Draft dodging

A place to find quick links to facts that support reality. Good for ending debates quickly, especially repeated debates.

Not intended as a place for discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Draft dodging

Unread post by Vrede too »

Facts:

Bill Clinton:

Disputed whether he dodged the draft.
Actively opposed the war so that others wouldn’t have to go in his place.
Never became a hawk.
Joe Biden:
Had real asthma, an automatic disqualification, not fake “bone spurs”. Did not lie to get his draft deferments.
Bernie Sanders:
Never dodged the draft.
Actively opposed the war so that others wouldn’t have to go in his place.
Never became a hawk.
Obama:
Didn’t come of age during wartime.
Never became a hawk, though he at times used the military stupidly.
Bush 2:
Joined the Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam. Lapsed on his obligations without consequence.
Became a hawk. Invaded Iraq based on hundreds of lies.
Romney:
Was a vocal Vietnam hawk WHILE taking advantage of student and ministerial deferments, then got a high draft lottery number.
Cheney:
Got college, marriage and parental deferments, then finally a "hardship" deferment available to men with dependents.
Became an uber-hawk and even Secretary of Defense once he was too old to serve. As VP, got hundreds of thousands or more killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President* Trump:
Unquestionably lied and illegally dodged the draft in order to make money.
Became a hawk once he was too old to serve.

Cons, Islamophobes and racists will often claim that Muhammad Ali converted to Islam in order to avoid Vietnam. In reality, he became a Muslim in 1961 and changed his name from Cassius Clay in 1964, both before LBJ's massive Vietnam escalation in 1965. Ali wasn’t drafted until 1966.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ ... _the_draft
... On June 28, 1971, the Supreme Court of the United States in Clay v. United States overturned Ali's conviction by a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Thurgood Marshall recused himself, as he had been the U.S. Solicitor General at the time of Ali's conviction). The decision was not based on, nor did it address, the merits of Ali's claims per se; rather, the Court held that since the appeal board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to Ali, and that it was therefore impossible to determine which of the three basic tests for conscientious objector status offered in the Justice Department's brief that the appeal board relied on, Ali's conviction must be reversed.
Opinion:

Principled doves and hawks are both honorable. Cowards that magically become “tough guys” once their tails are no longer on the line are detestable.
President* Trump loves war criminals and despises our military. Every soldier and vet, living and dead, is a reminder of the lifelong cowardly Chickenhawk in Chief’s lying shame.
"When you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Rear admiral
Posts: 8808
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

I know that Romney isn't the only one, but in what way did he qualify under this definition?

"4-D deferment - Minister of religion, formally ordained by a recognized religion, and serving as a full-time minister with a church and congregation."


Their only congregation was themselves. Even self-reporting, the 175 ministers hanging out at the Riviera only converted about 1 each over their 2.5 year draft evasions.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 6141
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by neoplacebo »

billy.pilgrim wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:46 am
I know that Romney isn't the only one, but in what way did he qualify under this definition?

"4-D deferment - Minister of religion, formally ordained by a recognized religion, and serving as a full-time minister with a church and congregation."


Their only congregation was themselves. Even self-reporting, the 175 ministers hanging out at the Riviera only converted about 1 each over their 2.5 year draft evasions.
I would imagine that missionary status conveys the same religious exemption as would be given an ordained minister. At least that would be my argument if I were defending a missionary. I would, however, hate to be in that position as I consider missionaries no different than mercenaries.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by Vrede too »

neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:31 pm
billy.pilgrim wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:46 am
I know that Romney isn't the only one, but in what way did he qualify under this definition?

"4-D deferment - Minister of religion, formally ordained by a recognized religion, and serving as a full-time minister with a church and congregation."

Their only congregation was themselves. Even self-reporting, the 175 ministers hanging out at the Riviera only converted about 1 each over their 2.5 year draft evasions.
I would imagine that missionary status conveys the same religious exemption as would be given an ordained minister. At least that would be my argument if I were defending a missionary. I would, however, hate to be in that position as I consider missionaries no different than mercenaries.
missionaries = mercenaries, I like that.

We would have to know legal and regulatory interpretations, as well as Mormon definitions, to be sure, however:
Selective Service System: Classifications

2-D Registrant is a divinity student attending an accredited theological or divinity school to be prepared for the ministry. Deferment lasted either until graduation or until the registrant reached the age of 24. Exemption was created in December 1971. Previously considered part of Class 4-D.

4-D Minister of religion, formally ordained by a recognized religion, and serving as a full-time minister with a church and congregation.
Sounds like 1960s 4-D might have been broader that a strict literal reading of its words.

