home

Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:43:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I thought this was a joke, but it's not. Apparently in an effort to send a message to those thinking about deserting from their service in Iraq, a Marine unit is on the prowl, hunting down and jailing Vietnam war deserters.

Chief Warrant Officer James Averhart, who has commanded the Marine Corps Absentee Collection Center since September 2004, told the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times that he had ordered cold cases reopened and that his squad had caught 27 deserters in his first 11 months on the job, a rate he suggested was higher than those of his predecessors. The Corps last month updated that number to 33 cases.

"I have a different leadership style than the guys who have had this job. My job is to catch deserters. And that's what I do," Averhart told the newspaper.

One would have thought this issue was put to rest years ago:

In 1974, President Ford offered clemency to Vietnam draft resisters and deserters. Only 27,000 of 350,000 eligible applied. The offer expired on April 1, 1975. In 1977, President Carter pardoned those who dodged the war by not registering or fleeing the country.

What a waste of resources. Why not transfer Averhart to Afghanistan and let him look for Osama?

The Iraq desertion numbers are now at 8,000. [hat tip Patriot Daily.]

< Abramoff Talks to Vanity Fair | Bush Orders Homeland Security to Assist Faith-Based Groups >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters | 85 comments (85 topical)
    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#1)
    by Aaron on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:10:20 AM EST
    Everyone who deserted during the Vietnam War should get a medal for meritorious service and upholding the honor of the Republic. If Americans had refused to fight in Vietnam, the lives of millions of Vietnamese would've been saved.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    They can start with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Shoot. Shoot to kill. Then the Observatory. Aim for the face.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:18:59 AM EST
    The war pigs are looking pretty desperate.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    These guys signed a contract. They broke the contract, which was their word. They deserted, which is a crime. Someone else did their duty. Most like some of thise "someone's" died. No reason not prosecute.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    This must be so much more rewarding than hunting down actual enemies and terrorists.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    Jim,
    These guys signed a contract. They broke the contract, which was their word.
    If they were drafted, then the "contract" was signed under duress. Doesn't count as a contract. They were pressed into service against their will, and escaped. If they volunteered, you have a point. That leaves the question of whether the government acted in good faith -- important for contracts -- by sending the military to Vietnam.
    Someone else did their duty. Most like some of thise "someone's" died.
    This only plucks the heartstrings if you cling to the notion that invading Vietnam was a good and just thing to do. Do you? Otherwise, it's a matter of the government sending a bunch of people to fight and die for a bad reason. How does that create a moral obligation to be one of those people?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    And then there were those hellbent-for-leather red hunters, chomping at the bit to get into the action, who were forced by circumstances beyond thier control into the ANG and Naval Aviation.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#8)
    by Aaron on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ "These guys signed a contract." My uncle didn't sign any contract, he was drafted, as was my father. By definition, a contract you reject or have been coerced into against your will, is no contract. Very soon now the United States will be forced to once again begin pressing young people into military service, just to maintain our presence in Iraq. I got to see firsthand what sending someone off to war does to them, and I'll tell you one thing, nobody's going to draft my kid. I'll fight the Marines or anyone else who comes to take her. But JimakaPPJ , I support your right to send your kids off to be used as cannon fodder . I'm sure their flag draped corpses will bring you great pride and honor , though it'll do little to assuage the loneliness of old-age, when you think about what it would be like to have had grandchildren to play with. Yes, I'm quite willing to let your child stand-in for mine on the frontlines, for that I am eternally grateful. And you'll always be comforted by the fact that your child died in a vain attempt to spread a bankrupt Machiavellian political ideology. What more could you ask for. God bless America

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    yes, ppj believes VN was a noble cause. Ignoring that, just like iraq, it was started on a lie. See 'Gulf of Tonkin'.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    In 1977, President Carter pardoned those who dodged the war by not registering or fleeing the country.
    Which part of that is givin' you folks trouble?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    I agree with Roy. And contracts are not one-way agreements. The government, needless to say, in their continual abuse of and lying to soldiers, did not keep up their part of the deal in Vietnam, and continue to do so today in Iraq, Afghanistan, you name it. Going after Vietnam "deserters" now is more inanely stupid, utterly imaginatively bereft, and counterproductive nonsense from our civilian controlled military. We're #1!! We're #1!! We're #1!!

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    roy - I'm not 100% on this, but I believe that the Marines did not draft. They were 100% volunteer, as was the Navy and Airforce. Anyone? I find your argument that Vietnam must have been socially acceptable to the Left before it is unacceptable for someone else to have died for the deserter amusing. Dead is dead. Aaron - You seem to think that everyone gets to choose if they want to fight. Doesn't work that they. How many people do you think would have hit the beach on D-Day if they could have backed out? And you write:
    Yes, I'm quite willing to let your child stand-in for mine on the frontlines, for that I am eternally grateful.
    Yes, I am sure you are. There have been people like you for ages. Now. What difference is there in you and those you claim won't send their children? I see none. sailor - Whatever the reason, once it started the issue was to win as quickly as possible with the lowest possible number of dead and wounded. You and I both know that, as General Giap said, the actions of the Left in this country prolonged the war, causing more soldiers to be killed, and eventually millions of people in SE Asia. Link

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:42:51 AM EST
    charliedontsurf1 writes:
    Which part of that is givin' you folks trouble?
    Every GD bit of it. Jondee - And one even grew up to be President - twice. Don't that just frost your tweenkies?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    You and I both know that, as General Giap said, the actions of the Left in this country prolonged the war...
    Stop it... you're making me laugh!!!

