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.