🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>On Sat, 07 Sep 1996 17:41:34 GMT, rex@intr.net (Rex) wrote:

>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!

If we had won Vietnam, our freedom would now be more solidified???  I
really don't agree.  The Vietnamese haven't comtemplated a take over
of the US that I know of.

As for serving our country.  Most people work hard,  for free until
mid May, just to pay their federal taxes.  Some of us (in Washington
DC), do not even have congressional representation to show for it.

5 months of service to the country, per year, should suffice. 

Fighting a political nonesense war, is not service to your country -
it is service to your elected officials, who should be serving you.

>>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 when you found out how the government went about the "war", it
probably made you suffer more.  I am suprised that you are not
downright pissed.

>>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>.

It doesn't take themselves long to vote themselves a raise, and to
vote to exempt themselves from the laws they impose on the public.  I
think the swiftness depends on who will benefit from the act.

>  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.

Well, I sure hope that you are right.  I don't think people should
have blind-faith that Congress will do the right thing, though.

>>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!

I know people involved in such things.  You should be cynical, trust
me on this one.  The American public is easily brainwashed.  Your
elected officials laugh at all of your gullibility.  

They would laugh at me too.  But, since I have no elected
representatives (Washington DC),  what's the point?

What other "democratic" or "free" country in this world, supports
taxation without representation for the residents of their capital?

Why, if another country did this, the US would decry it as tyranny,
and commit our military to rectify the situation.  The irony is rarely
realized, though.

>>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.

Well, it isn't Bush's war anymore.  Bush isn't the president.  Clinton
is pursuing the issue now.  Notice the timing.  Even the majority of
our allies realize the bullshit reasons and timing behind this thing,
and they want nothing to do with it.

Actually, I don't even think that it is a "war" per se.  Isn't it a
"military action", like Vietnam?




--
Rex
rex@intr.net