Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Heh, another good reason to vote Democrat this year

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Most voters I spoke to think an association with Jane Fonda is more damaging than VVAW.
As I said, it was my personal opinion that the VVAW issue is more disturbing than any past association with Jane Fonda. If Senator Kerry were still hanging around with Ms. Fonda, it might be an issue, but it's pretty clear to me that any relationship was purely incidental as a part of his membership in the VVAW.
I tend to focus more on the here and now, and what concerns me is that he was a member of an organization that fought for amnesty for deserters, yet now he derides the President. And not for criminal behavior such as deserting or draft dodging, but for serving via the National Guard. To me, this indicates either a complete change in heart or else a very opportunistic politician, and I'd like to know which it is.
Joe
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
This is completely incorrect.

You are correct. I should have said that the odds of ending up in Vietnam were minsicule compared to your odds if drafted. Guard appointments were almost impossible to come by and only those with political connections were able to get these positions especially in 1968.
 
Greenhorn
Posts: 3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

I tend to focus more on the here and now, and what concerns me is that he was a member of an organization that fought for amnesty for deserters, yet now he derides the President. And not for criminal behavior such as deserting or draft dodging, but for serving via the National Guard.
Joe


Although not as serious an offence as deserting I was under the impression that Bush failed to report for duty and took payment for work in the national guard that he did not do which, as far as I am aware, is a criminal offence.
Also, it seems obvious if you look at the documents and the way that he acted during his post that his appointment to the National Guard was just a legal way of dodging the draft.
[ February 21, 2004: Message edited by: Chris Bell ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Although not as serious an offence as deserting I was under the impression that Bush failed to report for duty and took payment for work in the national guard that he did not do which, as far as I am aware, is a criminal offence.
What crime did the President commit, based on what evidence? Please be precise: this is an important statement. I haven't heard a single rational person, not even a Democrat, accuse the President of a crime. You're the first other than Michael Moore to charge the President with having committed a crime.

Also, it seems obvious if you look at the documents and the way that he acted during his post that his appointment to the National Guard was just a legal way of dodging the draft.
"Seems obvious" how? How exactly are you able to interpret intent or state of mind from notations on 35 year old documents? I'd like to know exactly which documents make this "obvious" to you.

Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I should have said that the odds of ending up in Vietnam were minsicule compared to your odds if drafted.
Well, you'd have to have been The Amazing Karnak to know that, Tom, since in the immediately previous conflict - Korea - over 80% of the ANG were mobilized. Many flew combat missions, some even died. As dangerous as being a ground-pounder? No way. But of the 1238 Air Force deaths in Korea, 101 or nearly 10% were Guardsmen. Hardly something to call "slimy".
Sorry, I just really took offense at your choice of words. As I've said in the past, I personally think Guardsmen and especially Reservists get far less credit than they deserve; I KNOW they don't deserve to be called slimy. Some may have avoided dangerous service this way, but there were far more dishonorable ways to do it, and there were and are a lot of very honorable people who have served and continue to serve their country in the Reserves and the Guard.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 112
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
{SARCASM}
It's a rarity when I encounter someone who has a greater understanding of me then I have of myself. When looking for answers I had been turning to the Magic 8-Ball, however I've now come to realize the answers it returned were superfluous. It's good to know I can find much more succinct answers to my exigencies here in MD.
I'm appreciative of those who have assisted me in seeing the errors of my ways and make a promise to myself not to be so sceptical in the future and simple swallow what is spoon feed to me even though I may ponder why they are using a butcher knife to do it. Normally I would think that they were doing something amiss, but no longer. A weight has been lifted off.
{/SARCASM}
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 196
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Good God people! This is your democracy for petes sake! I could probably find a picture of 99% of the western population drunk, half naked and singing silly songs about hedgehogs with someone they hated when sober. Republicans dont want this guy cos he got a blow job, the dems dont want another guy cos he got drunk at college and liked parties .... BIG SLAP for all of you. 'But its all about character Morgan!'. Donkey testicles! The list of homicidal and genocidal maniacs that never took a drink and got way less than their fair shar of blowjobs is huge!
Jeez people. Its like if I asked 100 americans what the president thought the root causes of strife in Kashmir perhaps less than 10 would know. But if I asked what the presidents favourite horse was called all hands would raise. The man has nukes: PAY ATTENTION!
What is it about photographs from the sixties, blowjobs and frickin balloons? Is it really the case that someone is sat around saying "Well I knew he was ant-vietnam war in the sixties, but the reason im not voting for him is that photo of him standing near Jane Fonda!". Yeah i know its a fake photo, but the point stands. And so I read Bush got drunk and liked to party at college. Yeah? Well of course you would not want a president who did ... well exactly what the rest of us did!
Last time we only got interested in your elction cos it went all funky. This time the planet is watching like hawks (for obvious reasons) so try to behave and act like you deserve democracy! It would make us feel so much better knowing the men with nukes had them because they deserved them, not because they had more baloons.
morgan
ps. half the reason the world is so scared of the US is we see how crappy you are to each other.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
This time the planet is watching like hawks (for obvious reasons) so try to behave and act like you deserve democracy!
The beauty of a true democracy is that all points, no matter how inane or obtuse, can be expressed. We've addressed the issue many times here that America really is the experiment that works, and while we're not perfect, we're as good as anyone has gotten so far.
Are politicians idiots? Yup, just as they are in every country. Are the news media biased and bereft of intelligence? Yes indeed, here and everywhere. Are people often swayed by idiotic arguments? All over the planet. But it WORKS here, and has been for over 200 years.
Please, where are you from and why does your country deserve democracy more than the US?

