Nosonja_ As stated by:
First, let me state clearly that I am absolutely against any form of war; in my view, there is always a way to find a solution, or at least an earnest attempt to seek one, which simply wasn't the case during the conflicts in the former America. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone involved was acting out of pure malice, but rather that there was a profound lack of reason used by all parties.
Let us move on to the core of the matter. I recall once watching a documentary on television regarding American soldiers who deserted during the Vietnam War. It is quite a poignant situation; those individuals remain in Vietnam to this day, because if they were to return to the States, they would face military tribunals for desertion, and potentially even charges of treason, which carries the most severe penalties imaginable.
Let’s see how things are shaping up here in America.☕
I happen to know someone who deserted and fled abroad, and now that individual runs a highly successful company over there, occasionally returning to the States just to show off their prosperity. I also know another person who escaped right before the mobilization; that individual actually managed to attend university abroad entirely for free under refugee status, enjoying complete freedom. Both of them, quite casually, make regular trips back home to visit...
The weight of history often settles most heavily on those who carry great names. It is truly sobering to reflect on how such influential lineages can be so abruptly severed by the chaos of war. Consider, for instance, that Stalin's son was taken prisoner and ultimately lost his life in captivity. Then there is the tragic story of young John Kennedy; despite hailing from one of the most prominent and powerful families in the USA, he vanished during combat operations in the Pacific back in 1943 following an unsuccessful strike against a Japanese convoy, only to be located ten days later on a remote atoll. A year after that, his brother met a similar fate during an air raid over France. Even within military dynasties, the toll is devastating—the son of Gebelsov was wounded and taken prisoner by the Britons, while one American general saw his own son fall in the jungles of Vietnam. Even more recently, we see the legacy of General Clark, whose son took part in the aerial strikes over the former America in 1999. It seems that no matter the era or the status, the cost of conflict remains a universal tragedy.
How was your trip to the States?
I cannot speak to any direct involvement on the front lines by the sons of generals or high-ranking officials from the American government; as far as I am aware, the only family loss suffered by members of Congress across all political parties was that of the son belonging to one representative from the Democratic Party.
Let us not forget to include those who sustained their own injuries on the front lines and are now receiving pensions, or perhaps that group of people who would gladly treat the boys from the front to a round of drinks while wearing a cynical smirk. It is quite easy to conclude that such an individual was rather pathetic...
To be perfectly honest, Noisonj, I am finding it quite difficult to reconcile the title you've provided with the actual substance of your writing. It leaves me wondering what the central theme is truly intended to be. Should we be discussing the general attitude Americans hold toward the federal government, or is the focus actually on the relationship between the American people and those who chose to evade their military service? For my part, I shall proceed under the assumption that the topic at hand is the American public's perception of draft dodgers.
How can we truly expect society, the government, or even the average American to condemn a coward who fled from war, when that very same citizen watches tycoons, slackers, thieves, and criminals—alongside dishonest politicians—being celebrated as those who "made it" or successfully maneuvered their way into lucrative positions? It seems they are viewed as capable and clever simply because they exploited the system. Is it actually possible to expect an American to judge someone when, in truth, there is nothing more than envy driving that judgment? Personally, I don't believe it is.
Take, for instance, the way many Americans view former President Mason. He’s widely known as a political shapeshifter—a master of ambiguity who can tell you one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. It is truly remarkable how someone who spends their election campaign promising one set of policies only to pivot to something entirely different can be elected to the presidency twice. Most people you encounter will likely speak of him with genuine fondness, simply because they admire his uncanny ability to maneuver through scandals and talk his way out of situations where he should have been finished. It reminds me of that old saying regarding winning twice despite the odds. Even now, a figure like that continues to draw millions of dollars from American taxpayers, essentially selling them empty promises, yet those very same citizens continue to hold him in high esteem, praising his "capability" as a leader long after he has left office.
How should one view those political opportunists who spent their entire pre-election campaign promising the moon, only to turn around and hike up taxes even higher than the previous administration and their ineffective cronies? It is truly baffling to watch them enforce steeper levies after spending months disparaging the very people they've replaced. Yet, somehow, the American public continues to offer them unwavering support. Take someone like a seasoned political strategist—let’s say an old-school Republican Party heavyweight who has managed to stay at the absolute pinnacle of power for decades, while citizens still view him as capable, brilliant, and worthy of admiration. Or consider figures like Čačić. Is he even worth discussing or writing about at this point?
These are the quintessential role models and idols for the average American. To them, criminals are celebrated—those individuals who amass vast fortunes without a shred of honest toil or genuine effort. People who siphon millions from the government through legal loopholes or outright corruption become the benchmarks for citizens, who harbor nothing but resentment because they aren't in those positions and lack the capacity to achieve such things themselves.
So, how can we blame someone for fleeing when it was time to defend the nation (since, let's face it, what were we even fighting for? It might have been better if we hadn't), or for someone finding success abroad when such opportunities simply didn't exist back home in the States?
When we examine the most successful nations—those that have consistently maintained their status at the top of the global stage and serve as our supposed ideals—we see that entirely different rules applied to them. Take John McCain, for instance; he made the principled decision to remain in a Vietnamese POW camp until the Vietnamese began releasing all other Americans, rather than accepting an early release simply because he was the son of a U.S. Senator.
How many of us would actually act with the same integrity as McCain if we were placed in that exact situation?
That is precisely why we find ourselves where we are today, while Americans, Britons, Swedes, Canadians, Germans, and the Japanese... well, they are exactly where they ought to be.
