Draft-Dodger Monument

[Buzzed]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132971,00.html

A Canadian town is building a monument to honor U.S. draft-dodgers during Vietnam. So what do you think? Is this a bad thing? Good thing? Or simply an excuse for an annual festival to attract tourists to the town?

[Thorn]

Huh.

While I don't think that draft-dodging is some awful offense, and would probably encourage my kids to go on an extended visit to see all the Canadian 'Drekkers if they were drafted, at the same time I'm not sure it's the kind of thing that really requires... a monument.

I mean, to my mind, you build a monument to something with a bit of greatness to it. Extreme courage, extreme determination, extreme sacrifice, that sort of thing. I just can't think of what exactly they'd be celebrating, in building such a monument.

[WillyGilligan]

People who had the courage to...run away from a war they didn't believe in? Personally, I can respect anyone who showed up and said no. If I recall correctly, it was show up and go to war or go to jail. I could have that wrong, though.

[Thorn]

People who had the courage to...run away from a war they didn't believe in? Personally, I can respect anyone who showed up and said no. If I recall correctly, it was show up and go to war or go to jail. I could have that wrong, though.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I can respect the decision to run - I certainly have no way of saying I'd have done any different in their position. But still - to build a monument to it? I guess I just find myself wondering if shortly thereafter we'll get the Accountant's Memorial, you know? To commemorate all the accountants through the ages who've suffered headaches and hand cramps trying to keep everybody's accounts balanced and in the black.

[FlakJacket]

I suppose if you wanted to look at it in the best light, you could say it was a mionument to people that morally opposed something that they thought was so wrong that they were willing to walk away from their own country and not be able to come back. Personally I have a lot more respect for the ones that turned up but refused to fight and went to jail for their beliefs.

[MissTeja]

The whole idea is horrible, IMHO.

[Angel]

Here's a link to a related article:

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/09/ ... ein001.cfm

For me, I can understand the need to remind people that Americans fled their own land, and received sanctuary in Canada due to their wishing not to go and fight a war (for whichever reasons they may have had).

Is it a slap in the face of America? Sure as hell is! Should America be reminded about this part of it's history? Heck yeah!

If you support a war, then join the army, go do whatever your commanding officers tell you, but don't expect everyone within your country to believe that whatever your President says is true, or that every war he starts is justified.

"Draft dodgers" could have stayed, and accepted their prison sentences, but many chose to leave their homeland and become vocal opponents, "Peaceniks".

Why is preferring not to kill another human being such a terrible thing to so many people?

As for the people who may find the idea of Draft dodgers getting a monument appalling, one got the Whitehouse, where's your outrage over that?

[MooCow]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I can respect the decision to run

I can't. They should all be lined up and shot for the traitors they are.

Why is preferring not to kill another human being such a terrible thing to so many people?

Has nothing to do with that. Those who dodged the draft are traitors to their country. There were two types of patriots in this country during Vietnam - Those who answered their country's call to arms, and those who stood up and said "I believe this is wrong, and I will stay here and fight this injustice. No matter the cost."

The ones who fled were weak and selfish. They exhibited no trait that should be honored.

As for the people who may find the idea of Draft dodgers getting a monument appalling, one got the Whitehouse, where's your outrage over that?

I was plenty outraged, and remain so to this day.

[Marius]

Is it a slap in the face of America? Sure as hell is! Should America be reminded about this part of it's history? Heck yeah!

Right, because there's a snowball's fiery chance that someone was going to let us forget for thirty seconds.

[Johnny the Bull]

I think spending years in Canada is punishment enough, Moo.

[Rev]

Heh, we may have had dozens of presidents who dodged the draft. Long ago they were very explicit about it, one simply paid for a replacement. 30 years ago it was all about staying in college forever, getting certain jobs, national guard, filling out forms, etc.

In WWII a lot of people joined the military to dodge the draft (upon joining they would try to choose a less dangerous job, when drafted there was much less choice).

