Draft Dodger Monument in Canada

[BLUEHAWK]

Here is a response written by a Canadian citizen, to a website devoted to discussion about building a monument in Canada to American VN war draft dodgers. I don't post it to draw arguement, but rather because what the author says in her response is well stated, I believe.

Its a bit lengthy, but worth the read.





For the Nelson BC Guestbook ref: Monument to Draft Dodgers

September 28, 2004


"First, I just want to say I am not writing this as representing anyone's opinion but my own. I was simply horrified and appalled by some of the anti-war movement's actions I saw during the Viet Nam War when I was living in the US (67 - 69). I don't see that there has been much change in presentation. Here in this guestbook, much of what the anti-war movement's members and supporters state appears to be somewhat self-serving and revisionist in its history.

To the physicians that have posted here, I have a disconnect with what you are saying. On my father's side of the family there is documentation back to the US Civil War (and probably before if I chose to go through the papers at this time) that there was always at least one physician per generation and women are usually nurses, "especially" in war. This is what one "did". Many of my opinions are actually based on that heritage - not politics. Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath say something to the effect of "neither by _omission_ or commission Do No Harm". Define "omission" because it seems to me that not to go and do your best to ensure that those serving make it home is _omission_ by the Oath's definition.

All of you are repeating issues of rights to self-determination - that you are entitled to hold your opinion. You are claiming at minimum by passive-aggressive, self-serving inference that you are being "harassed" again by those *war lovers*. By what right of self-determination do you claim authority over the rights of others? In particular, the rights of those who chose to serve. Did they not have "rights"? Or are those rights only available to people who support your agenda?

No-one that I know had any problem with protesting "war". Most of the military people I know would agree. War is the worst thing in the world. I don't believe that the anger you are feeling directed towards yourselves has anything to do with being against peace in the world in principle. In point of fact, I seem to recall agreeing with you..

You lost me forever when you targeted the veterans of that war.

I have never seen anything more unconscionable, awful or horrible in my life. Between your movement, people like Jane Fonda and others I could mention, you created an environment that was absolutely hostile to everyone that served there when they came home - at a critical time when they needed all the support in the world to decompress, come down. They needed to be Welcomed Home!. You ensured that that was denied. You created an environment in which for years these gentlemen - and lets not forget the nurses, the Docs, Donut Dollies, and all who were in VietNam - where some I think did commit suicide or totally withdrew rather than seek the help they needed - Who were they supposed to talk to? You?

Your movement coined the phrase "baby-killer" at minimum, and you were certainly responsible for making it a part of common language.

By your definition, Winston Churchill was a "baby-killer" because he, with foreknowledge gained through the cracking of the Enigma code allowed the bombing by Germany (Operation Moonlight Sonata, I think) of Coventry rather than risk letting the Germans know that code, had in fact, been cracked. Ultra was protected at the cost of approximately 600 civilian lives and 4,500 wounded civilians. I believe that maybe you would have disagreed with him in this, however, revealing to the enemy that that code had been cracked would have meant having to crack yet another code. Much of what helped England, I believe, through the early years of the war was the fact that they "had" cracked the code and the Germans did not know it.

So, Churchill knowingly and with foreknowledge allowed 600 civilian lives to be lost and 4,500 wounded (I am sure that some of them were women and children), rather than lose more in the end.. .

These are all extremely difficult decisions, and in no way cavalier as you choose to present as part of your smokescreen, which fools no one and never has. There is no decision such as this when "everybody wins". These decisions will always arise during the conduct of "any" war, not just VietNam. There are the hardest decisions in War and it takes very special people to be able to cope with the consequences of them - to even make them. It takes courage. My understanding is that this was one of the decisions that haunted Churchill until the end of his days.

For you to treat Nam vets like "love of killing" was the only reason they went to serve is a sin.

Do you honestly believe that any rational person "wants" war? Or is this just when they disagree with you?