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    So your point is what, exactly - laws that were broken a long time ago shouldn't matter? That's kind of an astonishing theory for a member of the bar to hold. Who gets to decide which old violations are no longer worth worrying about?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:18:29 AM EST
    No responsibility for anything. He didnt go himself, but wants others persecuted for not going. Supported the prosecution of that cold war jack off fantasy of a war, but blames "the left" for the massive casualties. Oh, and he wants badly for us to believe his poor-little-rich-boy-who-hid-out is some kind of salt a' the earth folk hero.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#17)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    This is an insanely stupid idea. The war ended 30+ years ago. This is just one more example of how the statute of limitations needs to be modified to give protection for something that happened in the far past, excluding murder. Even if this does have some tangental good in scaring some would be deserters into not deserting, the overall harm done here far outweighs the good. Terrible idea.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#19)
    by Joe Bob on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:38:59 AM EST
    Sorry, but this whole story is just f*ed up. If they want to send a message to soldiers deserting from service in Iraq...why don't they just track down, oh I don't know, soldiers who have already deserted from service in Iraq? It's not like there aren't enough of them to make a proper example of. That said, if they really want to make a point I'm sure there are a few members of the Greatest Generation who didn't heed the call to service. Drag them out of their nursing homes and throw them in the brig, that'll show 'em that the military never quits. This business of rounding up deserters from decades ago is just blind vindictiveness, not to mention an egregious waste of resources.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    PPJ, What up, Jimbo? Hope the cards are flipping your way. But, on a more germaine topic, are you saying Giap represents the prevalent opinion in Vietnam about the American Left during the war? And regardless, going after Vietnam "deserters" is nothing more than retributive injustice on the part of a government that lied to and abused them in the first place.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    So your point is what, exactly - laws that were broken a long time ago shouldn't matter? That's kind of an astonishing theory for a member of the bar to hold. Who gets to decide which old violations are no longer worth worrying about?
    Umm, this happens every single day everywhere in this country-- it's called "statute of limitations." Everything but homicide (AFAIK, there could be a few other crimes, but very very few) has a statute of limitations, after which no one can be prosecuted. That being said, the statute of limitations may not apply to military courts or to these cases in particular. I don't presume to know much about military law.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    Just a thought. Why are they rounding up people who was given amnesty by President Carter? I'm no lawyer but back in the day this was a very big deal because a lot of people were given a new chance.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    I knew I should have mentioned the statute of limitations - which does not apply in this case. So - which old violations (for which there is no limitation on enforcement) do we get to ignore? Who gets to be king of ignorage?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#24)
    by roy on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    Jim, It wouldn't surprise me a bit if you're right about the draft, so this rant is scoped to volunteers.
    I find your argument that Vietnam must have been socially acceptable to the Left before it is unacceptable for someone else to have died for the deserter amusing.
    The only way to discuss this without focussing on social acceptability is to stick to legal technicalities. You'd win that argument; deserters broke the law. Argument over, now let's talk about the core of the issue: right and wrong. It's not about social acceptability, but social acceptability is among the best of the bad tools we have to evaluate right and wrong. Especially if you want society to act on it. So when is it right to break your word and let somebody else die? Here's my take, as one individual in society: Vietnam was a cock-up and you know it, you just disagree with the Left about how it got that way. Whether the war was an imperialist power-grab, or a noble act that got screwed up by commie-loving hippies, it was a mistake. Marines suffered the consequences of that mistake. Given the high risk of dying and killing with low probability of worthwhile gain, it was a big enough mistake that it trumped the moral obligation of keeping one's word. I respect those who served anyway, out of duty or hope that it would get better, but I don't condemn those who saw it was a mistake and stopped. It's tragic that other marines died in the deserters' places, but who sent those replacements in to continue the mistake? Whoever is responsible for that, gets the blame. Presumably some deserters didn't realize anything special and were just cowards. Those aren't the ones I'm talking about.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steven Sanderson on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    "I have a different leadership style than the guys who have had this job. My job is to catch deserters. And that's what I do," Averhart told the newspaper. It doesn't take much of a sleuth to cross-check deserters' names with the names of recipients in the Social Security files, does it?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:52:13 PM EST
    Awaiting fax answer from Mehlman... Hold on.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#28)
    by Al on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    I wonder how many of the current "volunteer" deserters are people whose tour of duty has been extended whether they like it or not?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    Aaron, PPJ served.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    Jondee - You have no idea of who went, and who didn't. Your information about Bush has been repeatedly proven wrong, yet you rant on. What's your next insult? I mean that is all you can do. You sure can't debate a point. Dark Avenger - Enjoy the show, someone else is paying for it. Ken - Carter's amnesty didn't apply to deserters. I.e. People who had joined or been drafted. roy - I have never said the war was a noble cause. What I have said is that once we got in, we needed to win. And yes, I believe the actions of the Left caused the war to be prolonged and people died because of that. Read the link. You wrote:
    it was a big enough mistake that it trumped the moral obligation of keeping one's word.
    Everyone has their own valuation of their word, and the trade offs involved. Individuals in this country can not be allowed to say when and if they will do military duty. That has never worked and will never work. You are here. You are a citizen. Do your duty. Do not expect others to do it for you. From a strategic point of view, losing wars cost. Besides the millions who died in SE Asia, we can see that this led to the election of Carter who gave away Iran, and set a lot of wheels in motion. I too doubt that many deserters thought about some of those taking their place being killed. They just didn't have the mental depth to understand mankind's basic responsibilities to each other. I would simply hang them and let them tell their stories to God. Aaron - I have stated in the past that I spent slightly over 10 years in Naval Aviation. That's all I have ever said, and all I will say. Have you served at all? What you, and others, fail to grasp is that you do not get to choose. We are a constitutional republic, and if our elected leaders put us in war, we are in war. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that is the way it works. When that fails, individual freedoms, which you treasure so much you would not protect them, will also fail. And I see no reason for you to think that you are so "special" that you can put yourself above the rest of us. But I could be wrong. Is there something you have done that you should be spared? Some cure for cancer? 300 mpg engine you have invented? Anything? BTW - I have posted in the past that I am very much in favor of Universal Military Training. Two years, starting at age 18, with no exceptions except for severe mental and physical problems. I know it takes longer than that to have a professional soldier today, but it would provide the truck drivers, cooks and paper pushers needed. It would also provide a large reserve of people in the event we run into a situation in which our technology can't carry the day.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#31)
    by Al on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 05:03:11 PM EST