Anybody know how it worked in WWI? (heh my google-fu is weak now, all I get is links about Clinton and Bush)

The civil war was one where you could just pay.

[ak404]

On the other hand, isn't being a conscript for the cause of liberty something of a paradox?

[3278]

No one promised absolute liberty, not even in the United States; not even close, frankly. It's only a paradox when phrased in vague absolutes; in execution, it's perfectly reasonable. Some people must serve - and sometimes, sacrifice - for the greater good. In return, they and their families recieve all the benefits of organized government. It is a more-than-fair trade, which some peace-loving, and some death-fearing [or just plain lazy] people were unwilling to make.

In a way, leaving the nation can be seen as a forfeiture of those rights, and thus a tacit refusal of the agreement; however, since those people saw 18+ years of the benefits of government, but were unwilling to give even a few years of service for it, it's quite clear to me that balance is not achieved.

Certainly, I feel erecting a monument to people who refused to do something unpleasant in exchange for a lifetime of government service is somewhat ridiculous. I understand the nation of celebrating those who stand by their ideals in the face of adversity, but I question to what degree such judgements played a role in draft-dodging, and the appropriateness of such an ideal in the first place.

[Reika]

Personally I think the town is doing it to garner publicity.

However how I feel about it is somewhat similar to Moo (scary as that may be). For whatever reason the people fled to Canada to avoid the draft, doesn't really justify them being memorialized. I'd much rather see the people who were jailed for their beliefs get a memorial since they were willing to pay the price for refusing to participate in a war they felt unjustified.

[Angel]

it's perfectly reasonable. Some people must serve - and sometimes, sacrifice - for the greater good. In return, they and their families recieve all the benefits of organized government. It is a more-than-fair trade, which some peace-loving, and some death-fearing [or just plain lazy] people were unwilling to make.

Two things; first, the American government is far from organized. Second, what benefits do people who have served (and their families) receive!? They're sent into combat without bodyarmor! If you're referring to a free nation, and the right to self-determination, to a point I agree, but only to a point since America is not as free as it's leadership tries to make people believe, nor are it's citizenry allowed self-determination.

I'd much rather see the people who were jailed for their beliefs get a memorial since they were willing to pay the price for refusing to participate in a war they felt unjustified.

Actually I agree with you on this, I would favor a memorial/monument of some kind to remember the people who were imprisoned for their refusal to go to war, but what are the chances of any municipality in America commissioning such a memorial/monument? At least some people in Canada have decided that future generations should be reminded that there is a choice when it comes to war and war-mongering.

[3278]

it's perfectly reasonable. Some people must serve - and sometimes, sacrifice - for the greater good. In return, they and their families recieve all the benefits of organized government. It is a more-than-fair trade, which some peace-loving, and some death-fearing [or just plain lazy] people were unwilling to make.

Two things; first, the American government is far from organized.

I think the American government is all messed up and not nearly so organized or efficient as it could be, but it is certainly "organized government" within this context.

Second, what benefits do people who have served (and their families) receive!?

Roads. Education. Freedom. Cheap consumer goods. Safety. All the benefits of government over anarchy. Those who serve recieve even more benefits; I am certain you are aware of VA benefits, which makes me wonder precisely what you mean by this question.

They're sent into combat without bodyarmor!

1. Not necessarily.
2. Not anymore.
3. Body armor is frequently more of a pain than it's worth in combat.
4. Body armor that is light, not super-hot, and still is protective costs more money than peace-mongers [if you'll forgive the term] are willing to pay for armed services.*

If you're referring to a free nation, and the right to self-determination, to a point I agree, but only to a point since America is not as free as it's leadership tries to make people believe, nor are it's citizenry allowed self-determination.

I don't ever recall anyone in America's leadership misleading me about the freedoms I do and do not possess. No President has said to me, "You can yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre." No judge has said, "You have the freedom to kill people." My Governor hasn't mentioned, "Swearing in front of women and children is legal in Michigan." I don't feel I've been lied to about my level of freedom.