It would make us feel so much better knowing the men with nukes had them because they deserved them, not because they had more baloons.
Well then you better get your anti-anxiety medicine prescription refilled, because nowadays, having nukes is no guarantee of anything other than you got your hands on some plutonium; Musharraf's a great example of that.

Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Well, you'd have to have been The Amazing Karnak to know that, Tom, since in the immediately previous conflict - Korea - over 80% of the ANG were mobilized.
You didn't have to know. All you had to know was that it was virtually guaranteed that if you were drafted you were going to Vietnam and that all the children of the politicians were joing the Guard to know which one you wanted to join.
Anyone who seriously thinks GWB joined the Guard because he wanted to do his duty doesn't understand what America was like in 1968. GWB wanted to avoid Vietnam. He used his political connections to get into the Guard because he figured it was unlikely that he would be sent to Vietnam. While in the Guard he took his duty so seriously that he thought it was more important to help a friend get elected to political office rather than keeping his flying skills at the ready in case his nation called. While this millionaire's son was doing this, my brother was slogging through the swamps of Vietnam and Cambodia, getting shot at and watching his friends die to make the world safe for democracy.
GWB was a legal draft dodger. He used his power and influence to stay home while those without power and influence died in a jungle fighting for their country. Anyone who tries to defend Bush's war record gets no respect from me. But this isn't what annoys me about Bush. It happened 35 years ago. What annoys me is that he thinks he did absolutely nothing wrong.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Morgan Bath:
Last time we only got interested in your elction cos it went all funky. This time the planet is watching like hawks (for obvious reasons) so try to behave and act like you deserve democracy! It would make us feel so much better knowing the men with nukes had them because they deserved them, not because they had more baloons.


Oh please. :roll: Deserve democracy... I mean, it's not like we didn't spend the better part of fifty years ensuring Western Europe's democracy. A statement lecturing us to "behave" (according to who's standards?) and "act like we deserve democracy" (who is fit to judge?) certainly sounds like it is being made from a culturally superior position, so I would have to ask on what basis of superiority such a statement is made? We are but children in need of guidance from the Old World.
In any event, what percentage of American voters will be factoring into their voting decision what Europeans (and anyone else for that matter) may think about our choice for President? I don't expect there to be any hard numbers available to factually answer that question, but intuitively I expect that number to be somewhere approaching 0%.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
In any event, what percentage of American voters will be factoring into their voting decision what Europeans (and anyone else for that matter) may think about our choice for President? I don't expect there to be any hard numbers available to factually answer that question, but intuitively I expect that number to be somewhere approaching 0%.


I would expect that Madonna and Alec Baldwin will give it serious consideration.
 
author
Posts: 9000
19
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
way to go Thomas!
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What annoys me is that he thinks he did absolutely nothing wrong.


