Joining the National Guard was "Draft Dodging" as well at the time.

In fact, it was insurance that you would not be called into harm's way. They didn't even do "Stop-Loss" back then; after your time was served (Active, Guard or Reserve) that was it.

So, whether you were hiding out in Winnipeg, Manitoba or Crawford, TX; you were still dodging.

 

Source - http://www.131st.org/history/vtng_history.htm

Joining the National Guard during Vietnam was NOT dodging the draft. NOBODY had any idea if his or her guard unit could have been called up. In war NOTHING is certain and most certainly you are not assured of NOT serving in war if you were in a guard unit.

That is the stupidest statement I have ever read ”Joining the National Guard was dodging Vietnam”

What Clinton did was dodging the draft and the war because he had his un-American *** in Russia, an enemy of America, protesting Vietnam…

It amazes me to what level liberals will stoop to in order to make their coward timid little man look like he did something meaningful after Vietnam.

 

I hope you guys don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, so I will just be as candid as possible.

As unsolicited opinion from a Canadian...

I love Americans but I don't trust the American government to do what's in the best interest of my American friends who are regular Joes like me.
Heck, I don't trust my own government so it's not surprising I don't trust yours.

Not that it matters what I think because I know it doesn't (I don't need some ignorant hothead to point that out to me, I'm fully aware, ty)

I just saw the movie this evening, it's the only Mike Moore movie I've ever seen, and man it has some disturbing parts in it.

I'm not naive to believe everything I read and see, but when I examine an argument or point of view, I take the time to look carefully at both sides and weighing out the 2 positions before forming an opinion.

Don't take me the wrong way you guys because I am not taking sides, however, I would be interested in knowing whether or not the reported facts in his documentary are true, or fabricated.
If most of what he claims is utter bs, then so be it, then the guy is a fraud and a dirty rotten no good so and so.
If his claims are true, then goddamn, there's a lot of scary chit going on.

It would be nice to figure out a way to verify all his allegations to either validate or discredit him, and to do it in a fair and objective way.

I would love to see a guy like Burt watch the film and then see what he has to say about it. The only reason I single him out is because I do admire his argumentative style and the fact he backs up what he says with facts.

Take it as a compliment Burt because that's how it's meant.

Now here is another question:
If everything in this movie is a complete and total lie, would Mike Moore not be sued and faced with criminal and civil charges from President Bush and the powers all the way down (as in defamation??)

If these allegations were made against our Prime Minister, I for one would want to know if they were true. I wouldn't blindly support him just for the sake of supporting him.
If the guy was a liar and a bum, he would lose my vote.

I would expect most of you guys to be the same way with regards to your leader?

Regards

 

Habibi, if Michael Moore's other films (such as Bowling for Columbine ) are any indication, then some of what is in there is true but much of it is deliberately presented and edited in such a way as to advance his agenda. MM is also well known for being very manipulative and decietful when he is filming so, as in Bowling for Columbine, I suspect there is a lot out of context, a lot thats left out, and even some blatant lies. I actually have access bootlegged copy of Farenheit 9/11 (I'm not putting money in his pocket) but I havn't had the time to watch it yet (I know raoul, I promised to watch it way back when it came out but its been busy and I've had my fill of politics lately) so I really can't speak intelligently about that movie but MM is a master of propoganda and spin so take Farenheit 9/11 with a grain of salt.

If you want to see an review of his type of filmaking go to www.bowlingfortruth.com for a rebuttal of Bowling for columbine. After I watched Bowling for Columbine I actually thought about what he was saying but then in doing a little research I discovered that MM isn't the most sincere and honest guy in the world. JMHO

 

Habibi,
Here is a link to a Newsweek article (I consider it fairly objective compared to a lot of websites that either emphatically support or refute MM's movie assertions depending on their political leanings), outlining some of the "distortions" presented in the film:
More Distortions From Michael Moore
~John

 

How 'bout this hockey season?! Oh wait... what hockey season?