    PPJ, I know you will never accept this, but I will say it anyway. Your position about deserting being a betrayal of your fellow citizens might only make sense in a defensive war, where your country has been attacked. But it makes no sense at all in a war of aggression, where your government -- not your fellow citizens -- has decided that it wants to invade another country. That is what has happened with Iraq. And by the way, it is also what happened with Vietnam. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq attacked the United States. You may argue that America was attacked on 9-11. But Iraq had nothing to do with that. Universal military training for what? So you can go on and invade more oil-rich countries? The military have now shown without a shadow of a doubt that they are helpless in a guerrilla war. They have no idea how to fight a guerrilla war; they didn't in Vietnam, and they still don't. Do you really think conscripting every able-bodied person into the military would help? Do you really think more troops is the answer? Do you think at all, Jim?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    Posted by Jlvngstn March 8, 2006 03:34 PM
    Aaron, PPJ served.
    So did McVeigh. Clearly, they're not that choosy. Take now for example, they can't make their goals unless they Shanghai people with Stop Loss. They'll take anybody. "Get Jail Jump Bail Join the Army if ya fail" Dylan '65 So did Lenny Bruce for Christ Sake. Yes, some people have really stepped up and gone above and beyond in the Service. And some are just sick, sadistic, psychotic bastards who like to blow things up and kill people. Not everyone who puts on a uniform is a hero. Most aren't. Some are. Mean well Step up, get lied to and screwed used, and abused in life and in death. And then they do it to his family and the Country. The name Pat Tillman ring any bells? That's what I thought.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#33)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    JR - Do you understand the philosophical underpinnigns of punishment? I don't ask sarcastically, but am genuinely interested. There is general deterrance, specific deterrance, equality in punishment, and a fourth tenent which slips my mind right now. Also, not in that list, but having bearing is what harm to society does punishment inflict. In this case specific deterance is zero. The deserters are not going to desert again. There is some general deterance, but probablly not that great, and certinally the general deterrance could be achieved by hunting down the current desserters. Equality in punishment is a bigger issue here. Some have been punished for their actions. Then again, others have been pardoned. You can't ever achieve equality in punishment, but in this case it is iffy on if you can even achieve a balance. Those pardoned will not be punished. Any current punishment will shift the scale, it makes it more equitable for those who have already been punished, but less so for those who never will be. So the case for punishment is weak. Now, balance this against the harm to society. 30+ years have gone by. Odds are those who are punished today are productive members of society serving the good of the nation in one form or another. Maybe they are raising a family. Maybe they are contributing to the economy. Who knows what they are doing, but their action have a net positive influence on society. Does the harm of punishment for a transgression 30+ years ago, possibly 40+ years ago outweigh the benefits of punishment today? Reasonable people can differ on the answer, but it is not suprising that some hold that the greater harm comes from punishing today.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 05:50:36 PM EST
    All said: "PPJ, I know you will never accept this, but I will say it anyway. Your position about deserting being a betrayal of your fellow citizens might only make sense in a defensive war, where your country has been attacked. But it makes no sense at all in a war of aggression, where your government -- not your fellow citizens -- has decided that it wants to invade another country. That is what has happened with Iraq. And by the way, it is also what happened with Vietnam. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq attacked the United States." Well, here's the thing - we live in a Representative Republic, not a pure Democracy. As citizens, we get to vote in representatives who vote for us. In the case of Iraq, they voted for war. You can dislike that all you want, but it's the way our system works. The Congress has the power to raise troops - in any way they choose, up to and including a draft. Again, they have that power from the Constitution. There's no clause that says "only in a defensive war". We had an election centered on this issue in 2004 - and your side lost. You get to try again in 2006. Our representatives get to decide whether to fund war or not, and they get to decide how (or if) to fund troop deployments. We as citizens can only decide indirectly, via the ballot box. You can protest, and organize, and try to get out the vote. You can decide on civil disobedience, if you have the courage of your convictions and are willing to go to jail. But you don't get a direct vote on the issue, period.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:08:23 PM EST
    Great! Symbolic, ideologically motivated punishment -- that's really a healthy sign that the country is in great shape. What's next? Political prisoners, or maybe public executions? Moussaoui would be a logical place to start.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    What you, and others, fail to grasp is that you do not get to choose.
    A southerner reinstituting slavery should come as no surprise. A texan advocating dying for a lie is no surprise.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:12:05 PM EST
    And one even grew up to be President - twice. That deserter would be the current occupant, correct? I thought you were still in denial about Bush's desertion. Good on you.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    BigTex, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I envy your ability to glean the chaff and expose the kernal. JR, please link to where we declared war:
    In the case of Iraq, they voted for war.
    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#39)
    by roy on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:33:44 PM EST
    Sailor, I gotta defend my people here, misguided Southerners aren't the only ones advocating modern slavery. Even John Kerry wanted compulsory national service.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:45:28 PM EST
    Sailor: IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION And before you say it, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the Congress has to use the phrase "Declaration of War". They authorized use of force for Afghanistan in 2001 (broadly enough that one could argue that Iraq would fit into it), and again in 2002 for Iraq.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    Your approval of Carter and his pardon is not a prerequisite, Jim. The fact that you don't like it just makes it that much sweeter. Nobody gives a damn one way or the other whether it meets with your approval but I'll be sure to check the archives to research your extensive writings on mandatory National Service just as soon as I finish painting the wall in the basement behind the oil tank. You have my solemn promise. Jim, no one has ever been proven wrong about shrub's "service". There was this obviously bogus rovesputin smear campaign against rather over the authenticity of the documents. This Powerline putz, buckhead is callin' into question the type face in less than an hour and I'm supposed to buy this is on the up and up? He's a corporate lawyer for Christ sake. What's he know from type face and early 70s IBM Selectrics! Nice try. Then there's the matter of the ten grand reward for anyone who can document serving in the TANG with shrub and that he showed up as required. It's been there waiting to be claimed for years. It's still waiting. He never showed. He's a punk rich kid who used daddy's connections to get in and then rarely showed once he got in. Case closed. And then there's that gutless scumbag, cheney. If these swine supported that worthless war so much, they should've participated in it, don't ya think? Shrub has been proven wrong at every possible juncture from day one. The proof is in the pudding. Iraq is worse now than ever. Afghanistan is as bad as it was four years ago. The Taliban is making a comeback. Then there's that lyin' scum swiftboat slime. Now they've been thoroughly discredited. How come so many have endorsed Kerry previously. Were they lyin' then or are they lyin' now? There's really no reason for this administration to continue wasting precious oxygen that should be reserved for others who aren't war criminals and who haven't forfeited their rights to continue breathing.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#42)
    by aw on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 07:14:42 PM EST
    And I see no reason for you to think that you are so "special" that you can put yourself above the rest of us. But I could be wrong. Is there something you have done that you should be spared? Some cure for cancer? 300 mpg engine you have invented? Anything?
    I was a drunk driver and got 5 deferments. Fair enough? -Dick C.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#43)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 07:34:47 PM EST
    Those ambitious secretaries' volleyball serves were an attack upon Freedom itself, and I'm proud to have bounced them back across the net. -Dubya