September 29, 2004

Someone I know who served in VietNam (no name or details), finished his tour and was coming home. He was asked to stop off at a base on his way - for reasons unknown to him at the time. When he arrived, he was told that his brother had been killed and they thought he might want to escort his brother's body home. This he did. After the funeral service, he went to his local pub/bar to catch up with hometown friends that he had known before he went overseas. He walked in, saw a group of these people that he knew, went to say hello (and remember, this is right after the funeral/wake). The response he got? "Hey _......._, how are ya? Good to have you back? Sit down, have a beer.. and tell us how many babies you killed in VietNam".

He turned around and went right back to VietNam for a 2nd tour.

If he had been killed (and Thank God he wasn't), his blood would have been on your hands. He may have been killed by VC, but your movement put him "back there".

Sometimes I wonder how many of those KIA/MIA were in VietNam because they went back for 2, some more, tours, for precisely the same reasons. The completely abusive environment "you" created. Sadly, he is not unique in the sense that I have met many Nam vets who have said to me that the "worst part of the War was coming home". That is at your door. You are responsible for it.

Any of these good men that lost their lives because they went back consequent to the environment you created, their blood "is" on your hands.

I cannot have any respect for your anti-war movement at "all". This does not make me, or anyone else, a war-monger.. This is about the damage, betrayal and harm you caused to those who served - to preserve, rationalize to yourselves and justify to the world your "right" to not go. You treated VietNam as if it were unique in the history of conduct of war. Yet, I would come home for the summers and take day-trips to Toronto/Yorkville. You were there. I met some of you. While I did meet some of you had gone to university in Canada so did not have to worry about getting transcripts from the US, most I met from your group were there getting stoned and panhandling. That was your "peace protest". Protesting an immoral war? Apparently you think we all came down with the last shower.

You decried for the world to hear the use of Agent Orange (no argument there in the fact of it - it's a terrible thing that affected many Vietnamese AND VietNam veterans). Yet, you come to the very country that made it. You may not have known it during the War but you sure know it now. Why are you still here? Is it because you are so self-centered and narcissistic that you cannot even comprehend the hypocrisy of what you represent? Peace??? I don't think so. If you did, you would not have treated the Veterans the way you did. In this, what is your responsibility for the length of the War? and everything you "say" you oppose? You used My Lai as a tool to color "all" those who served. This is unspeakable. However, it served your needs, didn't it.

You use Ghandi-esque terms to justify that fact that you did not have the courage of your convictions. You use principles of a true peace selectively to justify your conduct. Do you honestly think that people can't see this? From everything I have read or seen about Gandhi, he wouldn't have come here. He would have stayed and gone to jail. That is who he "was". Unlike you, he did have the courage of his convictions. You do not. You are an insult to all those such as he. He would never engage in the absolutely cruelty you did with VietNam veterans. Why? Because there was nothing peaceful about what you did to them.

You have no substance.

Canada? Canada "is" a wonderful country. However, there is duplicitous hypocrisy in our Government. It said that it did not support the War - as a foreign policy so that we could be perceived as a neutral country (and still does with respect to Iraq). If Canada was so against the War, why did our government contract to make arms, defoliants, and the long list of other things for use in VietNam? Don't presume to tell me that Canada's anti-war political presentation has got anything to do with "peace". If it did, they wouldn't have got defence contracts. Canada may be a wonderful country, and Canadians are good people, but the government should realize they can't have it both ways and maintain any respect at all.

Of course, Canada has no Oversight such as that in the US, so the Canadian government can pretty much do what it wants without any accountability to its people.

I can't understand how the Canadian government could, in any conscience at all, send Canadians overseas without the proper camouflage for the theatre. They were sent to Afghanistan with uniforms more appropriate to Southeast Asia, in point of fact, than a desert environment. Thank God for the Americans in that they gave them the "right" uniform because our government sent our men and woman to Afghanistan with uniforms that might as well have had "target" written on their back. For our government to do this is inexplicable, unconscionable and abhorrent to me

People have a tendency to be derisive about the Canadian military because of its size or something. I don't know. The United States has a population of 300,000,000. We have a population of 30,000,000. Canadian population has consistently been about 10% of the US population at any given time for years, maybe always. I think that, if one looked at the statistics, the ratio/percentage of those in the military would be about the same.

