Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Jeff on December 12, 2006:

"Think of them how you wish, but the hippies were essentially right about Vietnam."???

Which part? The hundreds of thousands of dead Vietnamese from re-education camps? The millions of Boat People? The complete loss of credibility as the Democrats refused to fund the "return if we need to" that we promised when we left in '73? The toppling of surrounding countries to totalitarian governments?

Point at the part the hippies got right.

How did we get from "bare any burden" to "my personal safety at any cost"?

Posted by RicHARD Makepeace on December 12, 2006:

M&Ms has an ad campaign that will supply you with personalized M&Ms for Christmas.

While applying at the online store to have my fairly expensive M&Ms say "MakePeace" on them, since Makepeace is my last name an error message came on screen that read:

"Sorry we can not print potentially offensive or inappropriate messages. Please enter a different message or call 1-888-696-6788 for further assistance."

When I called the helpline, the operator was not able to bypass the lockout and had to get a supervisor. The only way the supervisor could work out to use my name was by adding an exclamation point to the end and making it two words: "Make Peace!" I now have M&Ms exclaiming my name.

Posted by michelle, Arizona on December 12, 2006:

I am a Vietnam veteran, and a retired Chief Warrant Officer, US Army. I was a firm supporter of our involvement in Vietnam, and believed in what was called "The Domino Theory". I actually volunteered to serve over there.

I was wrong. I didn't realize that we were wrong until I saw the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. The anti-war protesters, demonstrators, draft dodgers, and the like were right. I have the utmost respect for them. They followed their consciences; they were just as brave as any soldier on the front lines.

The ones I do not have any respect for are the "chicken hawks" who supported the war, but managed to avoid military service and/or combat duty. I won't mention any names, but this site will give a fairly complete listing.

Posted by Devin on December 12, 2006:

"All civil people want peace, but the aggressors of this world will always make that an impossible dream."

I completely agree. George W. Bush has certainly done his part to make peace an impossible dream.

It seems to me that murder and terrorism are crimes, not acts of war. That would make us the aggressors, attacking nations because some of their citizens were criminals. At least that is better than attacking a nation because there's a possibility that some other nation will attack it first and turn it into a Communist state.

The actions of the leader of a country do not reflect the people within it, and the actions of the criminals of a country reflect them even less. Do you really believe that we should hold you accountable for the things the KKK did, or for Timothy McVeigh, or for some serial rapist? No. Because they were crazy murderers. Let's say that one of those crazy murderers leaves the U.S. and bombs a train in Russia saying it's the will of God. Should Russia attack all of us? Were we responsible for his actions? Do we condone his actions? No. Then why do you insist that the citizens of Iraq should be responsible for the actions of a bunch of crazy fanatic murderers, most of whom weren't even Iraqi?

"How quickly they forget that 3,000 Americans were killed in less than an hour in 1991, in an unprovoked attack on our own homeland."

How quickly you forget that 80,000 Japanese citizens were killed in a matter of seconds in 1945, and that another 60,000 more died of injuries and radiation in the months to follow. And don't tell me it's justified because we were at war. No amount of provocation can justify killing children, the children of an entire city, let alone all the other innocent citizens. Or do you believe that the children of your enemies are culpable for what their parents do? (Oh, wait, the Bible does say that, doesn't it?) Compare 3,000 innocents with 140,000 people who just happened to live in a country at war with us. And then consider just how lucky we are that the Japanese are not as vindictive as we are. If we killed 44,000 or more Iraqis for the deaths of 3,000, how many would the Japanese have to kill for the deaths of 140,000?

Also ... How quickly you forget that we invaded Iraq to get rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction. I suppose that actually did work, since they apparently evaporated as soon as we got there.

Posted by Bill in Maryland on December 12, 2006:

Assuming that The Straight Dope (which Randy references in his link above) is correct, then Dex has the semaphore for N and D reversed. But that's probably all that he has reversed.

On the other hand, Johnnie in Alabama apparently has his head reversed with another portion of his anatomy. Sure some of the anti-war protesters were hippies and druggies, and some (like our current president - and probably his predecessor) tried to stay out of 'Nam because they were concerned for their personal safety.

I too am a Vietnam vet - in country Jan-Nov 1970. I was also an anti-war protester before I was drafted, and considered decamping for Canada instead of reporting for induction. But I took the easy way out, and showed up at Fort Hamilton; leaving my country, my family, and my friends, possibly for the rest of my life, took far more courage than I had.

And the hippies over here were not alone in "fogging their minds with pot and LSD" - Johnnie isn't telling us how many soldiers in 'Nam were busy doing the same thing. And due to the easy availability of opium, joints painted with opium were quite popular there as well.