Also:
But he could be lying.
"When you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Rear admiral
Posts: 8808
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:50 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:31 pm
billy.pilgrim wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:46 am
I know that Romney isn't the only one, but in what way did he qualify under this definition?

"4-D deferment - Minister of religion, formally ordained by a recognized religion, and serving as a full-time minister with a church and congregation."

Their only congregation was themselves. Even self-reporting, the 175 ministers hanging out at the Riviera only converted about 1 each over their 2.5 year draft evasions.
I would imagine that missionary status conveys the same religious exemption as would be given an ordained minister. At least that would be my argument if I were defending a missionary. I would, however, hate to be in that position as I consider missionaries no different than mercenaries.
missionaries = mercenaries, I like that.

We would have to know legal and regulatory interpretations, as well as Mormon definitions, to be sure, however:
Selective Service System: Classifications

2-D Registrant is a divinity student attending an accredited theological or divinity school to be prepared for the ministry. Deferment lasted either until graduation or until the registrant reached the age of 24. Exemption was created in December 1971. Previously considered part of Class 4-D.

4-D Minister of religion, formally ordained by a recognized religion, and serving as a full-time minister with a church and congregation.
Sounds like 1960s 4-D might have been broader that a strict literal reading of its words.

Also:
But he could be lying.
Of course he's lying.

User avatar
Ulysses
Commander
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:57 pm
Location: I Get Around

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by Ulysses »

I don't begrudge those who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. It was a nasty little conflict that in the end served us no purpose.

My last years in high schools were 67-69, sort of the height of the war. I was sick and tired of LBJ, and I also lived within walking distance of SF State. I used to go the library there at night to study away from the distractions of home. I remember having to cross student picket lines - and seeing the turf torn up by the pitched battles between student demonstrators and police. I wound up verbally supporting Nixon in the '68 election, although not old enough to vote to make any difference. I even was prepared to enlist if need be. But when I got to UC in fall of '69, it didn't take long for me to change my views. I wound up marching with some of the guys from my dorm in a big march from downtown SF all the way out to the polo fields in Golden Gate Park (about five miles, I guess). I was too young to qualify for the first lottery in '69. I consulted with the campus counselors about what my options were if I got a draft notice. In 70 when I was of age, I got a high enough draft number that I was told it was very unlikely I would be drafted. But by then I was prepared to take any number of steps to avoid it. So, no, I don't begrudge those that did. Unless, of course, at the same time they were war hawks for the duration of that conflict. I suppose there can be just war, but Vietnam wasn't one of them.
Buh-Bye, President Plump...

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 6141
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by neoplacebo »

Ulysses wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:38 am
I don't begrudge those who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. It was a nasty little conflict that in the end served us no purpose.

My last years in high schools were 67-69, sort of the height of the war. I was sick and tired of LBJ, and I also lived within walking distance of SF State. I used to go the library there at night to study away from the distractions of home. I remember having to cross student picket lines - and seeing the turf torn up by the pitched battles between student demonstrators and police. I wound up verbally supporting Nixon in the '68 election, although not old enough to vote to make any difference. I even was prepared to enlist if need be. But when I got to UC in fall of '69, it didn't take long for me to change my views. I wound up marching with some of the guys from my dorm in a big march from downtown SF all the way out to the polo fields in Golden Gate Park (about five miles, I guess). I was too young to qualify for the first lottery in '69. I consulted with the campus counselors about what my options were if I got a draft notice. In 70 when I was of age, I got a high enough draft number that I was told it was very unlikely I would be drafted. But by then I was prepared to take any number of steps to avoid it. So, no, I don't begrudge those that did. Unless, of course, at the same time they were war hawks for the duration of that conflict. I suppose there can be just war, but Vietnam wasn't one of them.
It's good to know you "came around" after admitting to tacit support of Nixon. Also nice that you have a McCarthy avatar instead of a Nixon one like Roger Stone. A lot of longhairs went "clean for Gene" back then, even cutting their hair and donning jackets and ties. As for Vietnam being something less than a "just war" the fact that baby Bush, who served in the National Guard during Vietnam, was able to turn Kerry's Vietnam service (in Vietnam) against him, speaks volumes, and in my view, marks the beginning of the devolution of the GOP at the hands of Rove and Bush, the prelude to Bannon and trump.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by Vrede too »

neoplacebo wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:17 am
Ulysses wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:38 am
I don't begrudge those who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. It was a nasty little conflict that in the end served us no purpose.