*That's a cheap shot on my part. It's not just them; it's also the Military/Defense world and its obsession with billion-dollar gadgets over infantry protection. But that's changing as time goes on [and urban warfare becomes more our SOP] and has nothing at all to do with the draft.

[MooCow]

Actually I agree with you on this, I would favor a memorial/monument of some kind to remember the people who were imprisoned for their refusal to go to war

Absolutely. If I had a few million to spare, it'd be done. Sadly, I don't.

first, the American government is far from organized

It's not? Wow, so that welfare system was created by private individuals? All those roads were paid for, designed, and constructed without any organization? Amazing. simply amazing.

Second, what benefits do people who have served (and their families) receive!?

A salary. An education. Job training. Housing assistance. Free health care. And much much more.

[/quote]At least some people in Canada have decided that future generations should be reminded that there is a choice when it comes to war and war-mongering.

That's like saying we should build a monument to all those who refused to testify against the mob. Those who ignore the screams of their neoghbors wife when he's beating her. Those that say they saw nothing when a small child is gunned down by a drive by.

Sorry, but I just can't see celebrating blatant selfish cowardness.

[lorg]

A Canadian town is building a monument to honor U.S. draft-dodgers during Vietnam. So what do you think? Is this a bad thing? Good thing? Or simply an excuse for an annual festival to attract tourists to the town?

I must say that I find it a bit odd to have a monument to honor draft-dodgers, even thou I can agree with their decision to dodge the draft. But putting up a monument to honor that event seems quite odd. Doesn't really do anything for me, not like I'm every going to see it on anything but pictures.

Will this really attract people? Wouldn't some anti-war monument be more appropriate?

[mrmooky]

If nothing else, the idea of a monument is a pretty insensitive treatment of one of the most sensitive chapters in American history.

That said, I'm perplexed by the views of MooCow and 32 on this one.

Those who dodged the draft are traitors to their country. There were two types of patriots in this country during Vietnam - Those who answered their country's call to arms, and those who stood up and said "I believe this is wrong, and I will stay here and fight this injustice. No matter the cost."

The ones who fled were weak and selfish. They exhibited no trait that should be honored.

What did the patriots who stood up and were imprisoned for their beliefs achieve? Certainly I think they were upstanding citizens who played a pivotal role in influencing American opinion of the war, but the government locked them up at taxpayer expense, and while incarcerated they were unable to contribute to the economy or the society of their nation. The draft dodgers who fled to Canada did so with the acceptance of the Canadian government, eased the burden on American taxpayers, and while in Canada were able to contribute, if not to their former country, then to human society as a whole. I'm sure that many of the draft dodgers were prepared to go to prison for their beliefs should the need arise, but saw no particular reason to do so.

While I oppose the idea of setting up a monument to them, I don't think it's right to say that the draft dodgers exhibited no trait that should be honored. They exhibited something incredibly valuable that's still far too often overlooked: practicality. There are already thousands of monuments erected to nebulous virtues like honour, courage and fucking yourself over when you don't have to. It would be nice to see one dedicated to common sense for a change.

In a way, leaving the nation can be seen as a forfeiture of those rights, and thus a tacit refusal of the agreement; however, since those people saw 18+ years of the benefits of government, but were unwilling to give even a few years of service for it, it's quite clear to me that balance is not achieved.

Certainly, I feel erecting a monument to people who refused to do something unpleasant in exchange for a lifetime of government service is somewhat ridiculous. I understand the nation of celebrating those who stand by their ideals in the face of adversity, but I question to what degree such judgements played a role in draft-dodging, and the appropriateness of such an ideal in the first place.

It greatly surprises me that you hold this outlook. You make it sound as if the government is some kind of omnibenevolent, independent entity that graciously feeds all the thankless citizens, who simply sit on their asses and contribute nothing. The fact is that the draft dodgers who ultimately returned to the US now contribute to the American economy, pay taxes to the American government, and are involved in American communities. Their choice to not support an unnecessary war - and we know it was unnecessary because the VietCong won and America is still going strong - does not preclude them from serving their country in a variety of other, vastly more productive ways.