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#44)
    by Al on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    JR, you're responding to something I didn't say. In answer to PPJ, I said it's not a betrayal of your fellow citizens if you desert from a war of aggression. It may be illegal, but it's not a betrayal. Nobody in America is made less safe by soldiers deserting from Iraq, because Iraq did not attack the US, and certainly is not attacking the US right now. It's exactly the other way round.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#45)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    BigTex, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I envy your ability to glean the chaff and expose the kernal.
    I pppriciate the kind words.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:33:42 PM EST
    charliedontsurf1 - As I noted to roy, every person knows the value of their word. So do you. I bid five cents for yours. Al - The issue isn't "Iraq," but "desertion" and the false belief by many of you that you get to decide. You don't. And yes, it is betrayal. aw - You fail to understand that I don't agree with Cheney being deferred. See my comments re UMS. But living an imperfect world, I perfer him over what his name.. You know the channeling dude... Yeah. Edwards.. charlie - BTW - You can't prove that he didn't show up. If the Left could, it would have years and years ago. The so-called reward is fake. The would never pay it. In the meantime, the fake memo proves just how far the Left will go. Link1 link2 Link3 Link4 Link5 Repack - You're trying to think too much. Big Tex - You're being to technical. How about pure straight forward revenge?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    All said: "I said it's not a betrayal of your fellow citizens if you desert from a war of aggression. It may be illegal, but it's not a betrayal. Nobody in America is made less safe by soldiers deserting from Iraq, because Iraq did not attack the US, and certainly is not attacking the US right now. It's exactly the other way round." Last time I looked, soldiers sign a contract that specifies the terms of their employment - including the possibility of being kept on duty past the otherwise normal term of their enlistment. They don't get the choice of just walking away. Doing so makes their fellow soldiers - and by extension, all Americans - less safe. All, based your comments, why would anyone trust any contract you signed? If you determined that - given some set of principles you came up with - it was no longer useful - you could just desert it, right?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#48)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:17:37 PM EST
    You can't prove that he didn't show up. Jim figured out that it is impossibnle to prove a negative. Isn't that special? As in special education. So all the pres has to do is release his DD 214 to show why his service ended, and maybe explain why he was grounded after skipping the required physical. Repack - You're trying to think too much. It's a failing that you obviously do not share.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:25:35 PM EST
    Someone upthread said Carter "gave away" Iran. How do you go about giving away something that isn't yours? Isn't Iran a separate, soveriegn nation? I think I'm going to give away Russia. Any takers? Just ask, it's yours.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#50)
    by Al on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:31:25 PM EST
    JR:
    Last time I looked, soldiers sign a contract that specifies the terms of their employment - including the possibility of being kept on duty past the otherwise normal term of their enlistment. They don't get the choice of just walking away. Doing so makes their fellow soldiers - and by extension, all Americans - less safe.
    But they make that choice anyway, don't they? And yet, it makes no difference to anybody's safety. I neither condone or condemn the decision of a person to break a contract when their life is at stake, and they ask themselves what for. I am not in that situation. I do think the decision is up to the individual in this instance, because whatever they decide only affects them and nobody else. If I was in Britain when the Nazis were bent on invading, or in France when they hade invaded my country, the moral decision would be clear. A deserter would not only be violating a contract, they would be betraying their fellow citizens in the most cowardly way. But someone who breaks a contract with a government that only wishes to use them as cannon fodder in some imperialistic adventure is just fine with me. Even if they did sign up, they certainly didn't do so to merely invade a country at the whim of the government. They sincerely signed up to protect their country, which is not what they are being called upon to do here. So who broke the contract? The only way the government has to convince the troops that they are fighting a just war is to feed them Rush Limbaugh and make them believe that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attacks, a bald-faced lie. JR and PPJ, you need to start looking at the world as it actually is, and not as your ideology tells you that it should be. The fact is that 8000 deserters out of an army of 150,000 is 5%, a not at all negligible proportion . The fact is also that the armed forces are finding it increasingly difficult to convince people to sign up for these imperialist wars, particularly when they (again) are doing badly. The fact is that not a single military campaign since World War II has ended successfully by any standards. And the fact is that the current Iraq campaign is rapidly descending into yet another military failure, leaving nothing but chaos and destruction behind. How much more does it take before people fully understand that war just doesn't work? How much more death and destruction does it take before people start to consider that there must be another way to live and prosper?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#51)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:32:43 PM EST
    Poker - revenge may be satisfying, but it's not punishment. Revenge is, if anything, vigilantieism or anarchy. It is the anthesis of what the military and justice system are supposed to protect. While I do not agree with you on this issue, I can see where you are coming from. You served, willingly, and may God bless you for it. If someone makes a committment they should honor the committment, or seek to be released. If they aren't tough for them. Problem is this is dealing with an activity that took place over 30 years ago. What good does it do to go in and punish now? Technically, they are still committing an offense, but it is technically only. What is best for the country right now? Is it arresting and jailing 50 some odd year olds for their past offence? Is it forcing them to go back into the service? How many of these could physically serve now, or get in shape to serve? If someone were to skip out today, yes go after them. If needed reinstate the draft. If someone isn't registered in the selective service, go after them. However, let bygones be bygones.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:44:27 PM EST
    "I have a different leadership style than the guys who have had this job. My job is to catch deserters. And that's what I do." I join others in wondering whether he'd go "catch" the most prominent deserter of them all: George W. Bush. It would be funny if Bush's desertion from the armed forces in time of war turned out to be like Al Capone's tax return, wouldn't it?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    "Was there a war declaration or not?" that is the question.
    GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
    U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 04:24:34 AM EST
    Al, speaking of facts: 1) The desertion rate now is lower than it was pre-9/11. 2) The military isn't actually having trouble filling the ranks. They raised their targets, and had trouble hitting those. THey are also seeing re-enlistment rates that are higher than pre-9/11. It's almost as if the people who are in the military see something we don't. As to desertion - it's a betrayal, plain and simple. YOu may object to a particular deployment, but a soldier simply doesn't get that choice. How does you non-betrayal theory work out if - during a campaign you disagree with (i.e., desertion is ok now, says Al), another military necesseuty arises - something you happen to think is necessary. That hole created by the deserter suddenly looks more relevant. As to "not a single post WWII campaign ending successfully" Hmm - we lost Vietnam at home, not on the battlefield. The thriving population of Seoul, South Korea is a direct contradiction of your theory - South Korea exists (and thrives) solely due to American arms - yes, we had allies there, but in small numbers. The Cold War required a large military, and was a complete success - we won. If you want to look at the relevant mistake here, it's the 1991 Gulf War. By going in - with loads of allies (and strings), and leaving Hussein in power, we created an enemy that we would have to face later. During the 90's, he tried to have Bush (elder) killed, which, all by itself was a cassus belli. Leaving a wounded enemy in place is never a good idea, and in this case, it left us having to finish the task at some future date - which happens to be now. We could have ended the job then, or simply not gone in, and taken a "realpolitik" stance of shrugging our shoulders and figuring that a larger Iraq with Kuwaiti (and possibly Saudi) oil wasn't that big a deal. The point being this - after we made a partial attack in 1991, we created an outright enemy, who was going to try to hit us back through the means available to him - meaning terror - at some point in time.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#55)
    by aw on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:01:10 AM EST
    aw - You fail to understand that I don't agree with Cheney being deferred. See my comments re UMS. But living an imperfect world, I perfer him over what his name.. You know the channeling dude... Yeah. Edwards..
    In other words, It's Okay if You're a Republican.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:24:11 AM EST
    Nice try, Jim. I don't have to prove he didn't show up. The burden of proof is on him to show that he did. There's no evidence to show that he did. An unclaimed 10K reward just hangin' out there for some money-motivated counterfeit yankee doodle dandy is pretty damning evidence that he didn't. We know where Kerry was. We know where those lyin' ass swift boat sleazeballs were. We know where all the neo-con nitwits were. We also know where they weren't. If you think it's such a noble cause, go fight for it. History has certainly proved me and mine to be correct on Vietnam. Here, I'll make it easy for ya. I was born on Mother's Day, 5/10/53, in New Brunswick, NJ. That gave me a Draft Lottery Number of 100. I never even got called in for a physical. I haven't lost a moment of sleep over it. The Class of '53 was the last year that was draft eligible. Timing is everything. There ya go. Knock yourself out. Prove I'm a Draft Dodger. I'm under no obligation to prove I'm not. Bon appetite.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:49:43 AM EST
    This is ridiculous. Ford pardoned deserters.
    In 1974, President Ford offered clemency to Vietnam draft resisters and deserters. Only 27,000 of 350,000 eligible applied. The offer expired on April 1, 1975. Neither Conti nor McQueen applied for the Ford pardon.
    This pardon gave the deserters their veteran benefits. This happened to a friend of mine. He left the Navy before his time was up. He took advantage of this pardon and he now is eligible for veteran benefits. Ford showed that Viet Nam was indeed a mistake and that people who deserted or resisted should in fact be forgiven. Why should this fact be changed now? During Viet Nam men joined the Navy, Marine, and Air Force, upon receiving their draft notices. This "joining" was hardly freely done, since they would not have "joined" if not for the draft notices. Signing a contract - big wooo!!! People get out of contracts everyday, so what is wrong with getting out of a contract that might cause your DEATH!!!!

