Anti-Americanism Prevailing on College Campuses
Gandalf Grey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
HoustonChronicle
Oct. 13, 2001, 8:27PM
Free speech fading on college campuses
Associated Press
Around the country, college faculty and staff who express opinions on the
terrorist attacks and U.S. bombardment of Afghanistan are facing rebuke in
public and private, suspension and investigation. At least two professors
were asked to leave their schools as a security measure.
Colleges campuses take pride in nurturing debate but that tradition is being
tested in the wake of Sept. 11. People across the political spectrum are
feeling the chill.
Some examples:
--UCLA library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for five
days after he criticized U.S. support for Israel in an e-mail sent on the
school's computers. He was responding to a co-worker's mass e-mailing that
praised America. Hargis gave The Associated Press copies of both e-mail
messages.
The day the 53-year-old Hargis was penalized, the staff was also told
library policy forbids using its e-mail to send unsolicited political or
patriotic messages.
Hargis has worked at the library 22 years. He said the policy was news to
him, and that he was the only one punished. Library officials declined to
talk about the case, but furnished a copy of the policy.
--Political science professor Ken Hearlson, 57, was placed on indefinite,
paid leave from Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, Calif., after four
Muslim students complained he singled them out as "Nazis," "terrorists" and
"murderers" in a heated class discussion of the attacks, a school spokesman
said. Hearlson may face discipline at the community college, which called in
an outside investigator.
--University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian was placed on
indefinite, paid leave for his safety and that of the Tampa campus, a school
spokesman said. The university acted after receiving a death threat and
angry calls following Al-Arian's appearance on Fox News Channel's "The
O'Reilly Factor" where he was asked about his ties to two suspected
terrorists.
Al-Arian said he only knew the men as academics, and that their later links
to terrorism "shocked" him. The computer engineer was also founder of a
now-defunct think tank on Middle East issues the FBI investigated. Al-Arian
was never arrested or charged.
--The day of the attacks, University of New Mexico history professor Richard
Berthold told a freshmen-level course on Western civilization: "Anyone who
can blow up the Pentagon has my vote."
Soon after his comment became public, violent threats followed and the
55-year-old Berthold agreed to leave the campus for a week for his safety, a
spokeswoman said. He has apologized, saying, "I was a jerk. But the First
Amendment protects my right to be a jerk." An internal investigation is
under way.
Such incidents highlight an erosion of free academic expression that existed
before Sept. 11, said Thor Halvorssen, head of the Foundation for Individual
Rights in Education.
The Philadelphia-based organization finds free legal help for faculty who
feel their rights were trampled. Hearlson and Berthold are receiving the
group's assistance.
"Now people can see it clearly," Halvorssen said. "No matter the politics,
free speech and vigorous debate is verboten at college campuses."
The very vulnerability of free speech in these highly charged times,
however, prompted extra restraint at Pennsylvania State University, an
administrator said.
Math professor Stephen Simpson's personal Web page, on the school's
computers, links to an essay by another writer asserting that the U.S.
military must destroy the governments of Afghanistan and Iran, "regardless
of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in
the line of fire."
When some students complained, vice provost Robert Secor passed on their
comments to the 56-year-old professor, but refrained from asking that the
controversial statement be removed.
"There's no action, there's no reprimand," Secor said. "We have to be very
careful about protecting the rights of free speech, and we do."
Simpson's only response, he said in an interview, was that he wants the
school to clarify where he has a right to air his views.
Many campuses now face quandaries like Penn State's, Secor said.
"These are real conflicts," he said, between "what universities feel is
civilized behavior -- and free speech that they feel we must protect. I
think we still haven't sorted it out yet."
2001: The Houston Chronicle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Assault
on America
This article is:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/terror/front/1088492
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"We will not walk in fear. We're Americans. Americans don't walk in fear."
Colin Powell, Press Conference, September 13, 2001
msoja
October 5, 2001
Taste Feature
Towers of Intellect
By JAMES BOWMAN
Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal, on its front page, told
the sad story1 of Jennie Traschen, professor of physics at the
University of Massachusetts, who had the bad luck at an Amherst town
meeting on Sept. 10 to have called the American flag "a symbol of
terrorism and death and fear and destruction and oppression."
Her words were circulated on the Internet just as real terrorism and
death put them in an unwelcome perspective. Suddenly she started
getting irate phone calls and e-mails, some of them threatening or
obscene. "There's been a level of repercussion that was totally
unanticipated," she said.
Well, maybe it's time that she did a bit more anticipating. The same
goes for the professor at the University of New Mexico who said that
"anyone who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote." Later he called
this claim "the worst attempt at an incredibly stupid joke," and I'm
sure he is right. The language of politics in the rarefied world of
American higher education had not prepared either professor for a
reality like the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. Oh! So that's what "terrorism" means!