My last years in high schools were 67-69, sort of the height of the war. I was sick and tired of LBJ, and I also lived within walking distance of SF State. I used to go the library there at night to study away from the distractions of home. I remember having to cross student picket lines - and seeing the turf torn up by the pitched battles between student demonstrators and police. I wound up verbally supporting Nixon in the '68 election, although not old enough to vote to make any difference. I even was prepared to enlist if need be. But when I got to UC in fall of '69, it didn't take long for me to change my views. I wound up marching with some of the guys from my dorm in a big march from downtown SF all the way out to the polo fields in Golden Gate Park (about five miles, I guess). I was too young to qualify for the first lottery in '69. I consulted with the campus counselors about what my options were if I got a draft notice. In 70 when I was of age, I got a high enough draft number that I was told it was very unlikely I would be drafted. But by then I was prepared to take any number of steps to avoid it. So, no, I don't begrudge those that did. Unless, of course, at the same time they were war hawks for the duration of that conflict. I suppose there can be just war, but Vietnam wasn't one of them.
It's good to know you "came around" after admitting to tacit support of Nixon. Also nice that you have a McCarthy avatar instead of a Nixon one like Roger Stone. A lot of longhairs went "clean for Gene" back then, even cutting their hair and donning jackets and ties. As for Vietnam being something less than a "just war" the fact that baby Bush, who served in the National Guard during Vietnam, was able to turn Kerry's Vietnam service (in Vietnam) against him, speaks volumes, and in my view, marks the beginning of the devolution of the GOP at the hands of Rove and Bush, the prelude to Bannon and trump.
Vrede too wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:15 am
Opinion:

Principled doves and hawks are both honorable. Cowards that magically become “tough guys” once their tails are no longer on the line are detestable.
President* Trump loves war criminals and despises our military. Every soldier and vet, living and dead, is a reminder of the lifelong cowardly Chickenhawk in Chief’s lying shame.
Draft dodging in order to make money like 45SHOLE did is not honorable.

I was actively opposing the war from middle school on, but I was too young to be called up and even too young to have to register for the draft (I don't think I would have) by about 6 months.
Thanks, Gerry!
:wave: :thumbup:
"When you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire

User avatar
Ulysses
Commander
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:57 pm
Location: I Get Around

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by Ulysses »

Well, I'd have to admit I wasn't very adamant at the age of 16-17 in my theoretical support of Nixon. I was just tired of the chaos, and thought maybe he would fix that. And I was fooled by his "secret plan to end the war". He didn't; he made it worse. Humphrey seemed to be a joke. I did have to register for the draft; I think I still have my draft card in a box somewhere. In the late 70's I met someone who actually had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. He had managed to make it back to the USA, I gathered it involved a good lawyer. This was long before the amnesty.

And of course I don't begrudge those that did serve. I'm glad they survived.
Buh-Bye, President Plump...

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Rear admiral
Posts: 8808
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

Ulysses wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:55 am
Well, I'd have to admit I wasn't very adamant at the age of 16-17 in my theoretical support of Nixon. I was just tired of the chaos, and thought maybe he would fix that. And I was fooled by his "secret plan to end the war". He didn't; he made it worse. Humphrey seemed to be a joke. I did have to register for the draft; I think I still have my draft card in a box somewhere. In the late 70's I met someone who actually had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. He had managed to make it back to the USA, I gathered it involved a good lawyer. This was long before the amnesty.

And of course I don't begrudge those that did serve. I'm glad they survived.
I don't think that anyone begrudged those who served. That is unless they came back bragging about the people they killed and the officers with their Kill Everythingthat Moves commands, but I don't remember anyone doing that to soldiers.

And then about 30 years they would have won except for the liberals is the main story and all kinds of war crime stories seem a lot more fun for to tell.
I'll trade you a picture of me posing with dead people for your ear necklace could be an Ebay hit.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by Vrede too »

billy.pilgrim wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:43 am
Ulysses wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:55 am
Well, I'd have to admit I wasn't very adamant at the age of 16-17 in my theoretical support of Nixon. I was just tired of the chaos, and thought maybe he would fix that. And I was fooled by his "secret plan to end the war". He didn't; he made it worse. Humphrey seemed to be a joke. I did have to register for the draft; I think I still have my draft card in a box somewhere. In the late 70's I met someone who actually had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. He had managed to make it back to the USA, I gathered it involved a good lawyer. This was long before the amnesty.

