturbing to me is the White House's notion of a pre-
emptive attack, an idea that contradicts the United States' historic policy
of not acting as an aggressor.

They treat the issue so cavalierly because they have never actually seen
war, they don't know its horrors and its fears.

These are intellectual concerns. What really makes me sad and angry -- what
keeps me up at night -- is the thought that this senseless war is being
initiated by a group of people who have never seen combat, people who don't
know what war is really about.

The media has dubbed the war-happy individuals who never served in
war "chicken hawks." These were the people who did all they could to avoid
service in Vietnam while tens of thousands of young Americans -- and
countless more Vietnamese -- were dying. Some people, including friends of
mine, avoided service because they held principled objections to the war in
Vietnam. Let's be clear: The "chicken hawks" weren't peacenik draft
dodgers. Rather, they were cowardly draft dodgers. And now they are the
ones who are so eager to start another war.

Vice President Dick Cheney has said he didn't serve in Vietnam because he
had "other priorities." Clearly, so did President Bush, who was in the
National Guard, but went nearly 14 months without reporting for service and
was almost declared AWOL. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a prominent
hawk who is currently settled in a right-wing think tank, was in graduate
school. Republican Whip Tom Delay also asked for a school deferment. Radio
commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed a medical problem, as did current House
leader Dennis Hastert. Senator Trent Lott was busy leading his college
cheerleading squad.

Now Lott, along with the rest of the chicken hawk brigade, is busy
cheerleading for war. They treat the issue so cavalierly because they have
never actually seen war, they don't know its horrors and its fears. Combat
teaches you that war is a serious, deadly business. Too many of the
officials in Washington never learned that lesson the hard way. For them,
war is a theoretical exercise, like playing chess, or sports.

For the chicken hawks, war seems easy because they have never born the
weight of war -- and they will never have to. Nor, more than likely, will
their sons and daughters. The rich and the privileged -- the sons and
daughters of Senators and Congressmen -- aren't the ones who go to combat.
Today's military is much like the military I served in 40 years ago --
disproportionately poor and working class, disproportionately made up of
African-Americans and other people of color.

Those who have really seen war know better than the chicken hawks. The
veterans within the Bush Administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
Secretary of State Colin Powell, have been the most cautious voices when it
comes to Iraq. And there are other veterans -- Representative Charles
Rangel of New York, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Congressional Medal of Honor
winner Senator Daniel Inouye -- who voted against attacking Iraq.

War is hell. But it's also true that war is an easier route to follow than
peace -- throughout history, war has been the path more frequently taken.
Attacking someone you don't agree with is a fairly straightforward affair;
sitting down with your adversary and working out your disagreements is much
more difficult. At the end of the day, it takes more courage to negotiate
than to fight. Unfortunately, that's not the kind of courage we can expect
from our chicken hawk leaders.


http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6741

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2