I have never met anyone who derided the heart,sense of duty, honor and courage that exists in the Canadian forces. What is derided is a direct effect of the support our government gives our troops and the troops are the people that ultimately pay the price. I see no honor in my government's actions in this. They can hide behind disingenuous political-speak all they want. The fact, imho, is that our government's support of our military borders on a level of wanton negligence which is, at minimum, ethically criminal.

Recently Canada purchased I think 7 helicopters for the military. They were looking at two different models. I readily concede that I know "nothing" about helicopter specifications, etc. What I do know is that members of the Canadian military preferred the use of one that better served their needs. Our government purchased the other one. Why? It was $5,000.00 cheaper per helicopter on a multimillion dollar purchase. It seems to me that we can afford to spend millions on helicopters, we could have sprung for an extra $35,000. I think it's obscene.

I will always have a tremendous respect for all of those Canadian men and women who are now in service and those that still enlist knowing all of the above because they believe in the principles this country was founded on - in spite of the lack of support they get from our elected officials in Ottawa. In this, our troops are stellar.

If we are going to send Canadian men and women In Harm's Way (either through peacekeeping - which is not peaceful, or a formally declared War) we owe it to them to give them the best of the best they need. They are the only ones to truly determine what those needs are. They have the history. They are entitled to anything and everything to help ensure that they make it home from any hostile environment.

The Canadian government does not, apparently, share this opinion.

I will never know in my heart of hearts whether or not Canada voted against going into Iraq because of some anti-American sentiment, rather the issue of engaging in an immoral war. I can only arrive at that conclusion based on the Canadian coverage at that time. The House of Commons session in which the vote made - and televised - was at minimum egregiously embarrassing. The decision was more "We'll show _them_" attitude than relevant to the issues. These are the same individuals in the House who condone our government's treatment of our troops. These are some of the same individuals that supported Jean Chretien when he said that there would be no memorial raised to those Canadians killed in the Towers on September 11th. Why? Because, according to the leader of our country, Canada could not be expected to raise memorials for "every little thing". Chretien is no longer in office, however, I don't believe this attitude will change. This is a tragedy. The fact is that, in recent history, the Canadian government has, in many ways, treated our military like they are a shameful secret to be tolerated as an unpleasant necessary rather than honor them and support them as they should be.

Granted I have a tendency to think in black and white terms, but it seems to me that when it comes to the lives of those in our military there is no grey.

Much of the antipathy that now exists between the people of Canada and the United States is truly heartbreaking - because both are a wonderful people. Because of my family history (United Empire Loyalist) like many Canadians, I still probably have relatives in the US other than immediate family - 18 times removed, no doubt. Still and all, some of the best times in my life have been spent in the United States.

I could never be anti-American, it makes no sense to me. The same holds true for Canada with respect to the principles it was founded on although sadly those principles seem to be forgotten in Ottawa.

This antipathy that exists between our two peoples always dates back to your conduct during the War because you came here and the Canadian government allowed it. I have met people in the States who initially appear to like me until they find out I'm Canadian at which point I am shunned. It is always related to you people coming here during VietNam in constellation with the abuse you poured on the vets. I can't say I blame them at all given the circumstances. It's got nothing to do with advocation of peace or war. .

And now we are in another War - in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are not separate. As I said at the beginning, I don't belong to any political party. Clearly, Iraq is rapidly becoming yet another "unpopular war". I am a foreign national with respect to the United States and would never presume to think I had enough knowledge or right to render an opinion on internal issues to the US.

What I do know about Saddam Hussein is that he committed genocide in using chemical weapons against the Kurds. At that point, he crossed the Rubicon. imho, and become someone who essentially needed to be "removed". The man is a monster. He sits at the same table as Stalin (one of Hussein's heroes who killed approximately 25,000,000 of his own people after WW2) and Hitler - and we all know who he was.