He didn't. In fact, he was better than the vast majority of Americans who wouldn't waste their time to actually join a branch of the military. Not that most of them could likely even meet the requirements. Bush Sr was a military aviator, and he encouraged his son to follow in his footsteps and become a fighter pilot in the ANG. Very honorable.
Here's an interesting letter from somebody who actually understands the specifics of Bush's tenure in the Guard, as well as service as a pilot in the ANG in general during the Vietnam era. There is no basis for criticism of ANG aviators during the Vietnam war, and to compare them to draft dodgers is pretty repugnant imho. I can't imagine anybody who has actually worked in military aviation, active duty or otherwise, ever presuming to make such a comparison. I've seen enough non-combat related fatalities amongst military aviators to understand the ridiculousness of such comparisons.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I would expect that Madonna and Alec Baldwin will give it serious consideration.


As I said, statistically approaching 0%.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I've seen enough non-combat related fatalities amongst military aviators to understand the ridiculousness of such comparisons.


I would be willing to bet that the Air National Guard units in Texas suffered a much lower casualty rate than my brother's unit in Vietnam. Bush did not join the Air National Guard because his father was an aviator (although that might have been, and might still be, the rationalization he used). He joined to stay safe and secure in Texas. GWB used his political connections to stay home. Because of that someone else had to go to Vietnam in his place. And that someone may have died there.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
MB: It would make us feel so much better knowing the men with nukes had them because they deserved them, not because they had more baloons.
Baloons? What baloons? I wish I could watch the news from Norway, -- apparently they mix the weather and political coverage into a single entity. Fox News didn't have nothin' about no stinkin' baloons.
But I do remember a European baloon joke. Two twins have a birthday party. One twin got a lot of gifts and attention, and the other twin got just one baloon. The twin with a lot of gifts asks the other one, "Why is that that I have so many gifts and you have just one baloon?". The other twin replies, "Well, but I don't have cancer."
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
In fact, he was better than the vast majority of Americans who wouldn't waste their time to actually join a branch of the military.
Is this a dig at the men who were drafted and yet went to fight for their country instead of hanging out at country clubs? GWB disgraced the uniform he wore. He used political connections to stay out of Vietnam. He failed to maintain his flight status at a time when his country was at war. The only thing one might say is that he didn't run off to Canada. But then why bother when daddy can keep you safe?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
GWB disgraced the uniform he wore.


