Draft dodgers get memorial

[Michael Dorosh]

logau, Canada had the draft beginning in 1940, which was not "late in the war" at all.

 

[logau]

We may have had legislation but we didn't seem to get any ground troops out of the deal until later in the war

The government may have assigned factories and resources early in the war but not troops - see below

English Canada wanted conscription and Quebec did not.

By the fall of 1944, it became clear that the Canadian Army needed infantry reinforcements that would be created only if the government invoke conscription for overseas service. King delayed as long as he could and finally agreed that conscription had become necessary. Slightly more than 12,000 conscripts were sent overseas before the war came to an end. That the country did not fragment further during the Second World War was largely a credit to Prime Minister King who strived throughout his long political career to keep the nations united.... more

http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/debates/conscription.html

and then in post war analysis they found the Airforce had too many highly qualified pers assigned to joe jobs. (I can find that ref too - believe its in a Canadian official history from the mid 80s to mid 90s.)

here's the bit about a lesser effort oveseas http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/Downloads/ahq/ahq067.PDF see p 36 where they struggled with manpower shortages in early 1943 due to fact they only took volunteers and the system screwed around through the fall of 43

However withthe government trying to do its bit here in CaNADA - the WW2 Air trg in Canada was quite successful see http://www.angelfire.com/trek/rcaf/ammq0107.html

And - we made heavy use of Americans who wantred to fly against the HUN see above

Finally - These young hippies and pot heads may well have been the grand sons of the Americans who served in the Canadian Army in WW1 - wold you believe about 40,000 in uniform in France with the RCR being at one time more American than Canadian.

"Some 35 to 50,000 Americans (citizens and permanent residents) enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces during WWI. There was a 1907 U.S. law on books stating that American citzens who enlisted in a foreign armed force forfeited American citizenship. This law was never closely enforced. Indeed it was widely ignored. Canadian recruiters operated in the States without USG authorization before April 1917.

Recall that some 13% of Americans 1913 were recent immigrants. Many of these who were naturalized or even native-born American citizens were dual nationals. One of these dual nationals was Major Raul Lufberry, who fought in both the French and the American Air Corps. His situation was not uncommon.

After the U. S. declared war, the Wilson administation allowed Allied governments to recruit openly in America from among their nationals resident here. This privilege was even extended Polish, Czech and other governments in exile. Following the end of the conflict, Congress passed a legislation holding harmless Americans who served in Allied armies or navies." ref http://p210.ezboard.com/ftheworldatwar70879frm2.showMessage?topicID=1817.topic&index=1

In 1927 we did erect a monument to these troops in Arlington Cemetery http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/Canadian_Cross.html

It is hard to believe but a guy   is actually working on a book about this.

More!

5 US Citizens won the VC

One of the 25 CEF soldiers shot for desertion a was a US Citizen

Out of hot air for today

Peace Man!  

 

[Michael Dorosh]

We may have had legislation but we didn't seem to get any ground troops out of the deal until later in the war

We sent an entire infantry brigade, including many conscripts, into a combat zone in 1943, which is hardly in line with your earlier comment about "not having the draft until late in the war."  Your comment was misleading and erroneous.  We DID have the draft early in the war, and we did send a sizeable portion of draftees into a combat zone midway through the war. 

In 1945, some 16,000 draftees did finally get employed in actual combat.

We had plenty of ground troops "out of the deal" beginning early in the war - you are misreading the sources.  The problem was that the legislation did not allow for their combat employment.  The fact that the combat operation in 1943 took place on North American soil was the technicality that led the government to be able to so use them.

Take a look at the long list of active army battalions in the 6th, 7th and 8th Divisions and you will see that we did indeed have "many ground troops" from "out of the deal."

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Two Naval VCs came from Nelson - Roland Bourke who ran a PT boat at Ostend in 1918 and Hampton Grey who sank a Jap Cruiser and gave his life in the attempt.

Not to diminish Lt Gray's sacrifice but he was attacking the Amakusa an Etorofu class escort. Not a cruiser believe me there is a big difference between the two vessel types. Next point is the term is Japanese not Jap...Jap is considered derogatory.

