Not at all. I'm just questioning the veracity of an article from a supposedly credible source that makes conclusions based upon outlying cases while completely ignoring the central issue.

I offer no personal view of Vietnam. I'm just saying that it was the central issue affecting the breeding ground of the subjects of the article.

You say "I offer no personal view of Vietnam." but you said it was an "illegal, immoral, and unwinnable war"

Are you really unaware that people disagree on all 3 of those points? They are political positions.

That was the argument of the protesters, not mine. Sorry. If only I could write prose as well as I could code. :-)

Ah, well all you need is a "what they saw as".

And for the most part, I don't think any of those other points was nearly as important as the draft. It's one thing to think that a current war is a bad idea, it's quite another to know that you might be forced to go and fight in it.

If that was their argument, and it's a political argument, then they were "playing politics". That's all.

In restrospect, it's easy for us to sit on our butts and call it "playing politics". But for many of them, it was literally a matter of life or death. Going to college or fleeing to Canada were their only options (unless you shot your toe off). Makes red states/blue states seem kinda lame, huh?

If you don't want to be a soldier, that isn't playing politics. But as you said, that wasn't the position of most protestors.

If you say the war is immoral, illegal, or unwinnable, that is getting involved politics.