Whatever. For me personally, I would never presume to make a determination on whether or not actions are or aren't a disgrace to a uniform I've never worn.
If anyone is in possession of facts which nobody else has, I for one would be interested in seeing them. So far all I'm hearing are baseless accusations which have little grounding in reality and certainly nothing to back them up. I'd be happy to argue the points and facts if any are presented.
While there is obviously some pleasure to be had in defaming military personnel, unless they happened to have been drafted of course, I like to think I have some clue in this regard. What the man wrote in the link I gave above is clearly factual, and can easily be evaluated to be so by anyone who has any experience with the ANG, Reserves, or the Air Force. If one is determined to spout off accusations based on a lack of understanding, then I don't see any facts whatsoever being disuasive, so maybe there's no point.
The US military is quite large and made up of various components, including regular, reserve, and federalised national guard elements. In case anyone is wondering, whenever we have a conflict, the entire US military is not sent into theater. Only a portion of our military is actually sent into combat. Many volunteer servicemen and women ended u pspending the duration of the Vietnam conflict performing their duties in Europe, stateside, or otherwise out of theater. There are still other missions that must be performed and only certain units will be tasked for any given conflict, and only part of those are even combat forces. The government has the authority to call reserve and guard elements to active duty as it sees fit and dedicate them to missions for which they are designed to carry out. Not all of these activated forces are sent into combat, many are used to fill-in for regular units deployed in support of combat operations. As everybody who has actually served in the military knows, be it regular, reserves, or guard, any unit may be called up for combat at any time.
Just to inject a few facts into this discussion for a change:
- 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers, versus 2/3 of the men who served in WW2 were drafted
- Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers.
Fact: A person joining the National Guard during the height of a military conflict has no way of knowing whether or not they will be called to active duty and sent into combat. This is particularly true if the person is joining to be a pilot. There is no way to pre-determine the course of any conflict to the degree that it may be known which guard and reserve elements will need to be called up at some point during the conflict.
A logical assumption may be made that a person joining a guard unit to pilot fighter aircraft has a greater chance of being called into combat than somebody who joins a guard unit as a supply officer. A far more obvious assumption may be made that a person joining a guard or reserve unit has a much greater chance of being sent into a conflict than the average person on the street who may or may not be drafted (in all likelihood they won't be drafted), and then who may or may not be sent into the theater for combat operations.
[ February 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Because of that someone else had to go to Vietnam in his place. And that someone may have died there.
Please. That someone also may have gotten battle experience, gained friends and is now a successful businessman because he went to Vietnam. Unlikely, but hypotheticals suck.
And while you're right that Guardsmen died alot less frequently than infantrymen, this sort of argument is more about the politics of being rich than anything. It sounds like you're upset you're not as rich as the Bush family.
Let me ask you this: if you had been influential enough to do so, would you have pulled enough strings to get your brother a Guard slot? Or would you instead rather your brother fought and possibly died for your principles?
And finally: Senator Kerry joined a group that advocated that all those who illegally avoided the war - draft dodgers, deserters, and the like - be given amnesty. Men who illegally caused other men to go to Vietnam "in their place" and perhaps die there. And he insists he did nothing wrong. So who's the worse offender?
Is Bush a war hero for joining the Guard? No. Is he a war criminal? No. And in my opinion, complaining about the President joining the Guard while accepting Kerry's involvement with a group demanding amnesty for deserters seems hypocritical.
Joe
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Because of that someone else had to go to Vietnam in his place. And that someone may have died there.


Really? You know that Bush would have been drafted? Of the 27 million men eligible to be drafted in the Vietnam era, only 1.7 million were actually drafted. That's about 6%. In other words, a person who decided to take his chances with being drafted instead of electing to join one of the military services had a 94% chance of not being drafted.
About 2.1 million military personnel actually served in the Vietnam war. As about 66% of those were volunteers and not draftees, that leaves about 693,000 of those who served as being drafted (please someone feel free to see if they can come up with better numbers). Therefore, even if you were one of the unlucky 6% who took their chances and ended up being drafted anyway, there was then only a 31.5% chance that you would be sent into the conflict.
There were 58152 American military killed in Vietnam. Around 70% of those were volunteers, and draftees comprised around 17725 (30.4%) of those casualties. So out of those draftees who were unlucky enough to be sent to Vietnam (31.5% of 6% of all draft elgibles), then these people had about a 2.5% chance of being KIA.
I just want to make sure we are keeping things in perspective here.
[ February 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Morgan Bath
Ranch Hand
Posts: 196
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I mean, it's not like we didn't spend the better part of fifty years ensuring Western Europe's democracy.


Youre right, its not.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
A statement lecturing us to "behave" (according to who's standards?) and "act like we deserve democracy" (who is fit to judge?) certainly sounds like it is being made from a culturally superior position, so I would have to ask on what basis of superiority such a statement is made? We are but children in need of guidance from the Old World.


Its not about cultural superiority or the fact that your children. Its the fact that you have become bogged down in side issues. If Tony Blair stood in parliment with a picture of thee opposition with his underpants around his ankles Id be bitching Tony out too. And Im not sure there is an older parlimentary system that thiers
If you wanna take this as a 'we are so much' better than you issue I dont care. But its not. I would be bothered if the 16 or so political parties here started down the same path. And the politicians here just run a small peninsula with no real military might and a little bit of oil. And yes id still be bothered. But we are talking the about the man that will rule the 96% of the world and leads the other 4% for the next four years.
PLEASE! Pick the clever one. Pick the diplomatic one. Pick one for some good reason. Dont revel in the dirt on one of the politicians because the (D) or the (R) is the wrong one. You are all americans, how different can the (R)s be from the (D)s really? It cant be saints on one side and monsters on the other! Cant you listen to each others policies and dreams for the futre rather than picking holes in each others childhoods. Argue Bush is wrong cos of his foreign policy, argue Kerry is wrong cos of his economics ...etc. Stop saying the other side is evil incarnate who is obviously determined to subvert the people to their own wicked little plans. I mean oooh look ..... he was once near Jane Fonda!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Pick the one who is tallest. Pick the one with the best hair or eyes. You Americans are too stupid to see partisan political attacks for what they are.
 