They were caught unawares, with their assumptions showing. But others
in the academy spoke deliberately after Sept. 11 of the provocations
given to the terrorists by America. Prof. Robert Jensen of the
University of Texas wrote that the suicide mission "was no more
despicable than the massive acts of terrorism . . . that the U.S.
government has committed during my lifetime." Prof. Barbara Foley of
Rutgers University wrote of the terror attack that "whatever its
proximate cause, its ultimate cause is the fascism of U.S. foreign
policy over the past many decades."
Not Thought but Reflex
For those unaccustomed to the jargon of the professoriate and unable
to recollect the mass rallies of American black-shirts, I should
mention that the word "fascist" in the preceding phrase is used in the
Stalinist sense to mean anything that is not, well, Stalinist. So
automatic has such jargon become to the likes of Prof. Foley that she
probably never even stopped to reflect on how much more like the
actual fascists known to history were the fanatical theocrats who
brought down the towers.
But most academic political views are not thought but reflex, not an
attempt to organize reality but an attempt to avoid it. An honest
pacifist prepared to put up with the consequences of his beliefs is
worthy of respect, but the anti-fascists of academe sometimes seem to
start from the assumption that all the violence and trouble in the
world would simply vanish if America dismantled its armed forces. Thus
Prof. Howard Zinn of Boston University deplores any military response
to terror on the grounds that "our security can only come by using our
national wealth, not for guns, planes, and bombs, but for the health
and welfare of our people, and for people suffering in other
countries."
Well, as George Orwell said, you have to be an intellectual to believe
such nonsense -- or the nonsense spouted by some of Prof. Zinn's
fellow ornaments of American scholarship in a forum on the terror
attack sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Richard Slotkin
of Wesleyan University writes of the "two myths being deployed in
response to the terrorist attacks." The first is the myth of savage
war, based on "the oldest U.S. myth, the myth of the frontier," and
the other is the myth of the good war, "summoned by the invocation of
Pearl Harbor." Since fighting terrorists cannot be a "good war," he
reasons, we are likely to fall back on the "dangerous" myth of the
"savage war," which "represents American history as an Indian war, in
which white Christian civilization is opposed by a 'savage' racial
enemy."
Poor Native Americans! First slaughtered, then turned into myths! The
fruit of the anthropological researches of Catherine Lutz of the
University of North Carolina is the discovery that the U.S. has been,
as she says, in a "permanent state of war since the late 1930s" and,
except for a brief period during World War II, on the wrong side. When
Mr. Bush talks about "hunting the terrorists from their holes," she is
reminded "of the racial hatred that has preceded, stoked, and been
inflamed by nearly every one of the 20th century's wars." Luckily, she
boasts, she and her students have refused to accept the war-like
"framing devices" of television.
Greater Horrors
Assistant Prof. Christopher Phelps of Ohio State University is worried
about framing, too. He is "wary of wars framed for freedom, which in
general have produced the exact opposite effect." Just look, for
example, at how, "during the cold war, the 'Communist menace' became
the basis for hysterical McCarthyist attacks on civil liberties" or
how World War II led to the internment of Japanese-Americans. These
were horrors greater, presumably, than those that they were invoked to
oppose. Meanwhile, Prof. David P. Barash, a psychologist at the
University of Washington, wonders: Since "many people consider the
United States to be a terrorist state," weren't the terrorists doing
to us just what President Bush proposed to do to them?
People who can write with such moral imbecility are people who have
forgotten who they are. From the perspective of the Ivory Tower,
apparently, it is easy to assume a global point of view and to look
with disdain upon those of us who still consider ourselves mere
Americans, wounded as Americans by a foreign attack on our country.
Thus, taking their comforts and the freedoms that produced them for
granted, the professors can write airily of the "cycle of violence" --
or, as Prof. Zinn puts it, "a hundred years of retaliation, vengeance,
war, a hundred years of terrorism and counterterrorism, of violence
met with violence, in an unending cycle of stupidity."
Talk about a cycle of stupidity! Does a policeman who has to subdue a
violent criminal by force become guilty of the same crime? Is he
perpetuating "the cycle of violence"? Those who suppose so must have
been locked away from the world to shuffle words all their lives, like
Prof. George Lakoff of Berkeley, whose response to an attack on his
country was to analyze the phallic imagery of the falling towers or of
"the planes as penetrating the towers with a plume of heat. The
Pentagon, a vaginal image from the air, penetrated by the plane as
missile."
For such people, even a shock like that of Sept. 11 cannot persuade
them that the likes of Osama bin Laden or the Taliban could possibly
be coming after them.
Mr. Bowman is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy
Center and American editor of the Times Literary Supplement of London.
Copyright Š 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Glen Heiman
couldn't have anything to do with this.
Marc Sylvestre
msoja wrote in message ...
>Wall Street Journal
>October 5, 2001
>Taste Feature
>
>Towers of Intellect
>
>By JAMES BOWMAN
Oh what a bunch of crap. Calling people that disagree with past US policy
"stalinist" kind of proves the writer has little mind at all (of course
working at the WSJ helps).
