🚀 go-pugleaf

davehs@ix.netcom.com (David Hutchings) wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Sep 1996 17:41:34 GMT, rex@intr.net (Rex) wrote:
>
>>I fail to see how Vietnam in any way solidified the freedom of
>>Americans, but that is another topic altogether.
>
>It would have if we had won!  However, politics got in in the way and
>some people felt that it was not their duty to serve their country.  I
>still feel that it is every citizens duty to serve their country in
>some way!

Dave's theory: Vietnam would have solidified our freedoms if we had won.

My query: Would you care to prove that little supposition?

My rejoiner: Oh, winning the war would have prevented congress from passing all
the egregiously laws they have passed in the ensuing years? I think not!

The only thing we have to fear is acts of congress.

>>There are many Vets who would prefer to not have gone, did not join
>>the military voluntarily, and who suffered a great deal because of the
>>draft.
>
>Oh you can count me among them.  I could have thought of a great many
>places I would rather have been and I did suffer from that duty (I
>have the holes in me to prove it).  Also there are a great many Vet's
>that were drafted and did not go any where near Vietnam.  
>>
>>I am glad that you are not one of those people.
>>
>I still suffer a great deal, especially when I think of the friends
>that I lost over there.   

And you don't get mad at the politicians that put them there? I sense an
extreme case of ostrich head here.

Am I the only one that is aware of the history of the Vietnam war and the many
non-American lives lost there? The French and Australians very properly gave up
on the whole mess. We should have taken a clue from them.

I believe it was the colossal hubris and undeniable pomposity of a president
and congress who thought they (ie America) could do what two other major powers
could not.

>>Just like it takes an "act of Congress" to raise taxes or increase the
>>pay of Congressmen.  Congress "acts" on a daily basis.  Why do people
>>use this arguement when trying to convince others that a draft is
>>unlikely?  Acts of Congress are common, easy, and can be done quite
>>quickly (when they want to).
>
>Evidently you haven't been watching the news lately.  Congress never
>acts swiftly<G>.  In the light of the Vietnam War I doubt that
>congress would ever have the guts to re-instate the draft unless they
>first had declared war.

Your doubts will *not* make me sleep better at night, thank you very much.

And they aren't facts either. Your personal convictions mean next to nothing in
this area.

>>It depends on if it is an election year, and what politics are
>>involved.  The US need to create enemies in times of peace for PR
>>purposes.  Someday, this might escalate and backfire. 
>
>Don't be quite so cinical, the voters have very long memories!

Whhaaa haaa haaaa. VOTERS ARE FUCKING MORONS (I speak as one, too). Year after
year they swallow the same pile of sweetened bullshit, always believing that
*this* time the patent medicine peddler is telling the truth.

Free clue: It will never happen.

Let's pass a law that requires a mandatory death sentence for any elected
politician that does not actively pursue their stated election agenda. I think
we'd see some changes lickety-split.

>>Me too. That will cut my chances of being sent to Iraq, (or the enemy
>>du jour) for a presidential campaign war, more than in half - Since
>>there are more women in the US then men, 
>
>The Gulf War (which this latest thing is) was Bush's war not Clinton's
>war.

Oh, and Billy's not starting things up again? Oh, no, it's that nasty Saddam
guy, it's all his fault. 

Horse puckey.

Jack