Morgan Bath
Ranch Hand
Posts: 196
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
You Americans are too stupid to see partisan political attacks for what they are.


I think that is uncalled for. Not just the language but the point.
I dont think people are too stupid to see partisan attacks, I think they choose to justify them when its for their side. Its not stupidty, its an earnest desire to believe in 'their side'. And I think as both sides do it they have become desensitised (sp?) to it. Its now normal so they are not shocked. My argument is that they should be. When the opposition make a snide attack they are up in arms, but they nod and murmur agreement when their own side do it.
A man should be twice as critical of his own side than his enemies.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Really? You know that Bush would have been drafted? Of the 27 million men eligible to be drafted in the Vietnam era, only 1.7 million were actually drafted. That's about 6%.

This is 1968 we are talking about, prior to the lottery. Bush's odds of being drafted approached 100%.
But thanks for bringing up the death rates for draftees vs. volunteers. The rate for the US Army (which is where most draftees ended up) was 50.5% for draftees and 48.8% for volunteers. And how many Air National Guardsmen died during Vietnam you might wonder.... exactly 1. Not 1%, 1 soldier. Now tell me again the risks that Bush took joining the Air National Guard.
But I like the way that you ignore the point... even given the best possible spin, Bush still disgraced his uniform because while he was on active duty with the Air National Guard he lost his flight status. At a time when his country was at war, when Americans soldiers were dieing on foreign soil, GWB lost his flight status because he thought it was more important to help a friend get elected than do his duty and be prepared to defend his country.
By thw way, 69 National Guardsmen died fighting in Vietnam. That represented .2% of all casualties in that war.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
And while you're right that Guardsmen died alot less frequently than infantrymen, this sort of argument is more about the politics of being rich than anything. It sounds like you're upset you're not as rich as the Bush family.

What I am upset about is that GWB thinks he did nothing wrong. Taking advantage of your family's wealth to avoid doing your duty is slimy. And bringing up Kerry is absolutely irrelevant. I am not talking about Kerry. Is the only good thing that you can say about GWB is that he is not as big a slime as another slime? :roll:
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Around 70% of those were volunteers, and draftees comprised around 17725 (30.4%) of those casualties. So out of those draftees who were unlucky enough to be sent to Vietnam (31.5% of 6% of all draft elgibles), then these people had about a 2.5% chance of being KIA.

The figures you are using are mostly irrelevant. You can't include figures for 1970-71 (part of the Vietnam era) and use them to discuss 1968. By 1970 the US was disengaging from Vietnam and your chances of being sent there even if drafted were much less. But even given your figures, a 2.5% chance of being killed is infinitely higher than the almost 0% chance that you faced in the Air National Guard. By 1968, with the president and all candidates talking about getting out it seemed highly unlikely that the Guard would be called up to fight there.
You might also want to keep in mind that the first half of 1968 saw the worst casualties for US soldiers during Vietnam. That had to have been on GWB's mind as he graduated from college in June, 1968.
[ February 22, 2004: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
You can't deny the double standard the Bill Clinton enjoyed, by the same people now demonizing GWB. I figured if the VietNam Vets can forgive Clinton, then it shouldn't be a big issue for me. GWB's military record is just not a big issue to me either.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Is the only good thing that you can say about GWB is that he is not as big a slime as another slime?
In politics it's often the lesser of two evils on a specific issue. And as I've said over and over again, I don't think the President is a slime.
I notice you didn't answer my question: if you had the influence, would you have gotten your brother an appointment in the Guard, or would you have insisted he go to Vietnam on principle?
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[b]I notice you didn't answer my question: if you had the influence, would you have gotten your brother an appointment in the Guard, or would you have insisted he go to Vietnam on principle?


If it was me we are talking about (it's irrelevant what I would have done for my brother since we are talking about GWB and not his father), I would have risked the draft rather than use my influence to get myself out of the draft. If someone else had offered to help me I would have refused.