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:55:26 AM EST
    I'm amazed at the willful ignorance of some people. Up thread: "Can you cite me the date on which Congress voted to declare war on Iraq? I actually wasn't aware this had ever happened: the only vote I had heard of was that in October 2002, which didn't declare war on Iraq. What Congressional vote are you referring to?" Iraq War Resolution There's no requirement that the phrase "declaration of war" appear in such a resolution - go scan the Constitution and you'll see that. The Congress authorized force, and has been authorizing funding for the ongoing military campaign since. That's all that's Constitutionally required. Which is why claims of "illegal war" (etc) are so silly - the Constitution has no clause that states "for defensive purposes only". It allows Congress to authorize war, and - after it has done so - for the President to direct the use of the military. It's that simple. If you object, you get to try and vote the current Congress out, or convince them to end funding. You don't get a direct voice on the issue, because that's not how our system works.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:43:08 AM EST
    To Fight or Not to Fight? [.pdf]
    From the very beginning of hostilities the United States made concerted efforts, through such methods as e-mails and leaflets dropped from aircraft, to encourage the desertion of Iraqi military personnel. Many Iraqi soldiers followed this advice and surrendered to U.S. forces at the first opportunity; others continue to fight to this day. Were the soldiers that deserted the military or surrendered without a fight morally justified in doing so?
    Myers seems to think so:
    Gen. Richard Myers, for example, said that the United States had only "one message" to Iraqi soldiers: "stop fighting." Instead, he advised those soldiers to "focus on the future of your family and children and living in a free Iraq."
    Sounds like very good advice, General.
    Similarly, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated on CNN that "the leadership and the military in Iraq need to know that they should act with honor and stop defending a regime that is shortly going to be history."
    More good advice from Donald. If that is your ethical and moral criteria for desertion I suppose it's good enough for Americans, right Donald?

