I don't care one bit about Sanders' try at being a C.O.

[MineralMan]

It's a matter of half a century ago. I have friends who were drafted during Vietnam. I have friends who enlisted in a branch of the service less likely to send them to Vietnam, myself among those. I have friends who split for Canada to avoid being drafted. I have a couple of friends who actually applied for and got C.O. status. One of them served as a medic in Vietnam.

Half a century ago. All of those friends are doing something completely different today, except for two who died in Vietnam. Some are Democrats. Some are Republicans. Some are pretty much apolitical. They remain my friends, regardless of their political beliefs and my disagreement with some of them.

So, Bernie Sanders, like me, was opposed to the Vietnam war. I enlisted in the USAF, where I became a Russian linguist. I protested at the Pentagon in uniform in 1969. I could have been court-martialed, but wasn't. I participated actively in anti-war actions while stationed near DC. But, that was almost half a century ago. Who cares today what I, or anyone else did then? It has nothing to do with current issues.

Bernie didn't serve, although he did not get C.O. status. Bill Clinton didn't serve, either. GWB pretended to serve. Some served. Some didn't. It was half a century ago. I'm interested in what they are doing now, not then. I'm listening to politicians today, not in the late 60s.

It's an irrelevant issue when it comes to next year's primary elections, or should be. I'm supporting Hillary Clinton, but not because Bernie Sanders applied for C.O. statues. That's a meaningless historical fact to me. Why anyone would care is beyond me, entirely.

[RKP5637]

1. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[firebrand80]

2. I think the point people are making

Is that it would hurt him in the GE.

[MineralMan]

4. I doubt that very much.

I don't think people give a good damn about people's feelings and actions during the Vietnam war any longer. Some right-wingers might, and a few veterans of that war, but the right-winger would never vote for him anyhow, and there are fewer and fewer hard-core VN war vets around these days.

I don't see it as an issue that matters at all, frankly.

[roguevalley]

45. I don't think it would hurt him in the general

because none of the republicans are veterans and some of them dodged their draft notice 4-5 times. The younger ones could have enlisted and didn't and Hillary never served at all either. No one can use this issue to their benefit because its easily deflected by 'tell us YOUR service then, hoss'.

Many are the C. O.s that served honorably in combat. I saw a documentary about a religious man from WWII who won the Congressional Medal of Honor for pulling wounded out of the line of fire as a medic. Even those who didn't get that status are one up on me against those who dodged or didn't serve. Period.

[MineralMan]

46. I could have gone to Canada, or back to college

and avoided the issue. I didn't. I found my own way to serve without having to shoot at people. I wouldn't ever want to do that.

[roguevalley]

47. you were honorable, mineral man, during a very

tough time. I remember kids I went to school with who died there. Unless someone faces that moment, they can't know.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. At least one HUGH CLINTON SUPPORTER!@$@$#!! insists "unfit to be president"

because of this, so no, that is not "the point people are making", at least not all of them.

[firebrand80]

9. There are over-the-top folks on both sides

I try my best to ignore them

[Agschmid]

31. Yup.

[Mass]

10. None of these guys fought in VietNam or even were in the military.

Graham and Perry were the only ones and they are out. So, I doubt this would be an issue. Particularly against Trump. At least, Sanders can say he was honest.

[firebrand80]

14. I can't help but to recall Kerry - Bush

Somehow the guy that actually fought in Vietnam lost that argument.

[SunSeeker]

18. Are you saying Sanders honestly is a c.o.--a pacifist opposed to all wars?

Because Sanders clearly supports some wars now, like Afghanistan...

[Mass]

19. That was 50 years ago. Do you still hold the same ideas you had in your twenties?

That is assuming you are more than that. I would not want to presume.

People evolve, you know. Intelligent people, at least.

[SunSeeker]

22. I actually do hold the same progressive ideals I had in my twenties.

My teens? Not so much. And I agree, intelligent people do evolve. But I thought that was a dirty word around here, synonymous with dishonest political opportunism. Glad to see that is no longer the case.

[Plucketeer]

42. I think it's too simple to do a blanket judgement

of DU's inherent leanings. If the word (or idea of) "evolve" can't be used here, we're deep in doo-doo we don't even recognize. I voted GOP right thru til Slick Willy's first run. My motive was simply that the Rethugs served to promote the industry I worked for. But my thinking eventually evolved - and I came over from the Dark Side.

I enlisted in the service just before the USA started to overtly go into Vietnam. When I got the chance to go there, I took it. I wanted to experience it for myself. I wanted to be a part of the war machine which so many kids of my generation dreamed of being a glorious part of. I got my wish and I'm proud to have done so. I now look at that conflict as stupid, but at the time, it didn't seem dumb to me. Others that did what they thought was right? --- Good for them. I don't think any more or less of them for their actions.