 

[logau]

We are probably all looking at the same references and getting a different spin.

I believe Canadian draftees were a factor after 1944 not before

see the DND Website Second World War as a National Experience (2.0 MB)
Edited by Sidney Aster
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/downloads/Official_Histories/Natl_exp.pdf

Of the issues that divided French and English Canada in the two wars, the greatest was of course conscription. The introduction of compulsory service in 1917 came close to tearing the country apart. It was the memory of this division and its political consequences that frightened Canadian politicians most as the Second War loomed on the horizon. In March 1939 the two chief political parties found a formula which went a long way to keep the country united when war came six months later: a pledge against conscription for overseas service. But in 1944 mounting casualties led to an increasingly strident demand from English Canada that the trained conscripts being held in Canada supposedly for home defence should be sent overseas. Only a threat of mutiny in his Cabinet forced Mackenzie King to yield to the demand. It was obvious, however, that he had fought against compulsion as long as he dared French Canada, whose defection would have meant his political ruin, continued to stand by him; and the right in the country never became quite as serious as it had been a quarter of a century before.

check that link for conscription on the pdf file ------ it leads away from your views

 

[nULL]

On the subject of draft-dodgers....

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9556221.htm

Young Republicans support Iraq war, but not all are willing to join the fight

By Adam Smeltz

Knight Ridder Newspapers

NEW YORK - Young Republicans gathered here for their party's national convention are united in applauding the war in Iraq, supporting the U.S. troops there and calling the U.S. mission a noble cause.

But there's no such unanimity when they're asked a more personal question: Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?

In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers. Some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn't need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.

"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles,

Lee said she supports the war but would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or "if there's another Sept. 11."

"As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who has a cousin deployed in the Middle East.

In an election season overwhelmed by memories of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military's newest war ranks supreme among the worries confronting much of Generation Y'ers. Iraq is their war.

"If there was a need presented, I would go," said Chris Cusmano, a 21-year-old member of the College Republicans organization from Rocky Point, N.Y. But he said he hasn't really considered volunteering.

At age 16, Chase Carpenter has.

"It's always in the back of my mind - to enlist," Carpenter, a self-described moderate Republican visiting Manhattan this week from Santa Monica, Calif., said Wednesday on the convention floor. He said he's torn over whether he'd join the military if he were 18.

Others said they could contribute on the home front.

"I physically probably couldn't do a whole lot" in Iraq, said Tiffanee Hokel, 18, of Webster City, Iowa, who called the war a moral imperative. She knows people posted in Iraq, but she didn't flinch when asked why she wouldn't go.

"I think I could do more here," Hokel said, adding that she's focusing on political action that supports the war and the troops.

"We don't have to be there physically to fight it," she said.

Similarly, 20-year-old Jeff Shafer, a University of Pennsylvania student, said vital work needs to be done in the United States. There are Republican policies to maintain and protect and an economy to sustain, Shafer said.

Then there's Paula Villescaz, a 15-year-old from Carmichael, Calif. who supports Bush and was all ears Wednesday afternoon at the GOP's Youth Convention in Madison Square Garden. She doesn't support the war, but she supports the troops and thinks the United States "needs to stay the course" now that it's immersed.

If Iraq is still a U.S. issue when she's 18, Villescaz added, she'll give serious thought to volunteering.

"I'm in college right now, but who knows?" said Matthew Vail, a 25-year-old from Huntsville, Ala., who works with Students for Bush. He said he might consider enlisting after he finishes his degree at the University of North Carolina, but not until then.

"The bug may get me after college," he said.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

We are probably all looking at the same references and getting a different spin.

There is no "spin" to put on it.  You stated categorically that Canada did not have a draft until late in the war.  I called you on it.  We had the draft beginning in 1940.  You were wrong.

Your exact words, in case you have forgotten them:

and did not implement a draft until late in the war

You then tried to say we got few ground troops out of conscription.  I called you on it.  You will find that large numbers of draftee ground troops served in Canada in 1942-43 and in fact a brigade containing Canadian conscripts was sent into a combat zone in 1943.  You were wrong.