And of course I don't begrudge those that did serve. I'm glad they survived.
I don't think that anyone begrudged those who served. That is unless they came back bragging about the people they killed, but I don't remember anyone doing that either. At least not for about 30 years, now all kinds of stories seem a lot more fun for to tell.
I'll trade you a picture of me posing with dead people for your ear necklace could be an Ebay hit.
Not a draft issue, but related:
The Spitting Image

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam (1998) is a book by Vietnam veteran and Sociology professor Jerry Lembcke. The book is an analysis of the widely believed narrative that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by antiwar protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War. The book examines the origin of the earliest stories; the popularization of the "spat-upon image" through Hollywood movies and fiction literature, and the role of print news media in perpetuating the now iconic image through which the history of the war and antiwar movement has come to be represented.

Lembcke contrasts the absence of credible evidence of spitting by antiwar activists with the large body of evidence showing a mutually supportive, empathetic relationship between veterans and antiwar forces. The book documents the efforts of the Nixon Administration to drive a wedge between military servicemen and the antiwar movement by portraying democratic dissent as betrayal of the troops, effectively redirecting blame for failure in Vietnam onto protesters. Coupled with American society's exaggeration of medical conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and drug abuse among veterans to the point of broadly vilifying the Vietnam veteran as mentally unfit, emotionally volatile and a "loser" and "victim", the collective memory about Vietnam has been refocused onto the veteran and away from the war. Lembcke equates this disparagement of the antiwar movement and veterans with the similar 'stab in the back' myths propagated by Germany and France after their war defeats, as an alibi for why they lost the war.[1] Lembcke details the resurrection of this myth of the spat-upon veteran by later administrations during subsequent Gulf War efforts as a way of silencing public dissent.

... Lembcke asserts that memories of being verbally and physically assaulted by antiwar protesters were largely conjured, noting that not even one case could be reliably documented....

Lembcke points out that there were several newspaper accounts of pro-war demonstrators spitting on antiwar demonstrators and suggests that these oral accounts could easily have been reinterpreted and inverted and made into stories about activists spitting on veterans. He highlights the contradictions between the collective memory of today and contemporaneous historical records, like the results from a 1971 poll showing over 94% of returning Vietnam soldiers received a "friendly" welcome. Lembcke also notes how it was older vets from previous wars who most often scorned the returning Vietnam Vets; in 1978 the Vietnam Veterans of America vowed in its founding principle: Never again will one generation of veterans abandon another....

Specialist in civil-military relations and advisor to the National Institute of Military Justice, Diane Mazur, also examined the works by Greene, Lembcke and Lindgren, and concluded: "There is no contemporaneous evidence that Americans who opposed the war expressed those beliefs by spitting on or otherwise assaulting returning Vietnam Veterans. [...] The idea, however, that spitting on or mistreating Vietnam veterans was in any way typical or representative of anything in that era is completely false. [...] It is by far the most powerful Vietnam War meme—a cultural unit of information passed from one person to another, like a biological gene—because it can be deployed instantly to silence difficult but necessary conversations about the military. For that reason alone the conventional wisdom is important, because it explains much about our civil-military dynamic today. It is also important, however, to understand why that accepted memory is untrue, and who benefits most from keeping it alive. The myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran is a difficult one to challenge. [...] One intrepid soul, Professor Jerry Lembcke, both a Vietnam veteran and an academic researcher from Holy Cross University, stepped into the fray ... Every time he discusses his findings in a public forum, a hail of angry responses follows, but his explanations and conclusions are compelling and unsettling....
"The Spitting Image" is a great title for this subject.

Fucking hawks lie and screw up the nation even after the war is long over.
"When you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 6141
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Draft dodging

Unread post by neoplacebo »

Ulysses wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:55 am
Well, I'd have to admit I wasn't very adamant at the age of 16-17 in my theoretical support of Nixon. I was just tired of the chaos, and thought maybe he would fix that. And I was fooled by his "secret plan to end the war". He didn't; he made it worse. Humphrey seemed to be a joke. I did have to register for the draft; I think I still have my draft card in a box somewhere. In the late 70's I met someone who actually had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. He had managed to make it back to the USA, I gathered it involved a good lawyer. This was long before the amnesty.

And of course I don't begrudge those that did serve. I'm glad they survived.
The only two people I personally know who went to Vietnam are an older cousin who was in the Marines. He never says much about the war and I don't see him on any regular basis. The other guy was in the Army and he was a friend of mine; he would sometimes tell me about things he experienced over there; one was when he and a couple of his buddies had to stand guard over the remains of several American soldiers that were killed when their young lieutenant called in an air strike but had read the map wrong and called in bombs on his own guys. John said he and the other guys had to secure the area this happened in until the remains could be recovered the next day. John killed himself about ten years after coming home.

Post Reply