I honestly wish I'd been a C.O. in the 60s-70s. But that was then - 40-some years ago. Now I think like a progressive (I hope) and I'm proud of that evolution. And I don't think it would be fair to dismiss me because of how I felt when I was 20 years of age.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. In the spirit of the OP, I'd like to offer to you the fact that this definition of c.o. status as

calling for opposition to all wars is not a universally accepted definition and the US use of that definition is hotly challenged by the world community and, please note, by liberal Americans including such persons as John Kerry. There are some rather obvious arguments against this definition. I will attempt an example.
We hold people to account for actions during war time, even if they were under orders for those actions. This is what Nuremberg established so well. Thus it is clearly the case that specifics in war really are matters of great moral and legal weight. If I can be convicted for following a very bad order, this means I have the duty to become an objector in the field and even in the midst of other violent action. It means certainly that there is a place where one says 'no not that'.
So if battle specifics can call for objector status to instantly be made then it is rather obvious that a person could fight in one war and object to another.

The UN does not agree that it must be 'all wars' for example.
That definition is a definition of the US position on c.o. status. It is not the definition of such status accepted by all Americans much less the entire world. It's a legal position.

[SunSeeker]

25. I understand that.

I think the best post on DU I have see on this issue is the following, who I assume is a Bernie supporter:

Here's the rub. Why this hurts Bernie even though it shouldn't

As someone who sought and obtained their CO during the Vietnam War, this is something that I know a little about. 

To get a CO during the Vietnam War (and under current law as well), one has to proclaim their opposition to participating in any war, not just a particular war. Bernie's campaign has acknowledged that when he sought his CO, he was indeed a pacifist -- that his objection was not merely to participating in the Vietnam War, but to participating in any war. In that regard, Bernie has my utmost respect. His approach was indeed more honest than those who sought to obtain deferments that they arguably were not entitled to. (But also note that I do not criticize those who took whatever measures, including pulling strings, lying, etc. to avoid service in the Vietnam War -- before I got my CO I explored any number of other options, including getting a medical deferment based on statements provided by an anti-war doctor as well as simply going to Canada). 

While I respect Bernie's decision and he has my support, the political reality is that it is not possible in this day and age for an avowed pacifist to get elected president of the United States. It just isn't. Bernie therefore has indicated that while he was a pacifist back in the 60s/70s, he is no longer a pacifist. I accept that as the truth. But convincing the electorate at large will be another thing. It will hurt him, no two ways about it, as much as I think it shouldn't. 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251956666#post18

[catnhatnh]

30. It was ruled on by the supreme court in 1971

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, adding constraints on the terms of Conscientious Objection resulting from draftees in the Selective Service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillette_v._United_States

So at the time Sanders applied in 1966 it was not settled case law.

[SunSeeker]

43. Sanders did not claim his religious freedom rights were violated.

Unlike the plaintiffs in that case, Sanders asserted he was a pacifist who opposed all war, which the law already accomodated. So he had no grounds to raise a religious freedom claim, which is what was at issue in that case. A law is in effect up until a court overturns it, which no court did with this law as far as I am aware.

[catnhatnh]

44. I have not seen what Sanders submitted to the board

I stated that until '71 the supremes had not established one must oppose all war for CO status

[valerief]

3. I respect someone who didn't serve and isn't eager to send troops to war now.

That's Bernie. Mr. Five-Deferment, War-is-My-Business Cheney is the opposite of Bernie.

[MineralMan]

5. You respect him for his beliefs.

So do I. I like Bernie Sanders very much. It's not about his behavior in the late 60s, though. That has nothing to do with it. I won't be voting for him during primary season, but that's for other reasons.

[valerief]

8. I don't respect "beliefs." I respect him for his actions. nt

[MineralMan]

12. A fine distinction, and an unpredictable one.

We're often surprised by our elected officials, it seems. That's why I listen to beliefs, since I cannot see future actions. I also look at whether I think a candidate can get elected, because there are distinct differences between our two parties.

You will make your voting decisions as you see fit. So will I. We'll all know the result in November.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Happy to rec a sensible post from the other side.

[MineralMan]

16. Thanks, Warren.

I wish we could all see the common goals people here share.

[Nonhlanhla]

11. Another Hillary supporter who agrees

I respect Bernie's objection to the war, and I don't think it will necessarily harm him if he were the nominee.

[MoonRiver]

13. I totally agree.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. Thank you for putting your ass on the line in '69. You were taking a substantial

risk of court martial or worse, and you should be universally applauded for it here.

I think the reason this is an issue now is that, in order to obtain CO status, one must object to all war and violence as a means of conflict resolution. So how can Sanders function as CiC of the military if he is a CO? If Sanders honestly was a CO then, has he changed his views since then such that he now can order military actions? Or was Sanders' application for CO status a mere tactic of convenience, similar to the feints and evasions employed by Bill Clinton?

To me, this is somewhat akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But I can understand where the issue gets its legs.

Daniel Ellsberg once famously noted that the Vietnam War will not be truly over until we erect a monment on the Mall to those who protested against the war. I don't hold high hopes of seeing that monument erected in my lifetime, but I think Ellsberg's point is apt.

[MineralMan]

17. I didn't much care in 1969. I was done with

the military, really.