As for those who chose to remain in Canada: they did not forfeit their right to receive the benefits of an organised government, because they entered a contract with the Canadian government that gave them those same benefits.

Your argument that because the government gave them 18+ years of rights and benefits, then they should be compelled to do whatever the government says, is a very weak one. If my Dad, who looked after me and gave me financial support for 18+ years, asked me tomorrow to kill my Grandma, I don't think I should be under any obligation to do so. Nor do I think I should be judged harshly were I to walk out on him and never reimburse him for raising me. You could argue that I am under some obligation to care for him financially or in other ways, but I don't think I should be expected to act immorally just because I owe it to him.

[3278]

Your argument that because the government gave them 18+ years of rights and benefits, then they should be compelled to do whatever the government says, is a very weak one.

Not "whatever the government says," but rather, "what is legally expected of everyone." I don't see, "not go to war" in the same light you see, "not kill my grandma."

That said, I do believe it's a difficult situation, morally; during those 18 years the government gave you benefits [in exchange for taxes, possible compulsory military service, and other contributions], you were legally unable to choose otherwise; you could not legally enter into any agreements, but were still legally bound by the strictures of your government. Which, in my opinion, sucks. Nevertheless, I support the draft, and don't support people who dodge it. Perhaps that's a double standard; it bears further consideration on my part.

Still, I never agreed to not kill people, and the government still holds me to that standard. That's how governments work. And - here's the thing - it's the only way governments work. Without strictures - fair or unfair - governments cannot operate. Just as military officers cannot have the freedom to choose which orders to obey, citizens cannot have the freedom to opt out of compulsory service. Of course, then if we don't like the orders they were given, we put them on war crimes trials, and tell them that "I was following orders" isn't a valid excuse for immoral behavior.

Life, to put it briefly, sucks, and is not fair.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: good point. I'll have to think about that.

[Daki]

Maybe I missed it but, why is everyone assuming people went to Canada to protest the war in Vietnam? Isn't it just as, or more, likely they were afraid of dying?

[Rev]

Given the relative odds of dying vs being in deep legal trouble for the rest of your life it isn't quite that easy. My impression is that most of the people who actually fled opposed the war, and often the US government in general at the time. A lot of them were active protestors before and after they fled the country (not only to canada btw). However it also seems likely that those are the ones I am most likely to have heard about, so perhaps the impression is false. They felt they were defending their country by refusing to go and protesting the war, or at least that is what they told themselves they thought. Read Bill Clinton's letter to the ROTC guy for an example of this sort of thing. He wrote two pages about why he was doing what he was doing when he tried to avoid the draft (he eventually was in the draft lottery, and just got a lucky high number so he either changed his mind about avoiding it or simply failed to avoid it). He sounds quite tortured about it.

Surely some of them just didn't want to go and lacked the resources to do it in a socially approved way.

The only people who were certainly just avoiding personal inconvenience (including death) are those who supported the war but avoided service.

[Daki]

And my counter-argument to that it is so much better to say, "I left the country because I opposed the war" than "I left because I was afraid of dying in the war." Only the person saying it knows for sure either way, but my inclination is to believe that the latter is more true and the former was said afterwards upon their return.

[3278]

Ironically, when a politician uses his family connections to get out of the draft, it's because he's a coward; when a draft dodger runs the border, it's because he's principled. Which is to say, I think you're quite correct, Daki.

[DV8]

Don't you think the sacrifice is bigger, 32?

[WillyGilligan]

On the one hand, I can see that leaving behind family and friends to go live in exile is a much bigger step to take than having your daddy make some phone calls, but isn't it also a matter of using the avenue that you can access? Not everyone lived close enough to the border to expatriate, just like not everyone had a rich daddy.

[DV8]

Well, that sort of illustrates my point; the two aren't comparable.

[Rev]

...or at least that is what they told themselves they thought.