It's not that hard to just admit it, is it?  ???

 

[logau]

Michael

No intent to call you on anything. I welcome any discussion so lets not track on who called who.

if we look at this from a political level and the receivers being the Army - the draft act in Canada does not seem to have been a benefit to the Army.

As for the large numbers of drafted troops serving in Canada -- not in the danger zone were they? So how much benefit do you think they were to the operational commanders?

Thats my point.

See you on the weekend!  

 

[gozonuts]

I certainly don't think a memorial is due, but it does take a certain bravery to oppose something as unpopular as the Vietnam War.  You're assuming that all the "draft dodgers" were simply cowards.  Probably true in many cases, but many of them also acted on deeply held convictions

Is it brave to oppose a war such as the Vietnam War or Operation Iraqi Freedom? It sounds brave at first thought, but in reality the opposite was/is true. The Americans who dodged the draft and ended up living in Canada were predominantly white! And when they fled to Canada, the poor Black or Hispanic bugger had to, in most cases, fill in for the dodgers. It wasn't as easy for a visible minority to enter our country, but whites would obviously blend in much easier. It really pisses me off when people like Jack Todd, a local Montreal Gazette writer and Vietnam draft dodger, constantly espouses his anti-American views from the comfort of our country â “ that is tantamount to some loud mouth jerk who yells threats at pedestrians while in the safety of a moving car. Maybe they didn't agree with the war, and that is any civilian's prerogative, but fleeing the war and leaving your less-privileged brother to take your place is just plain self-serving!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Michael

if we look at this from a political level and the receivers being the Army - the draft act in Canada does not seem to have been a benefit to the Army.

As for the large numbers of drafted troops serving in Canada -- not in the danger zone were they? So how much benefit do you think they were to the operational commanders?

Thats my point.

The Army benefited from having enough soldiers to garrison coastal defences at home, by having enough men to send a combat brigade to fight the Japanese in 1943, and in providing 16,000 badly needed infantry reinforcements to depleted units in 1945.  Why do you say the Army received no benefit from it? ???

 

[logau]

Don't water down your arguments

Ah! Kiska in the Aleutians see http://warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/aleutian_e.html

The Aleutian campaign was no help (in my view) to the Pro-conscription argument since it did not help generating combat power of the Canadian Army in Sicily in July 1943. Garrison forces outside of the European Theatre did not add to combat power. In addition, it appears others looking back at this operation feel the same way - Think of it this way - the pipeline was open in July 1943 and where were the Kiska troops? At the other end of the world.   And then they stayed there for 3 months. See http://www.multipointproductions.com/heroes/henri/henri2.htm

The government did need soldiers and certainly had lots but we have to ask. Where were they? Guard duty in Canada and chasing non-existent Japanese Forces. No one can argue with the past efforts except that until they went into Sicily it may have made no sense to send more troops overseas. A more likely reason is England was full of troops and more troops overseas until Sicily might have not added value. Experience is experience â “ but that attitude got the Dieppe troops lots of experience they may have been better off without.

As to the effectiveness of the 16,000 troops you mention - those who finally made it to the front were quite small

"In the end a total of 9,667 NRMA (National Resources Mobilization Act) men reached the front as conscripts...of that number 2,463 saw duty in operational units, 69 were killed, 232 wounded and 13 taken prisoner." Without them many battalions would have been short of men in the last phase of the war." See http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/03-09.asp

Now the Army needed troops in more places than the infantry - so I cannot say that they did not fill the gap but it seems fair to say that this was not a lot of troops for the front given the total they enrolled.

