NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/war/vietnam/577

Text File | 1992-11-15 | 5.4 KB | 126 lines

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!sunova!convex!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!watson!Watson.Ibm.Com!strom
From: [e-mail] (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Veterans' Day
Sender: @watson.ibm.com
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 00:07:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 114

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (R.W.Henry) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
|> (Rob Strom) writes:
|>
|> |>Are you going to claim (as has been claimed about the
|> |>Vietnam war based on a small number of incidents) that
|> |>we were sorry to see these young men come home safely?
|>
|>  Claim? I wasn't going to make any claim.
|>  I will say though, that I have never  heard of anyone saying
|>  " we were sorry to see these young men come home safely?"
|>  'Nam vets were called "Baby Killers" and "Stupid",
|>  but I never heard anyone say they wanted us dead.
|>

But you did praise parents of soldiers for "standing
up to the anti-war folk", and I was wondering exactly
what you meant by that.  Why did the opponents of
the Vietnam war or the Desert Storm war need to
be "stood up to"?

|> |>I had thought that we were beginning to heal the
|> |>rifts between pro- and anti-war folk.  That had
|> |>started to happen until some ugly rhetoric
|> |>during this Presidential election campaign
|> |>heated it up again.
|>
|>  Excuse me, where does it say that those who were not anti-war
|>  were "pro"-war?  I prefer to believe that I was anti-communist;
|>  does this mean that you were pro-communist?
|>  I don't think so.
|>

I agree that I used shorter labels than necessary.  And I
agree that not all soldiers were "pro-war".  But I think
it's not ridiculous to assume that someone who enlisted
or re-enlisted during the war was "pro-war".

By "ugly rhetoric" I primarily meant these things:
(a) President Bush's encouragement of labelling Clinton
    a "draft-dodger".
(b) The criticisms of Clinton's London anti-war protests
    and his trip to Russia as "unpatriotic".
(c) Stockdale's statement that the Vietnam anti-war protestors
    had "blood on their hands". [Ironically, the head of
    his ticket, Ross Perot, was a Persian Gulf war protestor.]

I have not met anyone who defended (a), (b), or (c)
who was not also pro-war.

|>  Ugly rhetoric, maybe. I did think that it quite inappropriate of
|>  Governor Clinton to say that relations were warming up
|>  between the US and the USSR when he visited Russia in '69-'70.
|>  You see I was ducking bullets at that time. Bullets being supplied
|>  by Russian ships anchored in North Vietnamese harbors.
|>
|>  Anyone who would want to "sight-see" and add American dollars
|>  to the enconomy, of a country working to undermine our way of life,
|>  while other men and women, his own age, were dying because of
|>  the full support of that country, is not worthy of my respect.
|>  It may be "ugly rhetoric" but it's what I believe.
|>

We still had diplomatic relations with the USSR.  Many diplomats
and government officials --- e.g. Kissinger --- went there.
Clinton was a student aspiring to a career in government
service and it is perfectly natural for him to want to go there.

|>  INHO the "rifts" will be healed when the Veterans stop being made
|>  to feel guilty for doing something that was asked (draft - required)
|>  of them by their government, and the draft dodgers/anti-war protesters
|>  stop feeling guilty about their part in extending the war.
|>
|> - Bob Henry
|> USN, MCB-7, Chu Lai, '69-70

If I read correctly the acronym under your signature, you were
in the Navy, and if my memory serves me correctly, that means
that you were *not* drafted.  American combat involvement
in Vietnam began in 1965, and you served a tour of duty
from 1969-1970.  I think it is fair of me to say that since
you voluntarily enlisted in a military unit subsequent
to the outbreak of hostilities you can be described as "pro-war".
(It's possible that you enlisted because you thought you
might be drafted if you didn't enlist.)

I don't like your juxtaposition of draft dodgers and anti-war
protestors.  Clinton was not a draft dodger; the vast majority
of anti-war protestors were not draft dodgers.

In any case, the anti-war protestors do *not* feel guilty
about their part in extending the war, since they had no
part in extending the war.

The vast majority of anti-war protestors do not resent what
the vast majority of veterans did;  on the contrary they
resent what the government asked these veterans to do.

There was no ugly campaign rhetoric in which anti-war protestors
tried to impute guilt on veterans.  Nobody attempted
to besmirch the war record of President Bush, Senator
Gore, or Admiral Stockdale.

On the contrary, supporters of the war *did* try to besmirch
President-elect Clinton for having protested the war.

In any case, soon he will be President and Commander-in-chief.
If you encourage the Armed Forces to disrespect Clinton,
*you* could be undermining our ability to fight a war
should such an event happen under his administration.

--
Rob Strom, [e-mail], [phone]
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598