I just don't see this as being a significant issue in any way. I don't think it would affect many votes at all. Looking at the minutiae of candidates' histories has always seemed useless to me.

The Vietnam war sucked. Clearly. Most wars suck. A very few are necessary, I suppose, but none since WWII, as far as I'm concerned. My decision to enlist in the USAF was carefully taken.

[catnhatnh]

33. See Above

In 1966 this was not settled by law. The supreme court settled in 1971

[Gothmog]

20. I do not think that I have seen any Clinton supporter raise this issue

To me this is a non-issue and I doubt that any Clinton supporters really care about this issue. The key issue to me is which candidate is viable in the general election.

[KingCharlemagne]

24. Oh really? FWIW:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251955465

[A Simple Game]

37. It wouldn't matter to that one if Bernie left the seat up or put it down.

It wouldn't matter if he inhaled before exhaling or exhaled before inhaling, Bernie can do nothing right.

Some Hillary supporters are going far out into deep space with their rationalizations lately.

[Hekate]

21. Thanks for the memories, MinMan. The very accurate memories. KnR

And welcome back!

[Ferd Berfel]

26. I drew #11 in the First Draft. At that time IT TOOK GUTS to take the CO stand.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. I don't care, either. I believe he did the right thing and wished each and every American did the

same thing. I only wished when he got power in the U.S. Congress that he didn't vote for each and every bill to launch a war (excluding the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq) that came to the floor. I wished he'd fight to stop sending tens of billions to Lockheed Martin/Sandia for the failed war plane, the F-35, when that money could've been used to create jobs in education and infrastructure, rather than his Burlington, Vermont constituents. That's what bothers me about him.

[lark]

28. Since I was rabidly against the Vietnam war, I totally support his action.

It makes me like him even more, think he's even more qualified to be president than I did before. America has worshiped at the war machine for far too long, we need someone anti-war like Bernie. It's ridiculous how much money we spend on war machines and this needs to change.

[7wo7rees]

29. Thank you! n/t

[tularetom]

32. I'm the same age as Sen Sanders and I never got the chance to be a C.O.

When I was drafted in 1960 I doubt that I had ever even heard of Vietnam and while I would much rather have done almost anything besides spend two years of my life in the Army, it never would have occurred to me that I had the option to refuse.

By 1968, I was a lot smarter and I was totally opposed to the Vietnam war. My brother was 22 that year and when he graduated from college I tried to talk him into applying for CO status, an act which caused a lot of friction between me and my WWII USMC dad. In the end, dad won out and brother joined the navy where he was able to serve as an officer.

I maintained at the time, and I still contend, that it took a lot more courage to stand up and say no, I'm opposed to this bullshit and I won't be part of it, than it did to just go along.

[MineralMan]

36. I'm four years younger. In 1960, few people thought about

Vietnam. By the time I graduated from HS in 1963, we were starting to think about it and the draft a lot more. When I dropped out of college in early 1965, I knew that I'd be drafted before too long. So, I had to decide what to do. I knew about C.O. status, but wouldn't have qualified for it and wasn't willing to lie my way into it. At that time, it was a very difficult thing to establish, anyhow.

My point of view about the Vietnam was was not fully established at the time, but I knew that I wanted nothing to do with it personally, so I opted to enlist in the USAF. That worked out fine, of course, but military life and sensibilities never did sit well with me. I was overjoyed when I was discharged in 1969. In a very private protest, I stopped shaving on the day I was discharged and now, in 2015, no razor has touched my face since then. It's a minor thing, but one I've maintained and am happy to share with people if they ask. Purely symbolic, of course, and my anti-war activities continued, too, but that was my little personal statement.

[restorefreedom]

34. i am thrilled to recommend this post!

and thanks for sharing your personal narrative, mm

being opposed to war(s) then and now is a GOOD thing imo.

then again, there is didn't even pretend cheney, who loves war but just not for himself

this is a nonissue now and in a ge, except as you point out, to those who would never vote dem anyway

[Jack Rabbit]

35. K/R

!!

[Romulox]

38. I'm just sick of the sexism. In what capacity did Hillary serve during Vietnam?

[AlbertCat]

39. I'm just sick of the sexism.

Really!


Hey.... did Hillary ever play with a Barbie doll? If so, how can she be called a feminist?????

This stuff that happened in a different time and very different world is, sometimes, interesting, but not very relevant. Our war (and toy) problems these days are very very different.

[Romulox]

40. Right. Hillary grew up to display this celebration of death.

Perhaps never living through the fear of military conscription contributed to the above display?

[FairWinds]

41. I'm a US Army vet who "served" (the Empire) in Vietnam . .

the fact is that the CO's were right and we were wrong.

That war was flat-out evil, maybe even worse than Iraq - 2003.

The CO's were both smarter and braver than those of us who were sheep.

Lets honor the real heroes, like Bernie . . the ones who said "HELL NO!"

I even wrote an Op-ed about the topic . . .

http://www.peacevoice.info/2014/11/08/reclaim-armistice-day-and-honor-the-real-heroes/

please consider joining Veterans For Peace