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell´┐Żs autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)

 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
You can't deny the double standard the Bill Clinton enjoyed, by the same people now demonizing GWB. I figured if the VietNam Vets can forgive Clinton, then it shouldn't be a big issue for me. GWB's military record is just not a big issue to me either.


It was one of the reasons I didn't vote for Clinton. But as with Bush, it was not what he did during Vietnam but how he justifies those actions today that is important. I would have had a lot more respect if Bush had said, "Yes, I used my father's influence to stay out of Vietnam and it is something that I am ashamed of today." That is a man I could vote for easily.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
If it was me we are talking about (it's irrelevant what I would have done for my brother since we are talking about GWB and not his father),
No it's not irrelevant. We're talking about ethics here, and I want to know if you would have used your influence to keep your brother from going to Vietnam. It's good to know you would have given your life for the country, but I want to know exactly how solid your ethical line is here, since you're the one making it an issue.
So, once again, if you had the influence, would you have gotten your brother an appointment in the Guard or would you have forced him to go to Vietnam on principle?
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
So, once again, if you had the influence, would you have gotten your brother an appointment in the Guard or would you have forced him to go to Vietnam on principle?

I would not have used my influence to get him an appointment in front of other people.
There is an episode of The Twighlight Zone that comes to mind. A woman is offered the opportunity to press a button by a mysterious figure. If she pushes the button, a complete stranger will die somewhere but she will given great wealth. She decides to push the button. At the end she asks the mysterious figure where he is going. He says, "I am going to offer the button to some else. But he will be a complete stranger to you."
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I would not have used my influence to get him an appointment in front of other people.
If you would have forced your brother to go to war when you could have stopped him from doing so then you are made of sterner stuff than I.
Especially since this was 1968, when LBJ had already said he wouldn't run again and that we were going to get out of Vietnam, so there was no moral imperative to go.
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
What crime did the President commit, based on what evidence? Please be precise: this is an important statement. I haven't heard a single rational person, not even a Democrat, accuse the President of a crime.


I thought some people had accused Bush of being AWOL. Isn't that a crime? Or were all his accusers irrational?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I thought some people had accused Bush of being AWOL. Isn't that a crime? Or were all his accusers irrational?
Only the Michael Moore crowd shouted "AWOL", and no, I do not consider them rational.
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Especially since this was 1968, when LBJ had already said he wouldn't run again and that we were going to get out of Vietnam, so there was no moral imperative to go.

Actually in 1968, LBJ was still trying to hold onto the myth that we could win the war. Nixon was talking about getting out but LBJ wouldn't let Humphrey talk about it until September. Probably cost Humprey the election.
As to the "sterner stufff", actually I think it is the opposite. I don't think I could have lived with myself knowing that someone may have died because I used my influence. It is like the button in that Twilight Zone episode. What if your brother had terminal cancer and the mysterious figure told you that pushing the button would save his life but kill another person. Would you push that button? I couldn't, not ever. No matter how much I love my brother I could never kill an innocent person to save his life.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Only the Michael Moore crowd shouted "AWOL", and no, I do not consider them rational.
I guess that is one way to ignore someone's argument.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
What if your brother had terminal cancer and the mysterious figure told you that pushing the button would save his life but kill another person. No matter how much I love my brother I could never kill an innocent person to save his life.
I probably would pusht the button. I might hate myself for it, but I couldn't conceive of letting my brother die.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I guess that's one way to ignore someone's argument
It's not just me, Tom. I don't have a single friend or associate who listens to what Michael Moore says.
Joe
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
It's not just me, Tom. I don't have a single friend or associate who listens to what Michael Moore says.
But Michael Moore is not the only one making that argument. But if you simply say that anyone who thinks Bush went AWOL is irrational you end all possible discussion.
"Anyone who thinks that Bush did his duty by joining the ANG is irrational and not worth listening to."
What do you think? Will this lead to a good discussion?
 
Try 100 things. 2 will work out, but you will never know in advance which 2. This tiny ad might be one:
Thread Boost feature
https://coderanch.com/t/674455/Thread-Boost-feature
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic