Romney was brave to go to France, avoiding the draft. (CNN)

joseph brand · 07-09-2012 09:56PM #1

“In 1968, France was a dangerous place to be for a 21-year-old American, but Mitt Romney was right in the middle of it. - Gloria Borger of CNN, in their "documentary," "Romney Revealed."

Link here.

Oh come on. Are they serious? This reminds me of a song from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.

Minstrel: [singing] Brave Sir Robin ran away...
Sir Robin: *No!*
Minstrel: [singing] bravely ran away away...
Sir Robin: *I didn't!*
Minstrel: [singing] When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Sir Robin: *I never did!*
Minstrel: [singing] Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
Sir Robin: *Oh, you liars!*
Minstrel: [singing] Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.

Sam Seder shows Mitt some sympathy.

Isn't this 'documentary' a little bit disrespectful to the war veterans who served in Vietnam? There is absolutely no way anyone could compare Vietnam to Paris, in 1968.

At least Romney was able to disrespect a Vietnam vet in person.

I'm trying to see some good in Romney, but it's hard.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-09-2012 09:58PM

one nice thing is he didn't murder any innocent vietnamese

karma_ · 07-09-2012 10:05PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

one nice thing is he didn't murder any innocent vietnamese

That would be noble save for the fact he's running now for the highest office in the land and may be the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces.

RobbingBandit · 07-09-2012 10:08PM

At least he got to dream in a bed of being President, unlike McCain and his bamboo jail cell.

joseph brand · 07-09-2012 10:25PM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

At least he got to dream in a bed of being President, unlike McCain and his bamboo jail cell.

Is this an attempt at trolling? It makes no sense.

07-09-2012 10:28PM

So what if he dodged the draft?
What relevance does this have to his political policies?
We all know the president is only Commander in Chief in name.

Corkfeen · 07-09-2012 10:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So what if he dodged the draft?
What relevance does this have to his political policies?
We all know the president is only Commander in Chief in name.

It's not the fact that he dodged which I don't personally mind. But the fact that they stated France was a dangerous place for an American in 1968 while the other 21 years olds were fighting in Vietnam, it wasn't 'brave' of him to be in France. Probably just crap documentary making more than anything.

Conas · 08-09-2012 12:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So what if he dodged the draft?
What relevance does this have to his political policies?
We all know the president is only Commander in Chief in name.

It's very important with regards to foreign poilcy. At the Republican convention he was making threats to Cuba, Iran, Russia. He's a chicken-hawk like Dick Cheney. He'll be clueless with regards to controlling the armed forces. He ran and hid when thousands of others were sent to their deaths in Vietnam. He'll do what he's told as commander in chief like Bush anyway. That's a dangerous path to be taking all over again. It has massive relevance, and if not approached with caution it could have serious consequences.

Conas · 08-09-2012 12:54AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

It's not the fact that he dodged which I don't personally mind. But the fact that they stated France was a dangerous place for an American in 1968 while the other 21 years olds were fighting in Vietnam, it wasn't 'brave' of him to be in France. Probably just crap documentary making more than anything.

What are you on about? France wasn't dangerous. Romney spent his time in France with Mormon Missionaries, cycling his bike around the countryside.

Corkfeen · 08-09-2012 01:04AM

Conas wrote: »

What are you on about? France wasn't dangerous. Romney spent his time in France with Mormon Missionaries, cycling his bike around the countryside.

Erm, I never said it was. I don't think he was in any danger what so ever. Think you should refer to OP.:pac:

Permabear · 08-09-2012 01:19AM

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir · 08-09-2012 01:38AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The only fly in that dreamy little ointment is that Romney was for the war in VN and protested FOR it, all the while actively avoiding any involvement in it.

It's called 'hypocrisy' and 'cowardice'.

Einhard · 08-09-2012 01:50AM

Personally, I think it was brave of Romney to look back on his earlier incarnation and realise that, actually, his more youthful self had been wrong about practically every single issue of substance, and then not only change his mind (often several times!), but admit it so publicly and vociferously. That takes courage. That kind of deep self-reflection takes guts, and he has my admiration for it.

Einhard · 08-09-2012 01:52AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmm, fully agree with most of what you write, but why should modern democrats feel ashamed for the actions of their peers a half century ago? If they should hang their heads, then Germans or Russians should do the same thing, but I doubt anyone would argue that.

Permabear · 08-09-2012 01:52AM

This post has been deleted.

Conas · 08-09-2012 01:52AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Simply not true at all. Kennedy refused outright to have a war in Vietnam. He had made plans to withdraw troops from Vietnam actually. So your statement is utterly false. People in the Military Industrial Complex wanted that war to happen and JFK wasn't going to give it to them.

The sly arsed pig Johnson gave it to them, and the sole responsibility lay with him, and so it happened. Then Nixon carried the torch after him. So the Republicans should be hanging their heads in shame too. Romney supported the oil stealing, pointless war in Iraq, that disgraced America, where torture went unpunished, and thousands of innocent people died, based on pure lies. But you wont mention that though will you?

Permabear · 08-09-2012 02:04AM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 08-09-2012 02:38AM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

At least he got to dream in a bed of being President, unlike McCain and his bamboo jail cell.

joseph brand wrote: »

Is this an attempt at trolling? It makes no sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YeDtpmxlsY

joseph brand · 08-09-2012 11:54AM

I'm as anti-war/ anti-invasion as anyone. If Romney didn't want to go and fight over in Vietnam, (and I'm sure a lot of those who had to go weren't overly excited about the whole idea), I can't argue with his views on Vietnam.

They usually send the poor, but that's for another thread.

The point is that the CNN 'documentary' is ridiculous at best.

How will the US troops view Romney, when he asks them to fight for their country, using words like honour and pride and courage? Listening to a draft-dodger wouldn't be very inspirational.

"Do as I say, don't do as I do!"

It would be a bit rich of Romney to send troops off to war while he himself is against war (when he might have to occupy a trench versus a desk).

Conas · 08-09-2012 12:16PM

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm as anti-war/ anti-invasion as anyone. If Romney didn't want to go and fight over in Vietnam, (and I'm sure a lot of those who had to go weren't overly excited about the whole idea), I can't argue with his views on Vietnam.

Fair enough, Bruce Springsteen didn't go to Vietnam but he's always been anti-war, on the other side Romney is pro war.

At 19 years of age he was out protesting in favour of the Vietnam, but when his draft came he dodged it, which was a disgrace. His views were pro war, but when his time came he ran and hid.

RobbingBandit · 08-09-2012 12:39PM

Seems he was on a French Mormon Mission retreat at the time of the draft,fun time this is for all us bystanders watching each camp fling propaganda at the other. One a draft dodging secretive religious rich guy and the other a pseudo foreign national right wing democrat that has failed to deliver many of his campaign promises.

Romney has a good alibi in the Mormon retreat, who knows if it is true but if he is elected he won't be the first to have dogged a draft, albeit Bush did his service on US soil rather than in Vietnam but I would call him a dogger for that.;)

Conas · 08-09-2012 12:46PM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Romney has a good alibi in the Mormon retreat, who knows if it is true but if he is elected he won't be the first to have dogged a draft, albeit Bush did his service on US soil rather than in Vietnam but I would call him a dogger for that.;)

Daddy Bush knew it wasn't a war worth sending his son to fight. So let the poor fellas go and die. Dick Cheney was the worst of them all though. He got 5 deferments, and everyone knows his role in the torture in Iraq.

How can anyone trust Republicans, because at the end of the day, when the going gets tough they'll run and hide and blame someone else. Wants a chicken always a chicken.

Denerick · 08-09-2012 02:10PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As prospective President of the Republic who will probably order kids into foreign lands to meet their doom, it is spectacularly cowardly and hypocritical.

As for the whole 'democrats should be ashamed for what they did 50 years ago' thing, thats just bizarre.

I hold a rather unconventional view of military service as it happens. I think conscription is a much fairer system. It creates a citizen army which in a democracy is more humane than a professional army populated by people who are either poor (qualified for little else so they learn how to kill things) or people naturally attracted to the idea of killing things. Plus, rich and poor alike would be forced to perform a period of military service, removing many of the class barriers that affect most western countries. You would have a small core professional officer class in permanent employment and the rest would serve 6-12 months at some period between the age of 18 and 25. I know its not exactly a popular idea, but it would be far healthier for the democracy if its army was in the hands of the citizenry rather than professional soldiers.

Denerick · 08-09-2012 02:23PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fact democrats rarely try to sell themselves as a pacifist party. In America that would be very bad politics (People like their politicians to kill things that scare them in the states) Thats an effect of Republican propaganda. As any democrat will tell you (lamentably) Republicans have successfully portrayed democrats as lily livered cowards who can't be trusted with national security. Its the whole 'mommy' versus 'daddy' hypothesis. When Americans feel secure in their place in the world or feel that something is amiss structurally with their society, they'll elect a 'mommy' (Carter, Clinton, Obama) when they fear a foreign threat, real or imagined, they'll elect a 'daddy' (Reagan, Bush)

I think it was around 2006 when President Bush made a speech to congress, castigating democrats (Who were blocking extra money for the Iraq war) who were 'formally the party of Truman, Kennedy and FDR'.

So to be honest, your criticism or the supposed 'revisionism' is mostly in your own imagination.

Mjollnir · 08-09-2012 02:30PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

His father is irrelevant to Mitt's actions, and he's not running for office. The rest of his family's opinions are irrelevant to Mitt's actions.

Not only did Mitt dodge the draft, he protested in favor of it, and now he's rattling sabers like a typical chicken hawk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083002/Mitt-Romney-19-demonstrated-favour-Vietnam-War-draft.html

Valmont · 08-09-2012 05:09PM

Denerick wrote: »

I hold a rather unconventional view of military service as it happens. I think conscription is a much fairer system.

Considering how a few weeks back you decried Romney's 15% tax rate as 'morally abhorrent', and you are now calling for military conscription, I'm wondering what moral hymn sheet you're singing from?

Genuine question, I'm not being smart. I don't see how conscription can be tolerated morally but a 15% rate of tax on a high earner isn't?

Denerick · 08-09-2012 05:52PM

Valmont wrote: »

Considering how a few weeks back you decried Romney's 15% tax rate as 'morally abhorrent', and you are now calling for military conscription, I'm wondering what moral hymn sheet you're singing from?

Genuine question, I'm not being smart. I don't see how conscription can be tolerated morally but a 15% rate of tax on a high earner isn't?

15% is less than what I pay in tax. That is reason enough for it to be abhorrent.

The moral basis of my argument for conscription is that it would be a citizen army populated by the people, irrespective of wealth, gender etc. It would be the greatest 'leveller' of the classes in any country since the creation of the NHS following the second world war. At the moment young men are sent off to die because they are either too poor and badly qualified to do anything else or because they are borderline psycopathic. That to me is morally abhorrent, but I suppose to you it would be a sign of the free market at work.

As a sidenote, the Roman republic began its gradual demise because Marius reorganised the army, creating a permanent professional force and getting rid of the old farming based citizen army. Long campaigns were tolerated by soldiers only if the republic or state was under threat. The odd war of conquest happened too of course, but was rather mild by later standards. The professional soldiers however didn't care about that, they cared only about money. Influential generals used these soldiers as personal armies and conquered vast lands in the East and in Gaul. The professional soldier doesn't have an ultimate loyalty to the state, constitution, flag, or any of that guff, and so they belonged to their paymaster, not the state. As ever, money will always trump values when we get right down to it.

Dirk Gently · 08-09-2012 06:14PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you implying he avoided it on moral grounds and that a Romney government will be a pacifist government? It seems much more likely that he avoided it as he was happy to let others go and fight a war he supported. It also seems much more likely that a Romney government would be more unilateral and forceful in intervening militarily than an obama government. I can't disprove your wild theory though, just like I can't disprove the existence of god. Must be true so, right?

20Cent · 08-09-2012 07:19PM

Romney protested for the draft! He was all for the war so long as he didn't have to fight it. He knew he could get an exemption being a Morman missionary, one of those annoying people who hand you flyers about their religion in the street or knock on your door.

He doesn't agree with diplomacy in regard to Iran

From the RNC speech.
On another front, every American is less secure today
because he has failed to slow Iran's nuclear threat. In his
first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran.
We are still talking, and Iran's centrifuges are still
spinning.

He also wants to mess with Russia
Under my presidency our friends will see more
loyalty and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and
more backbone.

Note he didn't even mention Iraq/Afghanistan or the troops who fought and died there obviously didn't think them important enough. (Imagine the uproar if Obama didn't mention the troops!!) He's a chickenhawk the same as Bush, Cheney etc A war with Iran is much more likely under his watch.

RobbingBandit · 08-09-2012 07:21PM

Interesting list of who did or did not serve. Apologies if this is seen as off topic.

http://www.jacksonbrowne.com/readings/service-armed-forces

Suryavarman · 08-09-2012 11:19PM

Denerick wrote: »

15% is less than what I pay in tax. That is reason enough for it to be abhorrent.

You pay more than $3,000,000 in tax annually?

The moral basis of my argument for conscription is that it would be a citizen army populated by the people, irrespective of wealth, gender etc. It would be the greatest 'leveller' of the classes in any country since the creation of the NHS following the second world war. At the moment young men are sent off to die because they are either too poor and badly qualified to do anything else or because they are borderline psycopathic. That to me is morally abhorrent, but I suppose to you it would be a sign of the free market at work.

As a sidenote, the Roman republic began its gradual demise because Marius reorganised the army, creating a permanent professional force and getting rid of the old farming based citizen army. Long campaigns were tolerated by soldiers only if the republic or state was under threat. The odd war of conquest happened too of course, but was rather mild by later standards. The professional soldiers however didn't care about that, they cared only about money. Influential generals used these soldiers as personal armies and conquered vast lands in the East and in Gaul. The professional soldier doesn't have an ultimate loyalty to the state, constitution, flag, or any of that guff, and so they belonged to their paymaster, not the state. As ever, money will always trump values when we get right down to it.

So is it because you are jealous of people being better off than you that modern nations must have slavery or because the Roman Empire collapsed because of a lack of slavery, modern nations have to have slavery?

Romney was brave to go to France, avoiding the draft. (CNN)

Comments