From: EvMick@aol.com
Date: Mon Apr 24 2000 - 02:21:18 MDT
In a message dated 4/23/00 9:58:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
retroman@turbont.net 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?
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...?
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..
<snip>
> If you had declared yourself as a contientious objector, the closest to
> combat you could serve is as a combat medic (which tends in the end to
> make you change your mind about things like that).
Not that it matters...but what actually happened is that I was 'induced" to
volunteer. I choose the Air Force..... I was in SEA within weeks of
enlistment....I didn't see a LOT of combat...but I saw a lot of combat
hardware...and got an idea of how things were run.....not that it matters...
>
> 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
gained?
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.......
>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!!
Some coward huh....to want to avoid that?
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...
Calling someone a coward and "sniveling" seems contraindicated given such
data....
Evmick
Madera Calif..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:11 MST