The country was contributing greatly to the Allied War Effort as shown in this speech by Mackenzie King in April 1942 http://collections.ic.gc.ca/canspeak/english/wlmk/sp1.htm

And King was an incremental conscriptionist "Mackenzie King managed Canada's second war effort far less divisively, through calculated muddling and incremental conscription which he famously described as "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription." http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v18n2p06.htm

Another source leans in this direction
"However, only 13 000 men were conscripted, most of whom were from the home service conscripts drafted under the NRMA, rather than from the general population. Home service conscripts, who had been waiting for two years to be sent overseas, were by this time called "zombies" by many pro-conscription Canadians. The "zombies" had had few opportunities to do anything productive in home service, and they were one of the strongest pro-conscription groups in the country. Few of them saw combat in Europe though, as the war was over within a few months of their call-up. " See http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944 ----

I personally can't see the need looking back but we weren't the first to hold back troops - the Brits had the B men in the UK in 1918 - who could have been overseas with Douglas Haig but weren't as Brit PM Lloyd George had broken with the approach to throw troops into the meat grinder

Newpapers of the day had interesting views --- see this item from the Archives http://warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/canadawar/conscription_e.html

Anyway, I think you have made some very good points and we can check into this more off line if you want

My final word on Conscription

Mismanaged for the trouble it caused them â “ the Airforce had the manpower the Army could have used  

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Don't water down your arguments

Ah! Kiska in the Aleutians see http://warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/aleutian_e.html

The Aleutian campaign was no help (in my view) to the Pro-conscription argument since it did not help generating combat power of the Canadian Army in Sicily in July 1943. Garrison forces outside of the European Theatre did not add to combat power. In addition, it appears others looking back at this operation feel the same way - Think of it this way - the pipeline was open in July 1943 and where were the Kiska troops? At the other end of the world.  And then they stayed there for 3 months. See http://www.multipointproductions.com/heroes/henri/henri2.htm

The government did need soldiers and certainly had lots but we have to ask. Where were they? Guard duty in Canada and chasing non-existent Japanese Forces. No one can argue with the past efforts except that until they went into Sicily it may have made no sense to send more troops overseas. A more likely reason is England was full of troops and more troops overseas until Sicily might have not added value. Experience is experience â “ but that attitude got the Dieppe troops lots of experience they may have been better off without.

They didn't know the Japanese weren't on Kiska though, so you speak with the benefit of hindsight.  The fact that no one knew where the Japanese were - or might have been - was what led to the tying down of badly needed men in Canada, and in the Kiska operation.  Don't downlplay their importance.

As to the effectiveness of the 16,000 troops you mention - those who finally made it to the front were quite small

"In the end a total of 9,667 NRMA (National Resources Mobilization Act) men reached the front as conscripts...of that number 2,463 saw duty in operational units, 69 were killed, 232 wounded and 13 taken prisoner." Without them many battalions would have been short of men in the last phase of the war." See http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/03-09.asp

A combat infantry battalion had four rifle companies, each with 120 men.  These took the brunt of the casualties.  Your 2,463 men would have completely filled 20 rifle companies with two platoons left over.  An infantry division only fielded 36 rifle companies, so you're talking potentially of the fighting strength of half a division.

Now the Army needed troops in more places than the infantry - so I cannot say that they did not fill the gap but it seems fair to say that this was not a lot of troops for the front given the total they enrolled.

See above.  The Army's main needs were infantry - see Burns MANPOWER IN THE CANADIAN ARMY.

Mismanaged for the trouble it caused them â “ the Airforce had the manpower the Army could have used 

I'm not saying it wasn't poor manpower planning that put them into the mess - again, see Burns.  The Army had enough volunteers, but they were wasted in an unnecessary corps headquarters in Italy, as well as disastrously inaccurate casualty predictions based on the Western Desert Fighting being used in Normandy.  So inadequate were these casualty predictions, they had to invent a new rate for use in Normandy - "Double Intense" - to calculate manpower needs.

I am simply refuting your assertion that Canada did not have conscription until "late in the war." 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

    Just for something different than you guys arguing. .. and on the subject of deserters.



 
CAMP ZAMA, Japan (AP) - Accused U.S. army deserter Charles Jenkins surrendered at a U.S. military base near Tokyo on Saturday to face charges that he left his army unit in 1965 and defected to North Korea.

Jenkins, 64, turned himself in at the U.S. army's Camp Zama accompanied by his Japanese wife and two daughters.

He saluted and stood at attention before entering the provost marshal's office to be put back on active duty as a sergeant.

"He'll be treated with dignity and fairness, and he's innocent until proven guilty," said army spokesman Maj. John Amberg.