Surely some of them just didn't want to go and lacked the resources to do it in a socially approved way.

Gee, that sounds like I acknowledge that some of them were probably only doing it for selfish reasons, and most for mixed reasons. Why its as if I don't see the world in black and white!

As willy said some of them couldn't just call daddy so they ran. However surely those who clearly opposed the war and got out of it by any particular means were being somewhat less hypocritical than those who supported it and got out.

"This cause is unjust, and I'm scared so I won't go" vs "This cause is just, but I'm scared so I won't go."

I'd bet that most of the people using political favors to dodge service didn't even think it out that far. They are likely to be the sort of people who simply assume that people like them shouldn't be expected to go to war. Draft dodging is thier due as members of the elite.

Anybody know anything about the wwI draft?

I bet that town gets a big influx of aging hippie sellout tourists.

[MooCow]

What did the patriots who stood up and were imprisoned for their beliefs achieve?

It's called Non-Compliance, Non-Resistance. It focuses attention on government actions that are morally wrong. It's changed the course of history on more then one occasion.

and while in Canada were able to contribute, if not to their former country

Exactly. Traitors.

They exhibited something incredibly valuable that's still far too often overlooked: practicality.

So did those who failed to speak up when the Nazi regime began imprisoning Jews and other political outcasts. The same for those who failed to stand up and call wrong Jim Crow laws in the south. Should we build a monument to them?

[Serious Paul]

Well Rev to answer your question is basically it wasn't a problem in World War 1. Checking Wikipedia as a basic reference you won't find much reference to the Draft and World War 1. You can however google the draft/Selective Service records from a bunch of geneaology websites from that era. So obviously it was there right?

I'd venture these guys might give you a better answer, but my own, I think, is prett much inline with history here.

World War One was viewed as a great romantic venture by most of the young men of the day-that is until they saw the trenches and the new face of warfare. (Watch some of the footage of Polish calvary charging a german machine gun team, and the bodies of men and horses literally stacking up so high you couldn't see over them...) Hell the French Foreign legion was originally formed to get rid of the foreigners who swamped France in hopes of getting into the fray.

My best guess/opinion is that the Draft wasn't much of a problem compared to later years.

[3278]

Don't you think the sacrifice is bigger, 32?

Quite possibly, but I wasn't considering sacrifice, I was considering motive. Everyone assumes the politicians' sons were getting out of the draft because they were afraid to go to war, but that the dodgers were morally opposed to killing, when in fact there's nothing in the actions themselves that informs us as to the reasons for the draft avoidance. You can just as easily run to Canada for fear as you can for principle.

[MooCow]

You can just as easily run to Canada for fear as you can for principle.

And again, I see no principle they could be upholding. "I believe my country is making a mistake. Therefore, I will run away and hide, rather then staying and defending my country from this assault on it's moral character."

[MooCow]

and we know it was unnecessary because the VietCong won and America is still going strong

Yes, but would America still be going strong if we never went to war? Just because you lose the war doesn;t mean you fail to accomplish any of your objectives.

Just as military officers cannot have the freedom to choose which orders to obey

Not true. It is an officer's duty to disobey illegal/immoral orders. That's what we pay them for.

, citizens cannot have the freedom to opt out of compulsory service. Of course, then if we don't like the orders they were given, we put them on war crimes trials, and tell them that "I was following orders" isn't a valid excuse for immoral behavior.

Well yes it is. If I am an officer, and I tell a sergeant that he has to kill someone, he has to do it. If he fails to do so, he can be court-martialed. Even if it later turns out that I was wrong, or insane, he can still be court martialed (unless he can demonstrate that he /knew/ that I was insane). If the order is later found out to be illegal, the sergeat is guiltless, because "he was just following orders".

Enlisted must follow the orders of an Officer, assuming that said officer has the authority to give said orders. You'll note, that in the Nuremburg trials we did not convict any peons. We convicted only those individuals in positions of authority.

[Rev]

Hmm maybe WWI was following the: common people get to be cannon fodder, thier betters get to be officers model, but pretty much everybody goes?