Finally, if all the anti-war protestors were cowardly hippies, how does Johnnie account for the strong showings by Vietnam Veterans Against the War?

Posted by Alex on December 13, 2006:

The logo of the CND symbol is explained here, on the web site of the organisation on whose behalf it was designed: http://www.cnduk.org/pages/binfo/logo.html

You will see that the idea of incorporating a christian cross was rejected after priests objected to its use on a protest march.

Posted by Rick on December 13, 2006:

I feel that I have to reply to the comments from Johnnie in Alabama and his rant about hippies and that dastardly peace sign. I was one of those hippie anti-war, draft-resisting protesters. A non-violent, pacifist type of guy. I got my fair share of abuse, including the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention Police Riot, and even had the pleasure of being woken up out of my bed by F.B.I. agents pointing their guns at my head. They seemed to think that I might know the whereabouts of a draft resister who was on the run and in hiding. (Who? Me? Naw, I don't know what you are talking about, sir! I don't know nuthin.).

I got into my peace activities because I had teachers who taught me that, in America, the government did things with the full knowledge of the people and with their agreement and consent. I originally thought that my government had made some mistakes, and that, as a good citizen, that I should point those mistakes out. I thought that the killing in Viet Nam was a terrible mistake, and that the war and U.S. policy had to be changed in order to save thousands of American and Vietnamese lives. I thought that I was being patriotic. As we now know, my government and many of its other citizens did not see eye to eye with me, including most of my own family whom I dearly loved and respected, but eventually became estranged from. As we know, the situation went from bad to worse, both in Viet Nam and in this country itself.

I find it interesting that Johnnie from Alabama sees the peace symbol, and people like myself, as being anti-Christian, etc. To each his own, I guess. I know that my mind is now pretty much gone from all of those drugs I took back then, and I'm sure that I can't think straight from having my pony tail wound too tightly for the past 40 years, but maybe Johnnie or other readers could help me out a bit. You see, I also got into the peace movement because of a couple of other radical ideas I had heard about. You know, "I am my brother's keeper", and "Thou shalt not kill". Like I said, I can't quite remember where I got those ideas from, but they sounded pretty good at the time. And they still do.

Posted by Laurie on December 15, 2006:

I read last week's "This is True" & was able to walk away. Now, reading the responses to the peace sign wreath article, I just can't continue to do so. I am a Christian -- no apologies. As a Christian I am so deeply offended by what is being said in the name of Christ that I can't stay silent.

As most of us know, Christ preached PEACE. He did not command us to slay our enemies; he did not command us to whine about them, complain about them, speak ill of them, make exaggerated claims and blames about them. He commanded us to love -- sounds like a liberal spewing, war protesting "coward". Who are these "Christians" giving peace to Satan?

I truly wish that they each realized that, by claiming themselves Christian and their views as Christian, they were signing Christ's name to their views. I have a hard time imagining:

Dear Randy,

Those draft dodging cowards who want peace are just fogging their minds with pot and LSD. So are the Iraqi invasion protestors. Just wanted you to know that.

With the love of the One who created all,
Jesus (Christ to those who know)

Just not in the character of the one I worship. Thanks for the space to rant my rant...

Posted by Jim on December 15, 2006:

If I may say, "Jeff" (the first to comment) isn't a "nutball" like Johnnie -- he's an idiot. We didn't go to Vietnam because "The hundreds of thousands of dead Vietnamese from re-education camps" or "The millions of Boat People" but rather because of the "domino theory" of Communism. Even if those were real reasons put forth to justify our involvement, what right do we have to be the world's policemen?

Just like Iraq: it was sold as a "war on terror" even though Saddam had no involvement in the World Trade Center, and the "weapons of mass destruction" even though a thorough search has found none. It's the same old story: come up with an "ism" to fight and jump in no matter what the real facts are:

1960 "Communism"
2005 "Terrorism"

What a waste. America used to be looked up to, but with ONE president we're now the scourge of the political earth. And for WHAT?

But even ignoring all of that, to run around crying "Satanisn" (hey, look at that: another "ism" to rally around!) about a symbol of PEACE is too much. If Christians want to be taken seriously (and boy, are we as a country starting to re-evaluate that!), they need to speak more from knowledge, not idiotic jingoism.

Posted by Jane on December 15, 2006:

I can't resist pointing out an interesting bit of phrasing in Johnnie's letter. He writes, "The links between [September 11] and our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are undeniable if someone really wants to look at it." Yes, but that doesn't mean those countries, particularly Iraq, had anything to with September 11!