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:51:13 AM EST
    edger, I suggest you find a dictionary and look up the term "enemy".

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:53:11 AM EST
    JR, I suggest you read the article.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:58:41 AM EST
    Jesurgislac, That's an interesting usage of selective quotation. Go read the whole resolution, paying particular attention to Section 3, (a) and (b). The only restrictions placed on the President were that he notify the Congress within 48 hours of his determination that further work with the UN is useless. Specifically: "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." That authorizes the President to declare the UN hopeless, and to work in concert with whatever other allies we have. So, nice try with the selective quotes, but it doesn't work. The war is legal, so far as US law is concerned. Which leaves you the option of trying to convince Congress to change its mind. Continuing to bray "illegal war" just makes it look like you can't read with comprehension.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:30:44 AM EST
    aw - No, but not living in a yes-no world, as I stated, you have to make choices. Cheney wins over Edwards. Bush wins over Kerry and Gore. Volunteer military is fine as long as you can raise'em when you need'em and send'em home when you don't. Of course that was never happened, so what you wind up with is a professional army that is too large in peace time and too small in wartime. If everyone goes, then everyone knows what it is all about. That just might improve relations between the volunteers and the draftees.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:55:43 AM EST
    Well, JR. Are you familiar with the terms "fruit of the poisonous tree"? How about "fraudulently obtained"? Ya see, if something was fraudulently obtained or based on false evidence, the contract, authorization or agreement is rendered null and void and there was never a valid contract, authorization or agreement in the first place.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    JR, the war in Iraq is illegal, because nowhere in the RESOLUTION does it give Bush authority to "invade Iraq" to give Iraqis God's gift of freedom. Since Iraq was indeed no threat to us, that became Bush's reason for WAR.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#66)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:44:13 AM EST
    The Joint Resolution only points out that congress was just as culpable in this crime as the president. Cheney did a great job of inciting this violence. And I missed the heading that says: DECLARATION OF WAR