Earlier, Jenkins, looking grim but determined, had left the Tokyo hospital where he has lived since arriving in Japan in July.

Jenkins is charged with defecting to the North, where he lived for 39 years, and faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted. While in the reclusive Communist state, he made propaganda broadcasts and played devilish Americans in anti-U.S. films.

The Rich Square, N.C., native is widely expected to strike a plea bargain with military authorities in order to receive lighter punishment. He has met several times in recent weeks with an army-appointed lawyer to prepare his case.

"I expect we have a lot more to face in the days to come," Jenkins's wife, Hitomi Soga, said as she left a Tokyo hotel earlier Saturday. "But we hope that the four of us can live together as soon as possible."


Jenkins's fate has become the focus of intense concern in Japan because of Soga, who was one of more than a dozen Japanese citizens abducted by North Korean agents in the 1970s and '80s and taken to North Korea.

She and Jenkins met soon after she arrived in the Communist state in 1978. Soga was allowed to return to Japan after a historic Japan-North Korea summit in Pyongyang in 2002, but Jenkins and the couple's daughters remained in the North until this summer.

The Japanese government has argued for leniency so Jenkins can live in Japan with Soga, whose plight has inspired widespread sympathy in her homeland.

Tokyo arranged a reunion of the family in Jakarta, Indonesia, in July, and then convinced Jenkins to come to Japan for treatment for ailments linked to an operation he had in North Korea.



The United States turned down Japanese requests for special treatment for Jenkins and insisted on pursuing a case against him.

Jenkins announced in a statement last week that he would soon voluntarily surrender to U.S. authorities to face the charges against him.

He did not address the charges against him, but family members in North Carolina fighting to have him pardoned have argued that Jenkins was kidnapped by North Korean agents and taken there against his will.

Once in U.S. custody, Jenkins - who was never discharged from the military - will be put in uniform, given his army salary and possibly put up in base housing with his family like other soldiers while his case makes its way through the justice system.

That probably has changed a bit, wonder if he will get any back pay? :

 

[lfejoel25]

I think it's kinda funny, although there's nothing funny about it.  In this country, i've seen WW1 memorials, WW2 memorials, Korean war memorials, a vietnam war memorial (even though it wasn't a canadian war).  but a draft dodger memorial?  i think somebody else on here mentioned about how they provide memorials for great acts of bravery or what have you.  but, i'm just kind of confused about what these people did?  they didn't want to abide by the laws of their country, so they broke the law and hid in canada.  just like the outlaws headin' to mexico.  how i feel about the whole thing, what your opinions are on the vietnam war are irrelevant, as is your opinion on the draft, as is their opinion about the war and why they left.  to me, they didn't do anything, except leave a country because they didn't agree with the laws.  is that heroic?  no.  common sense maybe, my mother always used to say "THOSE ARE THE HOUSE RULES, WHEN YOU DON"T LIVE HERE ANY MORE YOU DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY THEM".  and i don't live there anymore.  are they going to build me a memorial?  no.  vietnam war was an emotionally charged time, and maybe those people thought they were making a point by dodging the draft.  did they make their point?  maybe.  but ask the people that didn't escape the draft whether or not they wanted to be there.  ask the families of the people that never came back whether or not draft dodgers deserve a memorial.  building one for them is giving them the same article of respect this country has bestowed upon its bravest.  and i refuse to give some hippie draft dodger the same honour as a canadian soldier that marched the beaches on dieppe, the battle of the sommes, normandy, etc etc...  with this country the list of the brave goes on and on.  if they do build a memorial to them, i won't piss on it, but if you ask me, building them a memorial would be the equivalent of pissing on every canadian war memorial we have in this country.

 

[sdimock]

If the Draft Dodgers said â Å“I morally object and will not fight.â Å“ and faced the consequences, then agree or not I would say â Å“they've got ballsâ ?.

History then could have judged them on their actions and decided if they merited some acknowledgement or recognition.

Running away to dodge the consequences of your actions, or to save your own skin certainly deserves no â Å“acknowledgementâ ? and should be recognized for what it is.