Here is a good thread on that message board Paul kindly provided a link too:
thread on the WWI draft Doesn't really say much about who went and who did not, however.

[Cash]

What amuses me with the debate over draft dodging and Clinton/Bush/Kerry is that back then, going to Vietnam was seen as the socially unacceptable thing to do. Now it's unacceptable to have avoided Vietnam...

[MooCow]

going to Vietnam was seen as the socially unacceptable thing to do.

Only by pansy ass liberals.

[3278]

You can just as easily run to Canada for fear as you can for principle.

And again, I see no principle they could be upholding.

How about "Do no violence?" or "Do not kill?" As I recall, peace was somewhat popular at the time.

[Cain]

Well, let's bring it back to brass tacks. There's talk of reinstating the draft, because of the quagmire in Iraq. Some of us oppose the war there, and some people are all for it. Of the people who are for it, would you willingly enlist? Of the people against it, would you run?

For me, it's a moot point as I'm far too old to be drafted. I probably would choose prison over running, but that's just me.

[DV8]

Don't you think the sacrifice is bigger, 32?

Quite possibly, but I wasn't considering sacrifice, I was considering motive. Everyone assumes the politicians' sons were getting out of the draft because they were afraid to go to war, but that the dodgers were morally opposed to killing, when in fact there's nothing in the actions themselves that informs us as to the reasons for the draft avoidance. You can just as easily run to Canada for fear as you can for principle.

Good point.

[BloodHound]

You're damn right i would willingly enlist. I may not be all for the war, but hell, we're there now and theres no benefit in bitching about it.
Oh, yeah, about that crazy monument thing - WTF? Why waste the resources and piss people off?

[Crazy Elf]

Because war pisses more people off and that should be noted.

[WillyGilligan]

How do you know that war pisses more people off than cowardice?

[Johnny the Bull]

You're damn right i would willingly enlist.

I have moon real estate for sale if you are interested.

[Daki]

Would I actively enlist? No. Would I run if drafted? No.

[FlameBlade]

Would I actively enlist? No. Would I run if I got drafted? No, but I'll fight against draft, because I'm not fit for service. Only thing that I will provide is mathematics.

[Serious Paul]

Your chances of not seeing combat would be FAR better were you to actually enlist, state that you consciencentiosly objected to violence (Better not have an assault, or other violent felony on your record...) and allow them to place you in a service and support group. A lot of people did that in Vietnam, and World War II.

Why would they purposefully send someone who wouldn't A. Kill the enemy, or B. Help friendlies to the front lines? They wouldn't is the answer. Only the fools who kep their mouth shut, and didn't voice their objections to killing ended up in that boat.

I liked Platoon, and Hamburger Hill too. The telling of the story of Vietnam was not completely told in those two movies.

[MooCow]

How about "Do no violence?" or "Do not kill?" As I recall, peace was somewhat popular at the time.

Then they should have stayed and gone to jail. Running away whenever someone challenges your principles means you have no principles.

[Serious Paul]

Is that really how you feel or is that an attempt at purposeful obtuseness to "cleverly" bring the discussion into focus?

Because if you preface it with, I feel they should have, then I could no more argue with that than I could any other I feel statement. If you are presenting it as fact, then well I think it's not really all that much of a contribution to the discussion at hand, regardless of how much I may personally agree or disagree with you.

[MooCow]

Because if you preface it with, I feel they should have, then I could no more argue with that than I could any other I feel statement. If you are presenting it as fact

Anything outside of the hard sciences would by it's nature be an opinion since it can not be proven. That said, it's a fact.

then well I think it's not really all that much of a contribution to the discussion at hand

Which is what?

[3278]

How about "Do no violence?" or "Do not kill?" As I recall, peace was somewhat popular at the time.

Then they should have stayed and gone to jail. Running away whenever someone challenges your principles means you have no principles.

Those are your principles; theirs were different. I find avoiding the consequences of my actions to be quite in accord with my own principles.