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#67)
    by Al on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:49:21 AM EST
    JR, since Korea remains firmly divided to this day, you can hardly call the Korean War a success. As for the Cold War, there was no actual military campaign. No American soldiers ever fought Soviet troops. I think the only successful military campaign since World War II has been the invasion of Grenada.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#68)
    by eric on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    Apparently, the Carter pardon wasn't worded broadly enough.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#69)
    by aw on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    Yeah, PPJ, like I said, it's IOKIYAR. That is what your response boils down to. You prefer Cheney with his deferments which you don't approve of and when forced to make a choice, you chose Cheney (and Bush). You chose the ones who got excused.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    Even though Cheney and Bush are hypocrites, they,(and other fightin men like Rush, O'Reilly & co) tell the sweet bedtime stories that the Jims like to hear. Kerry, who actually served and came to the conclusion that the war was immoral is more than the "my country never immoral." types can handle; they'll go kicking and screaming to thier graves before they give up thier tribal dimentia and join the rest of the human race.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    "I did. Section 3(a) never applied, as Iraq was not a threat to the US and Iraq was complying with UN Security Council directives at the time Bush attacked Iraq. Therefore, Section 3(b) could not be applied, as the authority was granted only "In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a)"." Whether you or I think it applied does not matter. The President did, asked Congress, and they affirmed. Legally speaking, nothing else matters. Congress has explicitly agreed ever since, by continuing to fund operations there. Had the President acted without Congressional approval, they could easily cut funding - they have that power. As to Al, who thinks that US soldiers never engaged Soviets - there's a memorial at the NSA museum near my house that says otherwise. IIRC, the CIA has one like it. As well, a fair number of POW's taken in Korea ended up in Siberian Gulags. And, we fought their proxies in numerous places (as they fought ours). The Cold War had many flashpoints, and a lot of soldiers on both sides died in them. Saying that no one died at the hands of the enemy in that long struggle is uninformed at best.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    "Thier proxies." The cold war b.s myth in all its naked glory; all the better to keep the post WWII militarized make-work chugging along: a barely industrialized country that lost 30 mil people and was almost wiped of the map, miraculously had its tentacles stretched into every corner of the globe and was "behind" every independance movement. How convenient for countries that dont want to give up thier colonies and thier "vital interests"; the commies were forcing these little brown people ( who are incapable of abstract thought) to fight for self determination. Guess youre either wid us or agin us.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    Big Tex, very eloquently written and I could not agree more, nor could I have written that. Thanks.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    Jondee, you might want to read The Haunted Wood : Soviet Espionage in America--The Stalin Era The author, Allen Weinstein, is hardly a conservative. After the fall of the Soviet Union, their archives became available (briefly), and some good research was done. All sorts of myths (Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs) got shot down by this research - it became very clear that they - and many others - were in the pay of the Soviets. As to the assertion that the USSR was too weakened by WWII to be a threat, I suppose one could have said that about Germany, circa 1930. After all, they lost nearly a quarter of their draft age men in the war, and their economy was a wreck. Weinstein was the author of Perjury - a look at the Hiss background and trial. He started (his own admission) the project to prove Hiss' innocence - he was inexorably led by the evidence to realize that Hiss was, in fact, a traitor.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    J.R - Yes James the Soviets spyed on us and we spyed on them. The fact that the Communist party was strong in the U.S just shows what happens to the thinking of working people when you have the type of unchecked, predatory economic practices that your "patriotic" compatriots on the right want to return to as if it were some forgotten golden age. Dont think for second that the whole painful cycle couldnt recur again. As for the self serving, racist propaganda that the Rooskies were "behind" every attempt at self-determination on the part of former colonies and client states that was pushed from the forties till the demise of the S.U, this has been shown up for the self-serving hooey that it was many times over.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    Don't stop there. What about Korea and WWII? Indeed, there may be a few from WWI ready and waiting in nursing homes and hospices.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    Jondee, If you have the wild idea that Communism works, and that the Soviets were no threat, well, you might want to ask the Ukrainian Kulaks about that. Oops, sorry, you can't - they were all killed. Based on your last comment, I see no point in continuing with you. The sky is a different color where ypu live, and you've adopted your very own set of facts. If you want to learn something, read those two books by Weinstein.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#79)
    by Al on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    JR, the killing of spies does not amount to a "war", much less a victorious war. And "proxies" don't count. I'm talking about the alleged most powerful military in the world. I have yet to see them complete a successful military campaign post World War II.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#80)
    by BigTex on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    Big Tex, very eloquently written and I could not agree more, nor could I have written that. Thanks.
    Thank you for the kind words.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#81)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:21:15 PM EST
    If you have the wild idea that Communism works, and that the Soviets were no threat, well, you might want to ask the Ukrainian Kulaks about that.
    Sorry, I gotta call the sequiter police, because that was definitely Non!