From Dictionary.com

Cowardice

Cow"ard*ice (-[i^]s), n. [F. couardise, fr. couard. See Coward.] Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit.

There is a military term incorrectly used in the past that can be correctly applied here,

"Lack of moral fiber"

 

[Michael Dorosh]

If the Draft Dodgers said â Å“I morally object and will not fight.â Å“ and faced the consequences, then agree or not I would say â Å“they've got ballsâ ?.

History then could have judged them on their actions and decided if they merited some acknowledgement or recognition.

Running away to dodge the consequences of your actions, or to save your own skin certainly deserves no â Å“acknowledgementâ ? and should be recognized for what it is.

From Dictionary.com

Cowardice


\Cow"ard*ice\ (-[i^]s), n. [F. couardise, fr. couard. See Coward.] Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit.

You presume that was their motives.  In many cases that presumption is false, hence your definition doesn't apply.

The dictionary says that Claus von Stauffenberg was a traitor, yet history has looked at him as a hero.  Not always so black and white.

 

[sdimock]

Ok, if it wasn't moral grounds and they weren't running to save their own skin, what was their motive? and what motive is it that they are deserving of a memorial?

I will have to look into Claus von Stauffenberg to determine how he fits the dictionary def. but a historically different one.

Taking into account that the victors often write the history books  .

 

[sdimock]

***Sorry, misread your post,   thought you meant that von Stauffenberg was a coward thus following post.***

Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg

Count Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg is remembered as one of the tragic heroes of World War II.

Born into an aristocratic German family, von Stauffenberg was a German army officer during the war but grew disillusioned with the Nazis.

Eventually he joined a plot to kill Adolf Hitler. Von Stauffenberg planted a briefcase bomb during a staff meeting with Hitler in July of 1944; though the bomb went off as planned, Hitler was not killed. Von Stauffenberg escaped the blast but was captured and executed the same day.

No, I don't see how he fits into the dictionary definition of cowardice, the German high command would definitely label him traitor to his leader.

Traitor to his people is a debateable issue.

But not coward.

A coward would have run away to Switz. or South Am., having not planted the bomb.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

You missed the point entirely.  Stauffenberg was a traitor, by the dictionary definition, but history tends to look at him as someone who carried out a necessary act.  Hence dictionary definitions don't always apply.

I would say the same thing applies to "cowards" who evaded service in Vietnam.  Not all did so just to "save their own skin."  In fact, many of the so-called "draft dodgers" expressed great anguish at having to leave their home, and did so not to save their own lives, but because of what they viewed as an illegal war in SE Asia.

Technically, if you want to talk about dictionary definitions, the US was indeed engaged in illegal hostilities in SE Asia since Congress never approved military action.  One evidence of that is the fact the National Guard and Reserves were never called up. 

So call the naysayers "cowards" all you want, the label doesn't even remotely fit some of them. No doubt some were motivated by self-preservation, but even that doesn't necessarily make them cowards.

Nor would I be inclined to build monuments to them, naturally, but the black and white attitudes here only betray the biases of the posters.

 

[sdimock]

"You missed the point entirely."

Ok, that happens,

The problem isn't with dictionary definitions it's with the application of the wrong word.

The German high command would definitely label him traitor to his leader (which he was).

Traitor to his people is a debateable issue (most would probably say no).

"but the black and white attitudes here only betray the biases of the posters."

The title of the thread is "Draft dodgers get memorial".

As can be expected on a military forum, most, if not all, are not in favour of giving the same honour to people who avoided fighting as those who paid with there lives.

The 60's was a different time, context is important, (people shoud search the CIA and United Fruit in Central America).

The environment existed in the world where people saw the government of the US prove it could not be trusted.

Put yourself there, here are your choices if you don't agree with what the government is doing,

1. Stand up and be counted against the government and pay in prison.

2. Submit to the authorities and take your chances with the Vietcong.

3.   Move out of the country, giving up your homeland so you have your life even if it's in a foreign country?

No it wasn't necessarily a black and white issue, but a memorial, that's black and white.

1 & 2 take Balls, 3 takes feet.