"HK" wrote in message
m...


You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim referring
to U.S. males who headed north during the war against Vietnam so they
wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and villages in order to
protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the Viet Cong?



Horsepuckey.

By far, the majority that fled did so because they didn't want to expose
themselves to any danger or felt they could pick and choose their
constitutional obligations.
Lot's of stories made up, but those are the real reasons. I lived it, as
did you. Let's not re-write history to serve your purpose.

True conscientious objectors stayed and made their cases. Some won and some
lost. Those that lost paid their dues in other ways. They deserve
respect.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim
referring to U.S. males who headed north during the war against
Vietnam so they wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and
villages in order to protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the
Viet Cong?



Horsepuckey.

By far, the majority that fled did so because they didn't want to expose
themselves to any danger or felt they could pick and choose their
constitutional obligations.
Lot's of stories made up, but those are the real reasons. I lived it,
as did you. Let's not re-write history to serve your purpose.

True conscientious objectors stayed and made their cases. Some won and
some lost. Those that lost paid their dues in other ways. They
deserve respect.

Eisboch


My "take" on the war against vietnam is a lot stronger than the view I
presented, which I heard from more than a few contemporaries.

Sometimes the real reasons and history of why nations get themselves
involved in wars fade out of consciousness. They sure have for Vietnam.

I think we are getting ourselves deeper and deeper in the crap in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Modern foreign occupiers/invaders have not had
a lot of success dealing with Afghanistan. Pakistan is a horror of a
whole different magnitude because of its nuclear weapons. What *we* are
supposed to do with either of these failed countries is beyond my
understanding. Neither of the governments of those countries have the
ability to withstand religious zealots. Hell, Pakistan was founded by
religious zealots.

When we finally leave Iraq, whenever that is, it, too, will slide back
into failed nation status, ripe for the plucking by the religious zealots.

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim referring
to U.S. males who headed north during the war against Vietnam so they
wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and villages in order to
protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the Viet Cong?



Horsepuckey.

By far, the majority that fled did so because they didn't want to expose
themselves to any danger or felt they could pick and choose their
constitutional obligations.
Lot's of stories made up, but those are the real reasons. I lived it, as
did you. Let's not re-write history to serve your purpose.

True conscientious objectors stayed and made their cases. Some won and
some lost. Those that lost paid their dues in other ways. They deserve
respect.

Eisboch


My "take" on the war against vietnam is a lot stronger than the view I
presented, which I heard from more than a few contemporaries.

Sometimes the real reasons and history of why nations get themselves
involved in wars fade out of consciousness. They sure have for Vietnam.




"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed for
a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time. I
don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they are
found to be in error in history's hindsight.



I think we are getting ourselves deeper and deeper in the crap in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Modern foreign occupiers/invaders have not had a
lot of success dealing with Afghanistan. Pakistan is a horror of a whole
different magnitude because of its nuclear weapons. What *we* are supposed
to do with either of these failed countries is beyond my understanding.
Neither of the governments of those countries have the ability to
withstand religious zealots. Hell, Pakistan was founded by religious
zealots.

When we finally leave Iraq, whenever that is, it, too, will slide back
into failed nation status, ripe for the plucking by the religious zealots.


I agree with you and am not critical of Obama's actions thus far in
Pakistan.
It's a serious problem and a real risk to our national security and that of
our allies.
I wouldn't want his job. But my point was that few of these problems are
really as simple as the Monday morning quarterbacks make them out to be.

Eisboch

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:27:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

It's was vomit inducing to hear the former administration use the
"finish the job" excuse in order to honor those who "paid the ultimate
price."

Finishing the job in this case would be to uphold the law so that
others don't have to pay the ultimate price for lawbreaking liars.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:27:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

It's was vomit inducing to hear the former administration use the
"finish the job" excuse in order to honor those who "paid the ultimate
price."

Finishing the job in this case would be to uphold the law so that
others don't have to pay the ultimate price for lawbreaking liars.


I am very thankful that I never had to rely on you to watch my back.
That's not an insult. It's reality. You are better off doing whatever it
is you do and having the right to think whatever you think and so am I.

Eisboch

On Wed, 6 May 2009 17:36:53 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:27:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

It's was vomit inducing to hear the former administration use the
"finish the job" excuse in order to honor those who "paid the ultimate
price."

Finishing the job in this case would be to uphold the law so that
others don't have to pay the ultimate price for lawbreaking liars.


I am very thankful that I never had to rely on you to watch my back.
That's not an insult. It's reality. You are better off doing whatever it
is you do and having the right to think whatever you think and so am I.

Eisboch

The point was that it was a ****ty excuse to stay in Iraq. It was a
doomed escapade from the start. Bush 1 knew it and stayed out.

I'm extremely loyal and, had I been in Iraq watching anyone's back,
I'd have given the full measure of my life.

I'm damned glad that I'm not in that situation and very sorry for
those who are.

Now I want to see justice done. Those that lied us into this
catastrophe should be willing to face the full measure of what it
means to be nation of laws. It was among the things that Bush
promised us when he campaigned for the presidency.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.


I understand your morality. Unfortunately it's not reality.

Eisboch