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:20:17 PM EST
    aw - Clinton dodged the draft. Algore spent 6 months in country as a "photigrapher" with an escort. Edwards did bothing, etc Whether or not a Veep or Pres served appears to have no correation to what kind of war Pres they were. See Lincoln, see FDR. So if you don't know history, quit acting like you do. It is an embarassment that your really don't need.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:28:18 PM EST
    Big Tex - Thanks for the nice thoughts, but in the end results count. If you don't punish deserters, who will you punish? War is hell, and when fully undersood, everyone wants to leave. War is also a contest of "will" between different political/social groups, not individuals. By accepting the status/position of the group you also accept responsibility to the group.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 12:52:47 AM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ March 9, 2006 10:20 PM
    aw - Clinton dodged the draft. Algore spent 6 months in country as a "photigrapher" with an escort. Edwards did bothing, etc Whether or not a Veep or Pres served appears to have no correation to what kind of war Pres they were. See Lincoln, see FDR. So if you don't know history, quit acting like you do. It is an embarassment that your really don't need. Posted by JimakaPPJ March 9, 2006 10:28 PM Big Tex - Thanks for the nice thoughts, but in the end results count. If you don't punish deserters, who will you punish? War is hell, and when fully undersood, everyone wants to leave. War is also a contest of "will" between different political/social groups, not individuals. By accepting the status/position of the group you also accept responsibility to the group.
    And the dish ran away with the spoon. Pompous, pedantic, jackdaw with an aversion to fact, reason, truth, honor, decency, morality, literacy, and - evidently- the spell-check button, heal thy self. The extent of your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is truly monumental in scope, Jim. Clinton, was against the War and took steps to get out of it. That is a perfectly honorable position. Shrub, shooter, wolfie, rush, and all the other recliner rambos were all gung ho and for the war as long as someone else did the fighting and dangerous stuff for them. That is not an honorable position. Big difference. Setting aside your ridiculous characterization of Al Gore's service for a second or two, that's still 6 months longer than any of your swine. And as for Edwards, the man who Cheney said he'd never seen before in the Senate despite pictures putting the two of them side by side at some event, is exactly one month younger than me. We were the last year drafted. I don't know what his number was. I don't care. If it means that much to you, look it up. 6/10/53. Go ahead. Make a liar out of me. Knock yourself out. I'm still waiting for your findings on my Draft Dodger case. Oh, and the quote you're looking for is "War is just continuation of Politics by other means" by Clausewitz. And enough with this endless "war is hell, yada, yada yada, pontification nonsense. You're not Sun Tzu. You're not gonna get a guest chair at Sandhurst or Annapolis. Ford pardoned them, Carter pardoned them. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    j.r - It "works" in monastaries and communes and could probobly work in small, primarily agrarian based countries if it were allowed to work, which it never would be ("the bad example"). The specific "it" that youre refering to, Marxist/Lennism, is a narrow, materialistic, life deneying crypto-religion that I dont believe can work anywhere. Unfortunately - and I know Im in the minority - I think the kind of mercenary, hyper-capitalism championed by the Randite types is as brutal and life-deneying as Bolshevism.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 02:57:16 PM EST
    j.r - Tell me with a straight face The Cold War had nothing to do with keeping the post-depression militarized economy(and gravey train) chugging along.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    All men are required to serve 6 years of military service, I guess it's a part of being a citizen, but these deserters need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and how about the parents of those that died in place of these deserters, what do you think they would say or how they would feel.

    Re: Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    Why dont you ask them if making someone else's life a living hell brings more sunshine into their lives? Somebody always-gotta-pay with yew crackers dont they?

    Marines Hunting Down Vietnam Deserters | 85 comments (85 topical)