> In a message dated 4/23/00 9:58:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > >
> > > > He goes into it later in the post. I personally can't dissagree witht
> > > > the logic either, even though I'm libertarian, I'm a libertarian of
> > very
> > > > Spartan sentiments.
> This having to do with that amendment of the constitution which rules against
> involuntary servitude except as a condition of punishment. To which military
> conscription is "winked" at. In other words....military conscription fits
> all the rules of involuntary servitude...but since it's in the best interests
> of the government for such to occur...it doesn't 'count'
> In other other words...the constituition only applies when it's convienient?
Ideally, serving your country is in your best interests, etc. (Remember:
Whats good for GM is good for the country ;) ) since this is supposedly
a participatory democracy.
> A man who has nothing worth dying for has nothing
> > > > worth living for, IMNSHO.
> Some people feel differently is suppose...or perhaps "worth" is an individual
> thing instead of mandated by the state? What was "worth" dying for in Viet
> Nam? Who said so...?
Anyone who thinks that their own life is more valuable than anyone elses
doesn't obviously beleive in equality and all that stuff. Frankly I'm
surprised at you. I personally think fighting against communism anywhere
and any time is as close to a holy and noble cause as a libertarian can
> Perhaps they didn't think much of that particular conflict? Who was trying to
> invade? How did it impact on Hoboken or Des Moines? Or perhaps there was
> evidence of us being on the wrong side? I reference the history of french
> colonialism...the activities of said french during WWII and thereafter...and
> McNamara's autobiography.
> People who refuse to enlist or be drafted
> > > > ought to be stripped of citizenship, as far as I am concerned.
> Sounds like something out of a Heinlien Juvinile..
Your point is?
> > I personally don't think that the baby boomer's general opposition to
> > the draft had much to do with principle, it was merely a snivling case
> > of cowardice in general.
> That seems mighty strong words..You've been there then? Charged across rice
> fields into enemy fire because ..........because of what?.......what was
> It seems to me that avoiding the military altogether during that time frame
> was more "honorable" than being in the military but being in it in such a
> manner as to avoid all harm. Kinda like the mafia is an "honest" crook while
> a politician is a dishonest one...if you follow my analogy. The principle of
> it all.......
If such people went to Canada and stayed there, fine. They were breaking
their social contract, and the accepted duties of citizenship since the
civil war. Good, stay out. If such people expected to stay here in the
US after being so selfish? I don't think so.
I didn't serve in Vietnam, I did serve in the Air Force in the 80's and
was in Panama for the fun. Understand this: I am a rugged individualist,
but I would die for you. Get it?
> >Most of these kids had been told by their
> > parents that their parents had fought WWII so that junior wouldn't have
> > to fight again, that kinda crap. Their opposition to the war had more to
> > do with their personal opposition to being drafted.
> Personal opposition to being drafted seems reasonable...given what they(we)
> were taught in civics class regarding "involintary servitude"...especially in
> light of government corruption (ours and our allies) and the hypocrisy of
> various government officials...
> Also since about age ten we were treated to the sight of fire fights on
> Walter Cronkite at six pm. And just about every high school class had
> recent graduates come home in a body bag.
> Imagine that...a high school junior....who attends the funeral of a guy who
> had only recently been a football hero? Imagine seeing/ hearing of such
> funerals since he could READ!!
So you admit it was based on fear.
> Some coward huh....to want to avoid that?
How long the war was dragged out due to its pathetic management was a
factor in public sentiment being demoralized. However I stick by my
earlier statement, that you had a much smaller chance of being sent if
you enlisted than if you were drafted. Draftees were getting drafted for
one reason. In addition, of the 2.5 million sent, only 50,000
casualties? Thats only a one chance in 50 of being killed. You have a
greater chance of dying before age 39 in some useless and meaningless
I'd heard of and been to funerals for kids killed in auto accidents
since I could read, including a good freind of my own, who plowed into
an oak tree at 95 with a blood alcohol of .35. They found most of him in
the trunk of the wreckage.... It doesn't impede my willingness to drive
in any way.
> Or how about when he came "home"...but found that home wasn't there any more?
> And getting pelted by eggs and rotten fruit upon arrival....being called a
> baby killer...
..by the sniveling cowards who were still home and didn't want to get
sent there...I know, even though I served in the 80's, I've met a number
of such pathetic losers who still are such rude assholes.
> Calling someone a coward and "sniveling" seems contraindicated given such
I don't see how.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:45 MDT