 

01 XLT Sport-
--------------------------

As a veteran I am well aware that National Guard, Reserves and Individual Ready Reserves can be called up to strengthen under strength units and divisions; and can be called up as a division if need be- you are not educating me with your history lesson- OK? I had Guardsmen next to me during Desert Storm; and just to give you some history, two National Guard friends of mine were in country weeks before I got there (And I was on Active Duty)- because they had critical MOS's (88M Transportation Specialists & Fuel Handler to be precise). Certainly today being in the guard or reserve doesn't make you safe... Not in our post cold war military. The primary purpose of the National Guard is to protect the homeland- the primary job of the Reserve is to bolster the Active Duty; things have gotten bad when you're hitting up Guard units for active service. The National Guard & the Reserve are not the same- even though they may seem so to the unknowledgeable eye.
---------------------------

What I said was- during VIETNAM being in the guard was a safety net because few, if any Guard units were called into service during the Vietnam War. Those that were- were only there to assist in the airlift of troops to and from Vietnam; they were not ground-pounding or creating any air superiority. Different methods to achieve the same goal (Avoiding service) don’t make one man better than the other. Either way you look at it; mission accomplished. (Out of harms way)
----------------------------- (Data from below is from the source Identified)
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.co...4/03_draft.html

While Bill Clinton received scathing criticism for avoiding the draft, at least he did so for principled reasons, openly opposing a war that he felt was immoral. But Bush claimed he never discussed Vietnam while he was in college. However, when he was 12 days from the expiration of his student deferment and eligible to be drafted into active service, powerful friends intervened to ensure he would not die in the jungles of Vietnam.

Despite a waiting list of approximately a year and a half, Bush was accepted into the Guard on the day he applied. This was at a time when approximately 350 Americans were dying in the war each week. On his application, Bush checked the box which read, "Do not volunteer for overseas service."

Despite having the lowest possible qualifying score on the pilot aptitude test, he was admitted to flight training. Without the inconvenience of attending officer training programs or serving for the required mandatory tour of active duty, Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant. This was done under an exemption called "direct appointment" which was exclusively reserved for flight surgeons and other critically needed personnel with outstanding credentials.

Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men of earth with the ability to put U.S. citizens in harms way, refused to put themselves at risk when their nation was at war. While it is proper and just that the brave men and women of our military pursue everyone culpable for the tragedy of 9/11 and to bring them to justice, many of the most militant advocates for expanding the open-ended war against this vague and nebulous enemy avoided service themselves.

---------------------------- (End)

It's not that I'm against what Bush did; I know people personally that did things that my conscious would eat me alive over to avoid service; or to get kicked out of the military rather than go to war. While it's human nature to fear for one's own ****- I have a problem when you attack another man's service (Kerry- who was in harm's way) when you didn't take the opportunity to do the same.

I'm not saying what he did was cool- but Kerry may have had reason to denounce the war, he'd have been in a rather long-line trying to do so- remember seeing footage of those protests around the Washington Monument? A lot of people were against that war; not just Kerry.

Being a soldier we had an obligation NOT to do what Kerry did; but, I will not dismiss what he said- simply because he said it.

 

As an aside to this thread, I'd just like to request that when people see protesters, that they also pay attention to how many people are not there. Usually, they are not representing very many people in their views. They just tend to be the loudest. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

Come on Odin- Father of Thor!
Sure, that's one way of looking at it- but; do you really think everybody in protest of something would stop what they're doing and haul butt to D.C. to gather-around in protest of- whatever? Not hardly.

Again; I don't side with Kerry on what he did- I'm just saying he has the right to do it. And, if "we" aren't holding Bush accountable for what he did 30 years ago; why hold Kerry up to different standards?

 

Nothing personal; but, I'd like for someone, just once, to walk through a crowd of protesters and do a poll on how many of them are gainfully employed. I would also be interested in the percentage of them that know exactly what they are protesting against as well.


There will be a core of the group that is from out of town and made a trek to the place of protest. The majority will be locals that want to be part of the show. IMO

 

I agree- a lot of people do tend to get on the bandwagon for whatever's popular at the time.