How are you going to treat those who are now In Harm's Way when they come home? I refer to both Canadians and Americans. Is your agenda to disenfranchise by abuse yet another generation of those who serve their country?

I doubt very much if you'll get away with it again. The reasons are self-evident.

Because of the way you handled it, your anti-war movement has caused infinitely more harm than good both to the Veterans and relations between Canada and the United States. This is all you've done in your self-serving rationalization of your cowardice in not standing for what you believe in.

You are not for Peace. You are for yourselves. You have never once put others before yourself but have been completely self-serving and selfish (I refer to the negative aspect of selfishness - not to one's awareness of "self"). In the hierarchy of your priorities you have displayed wanton disregard for any harm or cost to others. In this, you will ever remain are a perversion to the very concept of Peace. Those who stayed in the US and truly protested the war by dealing with the consequences, I will always respect. You? That came here? You have done nothing to respect.

If it is built, that is all your "anti-war" monument will ever represent. No honor, no dignity, nothing but your cowardice and wanton cruelty to the troops when they came home and the tremendous rift that you caused between two nations."


Anne F., Maple Ridge, BC

[SparrowHawk62]

Oh Kanaduh, I'm glad I don't live there.
Oh Kanaduh, you turn you back on us.
Oh Kanaduh, you keep the trader basturds.
Oh Kanaduh, you'll never win my heart.
Oh Kanaduh, close your stinken border, but leave a whole for the cowards to crawl through.
Oh Kanaduh, don't ever ask our help.
Oh Kanaduh, you keep the cowards you have.
Oh Kanaduh, award them your purple maple leaf, for the cowards were wounded crawling on thier hands and knees.

Makes me ill to think cowards will be given a source of proclaimed honor for shirking the duties they had to our great country.

[Boats]

Anne F

Thanks from many of us for putting into words those who reflect those same feelings. VN was a long time ago and many of those issues are still carried by those who served.

All wars are ugly but without the support of your countrymen it creates a division or separation that will be there for decades or throughout ones remaining life.

We know the media fed this crap to the public to make their nightly features and others did it for personal gains - which back-fired in most cases.

VN should have been a learning lesson but in each war we always say - it's the last - we seem to quickly jump back into another for reasons often said to be those of national security. I wonder if that's really true?

The world today hasn't learned much from its past. Those time-line markers are quickly disappearing and from someone to read about the past tends to depress them even moreso.

I'm older now and a little wiser but I too recall all the passion and dispassion for many of those who went into this war. I went because all my buds from school were. I'm no hero I'm an American and proud of it. My past generations fought in the WWI and WWII I couldn't let them rest without knowing that I too cared enough to carry our flag into foreign lands.

I always said it was better to fight them on their soil - then to allow our people to see the destruction that comes from it.

Bang!! 9/11 and sure as hell it means we did not protect them and we let them down and I guess we all knew it would happen someday. I regret not having done a better job to prevent this type of carnage from reaching out soil.

[Seascamp]

By my counting, there are at least three Canada?s, maybe more. Alberta and British Columbia seem very familiar, Quebec always marches to their own drummer and the Maritime; way eastern Canada, is again totally different from the rest; going there is kind of like being a stranger in a strange land, eh. So I would expect many different voices saying many different things and some very strong beliefs that populate the spectrum of thought from one side of the bell chart to the other.

To my knowledge, the plans for the monument were junked-out in the face of cross border protests and assurances of a local border area general boycott should the monument plans precede. As I recall, the VFW led that charge and didn?t get much beyond the bugle call to ?Boots and Saddles? before a monument hiatus was called.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

I think their website is still up, but the city council in town voted to not permit any municipal funding or sanction of the project.

[Jerry D]

Back when I was stationed at McChord AFB I was watching CBC news out of Canada and there had been a poll taken in Canada Province wide and BC, Alberta,Sachasawan,NW Territory, and half of Ontario were for becoming part of the US. Quebec was French loyal and wanted to secede out rite and become an independent Country! and PEI and Newfound had a Majority wanting to Join the US. British Columbia was the highest percentage at 93% wanting to be part of the USA