 

Fair question. In answer, for my part, it's because Kerry keeps bringing up his past as part of his campaigns. When he does this, it leaves him open to fair scrutiny as to whether he is representing himself truthfully. Another reason is that he doesn't seem to have changed substantially in the past 30 years. Bush on the other hand is hardly the happy go lucky frat boy he was in his youth. He actually seems to have learned from life and progressed into a better man. His past does not jibe with his present. Kerry's, on the other hand, along with his voting record on national defense issues and taxes, gives insight into the man. There is a difference and not a double standard. IMO

 

What the hell does that have to do with anything? So someone has to actually serve in a combat role before they can criticizes some wuss bag like Kerry for screwing all those in Vietnam after he got out and starting telling tales he had no clue about?

Kerry, in my opinion, was a traitor to his country and more so to those still in the “combat zone” and POW camps.

I served in the Navy for 10 years. I may not have been in the jungle but that is beside the point. It sounds as if you have a problem with anyone, other then someone who served in combat, exercising their first amendment rights. Oh well, so sad, get over it….

I still stand behind my prior post which it is NOT dodging the draft or the war to serve in the National Guard, that is an absolutely illogical statement, and more so to back it up with it was ok with Clinton because he had principle.

Had Clinton had any principle, or to put it bluntly, ***** he would have kept his *** in country and protested the war rather then running off to Russia an enemy of America. Yep, that’s principle, liberal principle at work. Sounds like something Michael Moore would state…

 

Hey punk,

You have no right judge on what Kerry said to the Congress about what the leadership was ordering us to do, and how we were trained to view the Vietnamese as sub human.

He was trying to stop the atrocities.
He was trying to get us home.
He was concerned about the freaking psychological damage that it was causeing his brothers and sisters still there as well as the walking wounded already stateside.

You were in the Navy, big whoop.
Doesn't give you the right to sh*t on Kerry for standing up.
Doesn't give you the right to make any judgements on what he was trying to accomplish... because you weren't FREAKING THERE!

This 'news story' that the Sinclair network plans on running also has me pissed off. Its just and extention of the swifty a-holes.
Those a-holes have suddenly appeared during an election... well well well, how convienient, what a coincidence.

I usually don't pull my service out in these matters, as a matter of fact I tend to avoid it, but enough is enough of this parroting, bush d*cksucking, idiot calling anyone who faced that bullsh*t over there a coward and a traitor.
Go shoot some women and children under orders or burn them alive in their hooches see how you feel about the world, about life, about yourself, and then see if you could stand up and speak about it.

Honestly, it was a dangerous and brave thing to do, both serving in fire zones, and going to Congress to try and get the way we were taught and 'encouraged' the despicable methods stopped, that took *****, and I thank him for at least trying to change it.
BTW, he testified after My Lie was public, so the cat was already out of the bag.

Sport, shut the f*ck up!

 

And also XLT Sport-

The "you" wasn't directed to you. It's directed to anyone stuck on themselves enough to make statements like that about anybody who served over there, when they took measures to avoid having to endure something they now feel qualified to second-guess.

If you happen to be one of those people, then I do mean you; if it isn't your position, then it doesn't apply to you. Like it or not, joining the guard in the 1960's was dodging the draft back then- although it isn't today. Just because the "possibility" existed, doesn't mean jack. He11- I could "possibly" win the lottery.


In closing, I had no idea you were a prior service member. And, just so you'll know- I have nothing but respect for the Navy. Back in 1997 my first civilian boss was one of those Navy Patrol boat guys that patrolled the rivers in Vietnam- he can tell some goose-bumpers- let me assure you. My mentor was a retired Marine Sergeant Major and 2-time purple heart winner (Vietnam). Of the seven guys on the team, five of us were prior service. Three Army, One Marine and one Sailor. Of the five of us, three of us were vets- although my war (Desert Storm) was nothing compared to Vietnam.


That said- while you have the right to free speech you have no righteousness in your statement when you (Or anyone) decides to 'commentate" about how much of a "traitor" someone was because they spoke out about what they saw; when that person spent their time dodging bullets, shrapnel, friendly fire, grenades, land mines, snakes, termites, heat, propaganda, SAM's, AAA, poor command-decisions, political rhetoric, their own fatigue, and not to mention- the enemy, if you were miles off the coast swabbing a deck in relative safety.

That'd be like me sitting around complaining about how sorry Michael Jordan (23) was for missing a dunk, when I can't even touch the nets when I jump.