One can be horrified at the acts of terror on 9/11 and ALSO be disgusted at
American foreign policy.
Listening to news people whine about the Antrax scare, I wonder
Where were you all when we were supporting right wing deth squads murdering
nuns, murdering people who just want the vote?
Terror is wrong, if it happens to us, or if our country does it to other
people. Some of the people we supported (and cons still support) are as bad
as or worse than Bin laden.
Of course to point that out to James Bowman I'd get called "stalanist"
Whatamoron
Christopher Morton
<msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>msoja wrote in message ...
>>Wall Street Journal
>>October 5, 2001
>>Taste Feature
>>
>>Towers of Intellect
>>
>>By JAMES BOWMAN
>
>
>Oh what a bunch of crap. Calling people that disagree with past US policy
>"stalinist" kind of proves the writer has little mind at all (of course
>working at the WSJ helps).
>One can be horrified at the acts of terror on 9/11 and ALSO be disgusted at
>American foreign policy.
>Listening to news people whine about the Antrax scare, I wonder
>Where were you all when we were supporting right wing deth squads murdering
>nuns, murdering people who just want the vote?
Yep, another Stalinist trying to justify 6,000+ murders.
--
In Haiti, the dead walk.
In Chicago, they vote.
Scott D. Erb
I see no attempt to justify murders in that post.
Does lying come so easily to you, Chris? The sad thing is, as an
historian noted to me, the McCarthy era anti-communism is
reminisicient of the attacks on academics today for daring to ask
tough questions.
A pathetic and essentially dishonest tactic of trying to claim
that pointing out flaws in policy or asking difficult questions
rationalizes evil by the otherside is a sign of intellectual
bankruptcy.
Especially given that you snipped off this statement in the
poster's originally post, apparently because it would make it
clear your response was a lie:
"Terror is wrong, if it happens to us, or if our country does it
to other
people. Some of the people we supported (and cons still support)
are as bad
as or worse than Bin laden."
What part of "terror is wrong" in his post didn't you
understand? I'd say Don Henley said it best" "evil is still
evil, in anybody's name."
Wilson
>
>
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:24:08 -0400, "Marc Sylvestre"
>> <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >msoja wrote in message ...
>> >>Wall Street Journal
>> >>October 5, 2001
>> >>Taste Feature
>> >>
>> >>Towers of Intellect
>> >>
>> >>By JAMES BOWMAN
>> >
>> >
>> >Oh what a bunch of crap. Calling people that disagree with past US policy
>> >"stalinist" kind of proves the writer has little mind at all (of course
>> >working at the WSJ helps).
>> >One can be horrified at the acts of terror on 9/11 and ALSO be disgusted at
>> >American foreign policy.
>> >Listening to news people whine about the Antrax scare, I wonder
>> >Where were you all when we were supporting right wing deth squads murdering
>> >nuns, murdering people who just want the vote?
>>
>> Yep, another Stalinist trying to justify 6,000+ murders.
>
>I see no attempt to justify murders in that post.
Of course you don't Scotti.
>
>Does lying come so easily to you, Chris? The sad thing is, as an
>historian noted to me, the McCarthy era anti-communism is
>reminisicient of the attacks on academics today for daring to ask
>tough questions.
Ah reminiscing about McCarthyism? Are you aware of the confirming
reports in the European press about the former Soviet support and
financing for the radical left in America and around the world? This
information came out after the fall of communism, when the KGB
Bureau was opened up. Of course, it wasn't big news to the likes of
Brokaw, Jennings and Rather etc, so you may not have "seen" that
either.
To paraphrase "extremist red-baiter" Dem. Senator Daniel Patrick
Monaghan, "It turns out there WERE reds under the bed".
>
>A pathetic and essentially dishonest tactic of trying to claim
>that pointing out flaws in policy or asking difficult questions
>rationalizes evil by the otherside is a sign of intellectual
>bankruptcy.
Then it is also correct to point out that that the poster's
viewpoint is shared and enunciated by all America haters, including
communists, radical socialists and yes, Bin Laden, Castro, and the
rest.
People are always free to take sides, and we are also free to point
who's propaganda they parrot.
Scott D. Erb
Wilson wrote:
>
> Ah reminiscing about McCarthyism? Are you aware of the confirming
> reports in the European press about the former Soviet support and
> financing for the radical left in America and around the world?
Well, DUH. That was never in doubt. They gave financial support
to a lot of groups, especially in Europe, with the hope of
decoupling the American-European relationship. This was
especially true in the early eighties during the controversy on
installing Pershing II and Cruise missiles in Germany. That not
only gave rise to the German Green party (currently in
government, with Joschka Fischer, a Green party member from way
back and former left wing activist as foreign minister), but had
500,000 protesting in marches against missile deployment.
But Soviet attempts to foster such actions are quite different
than McCarthy. McCarthy and his minions lied and violated
constitutional protections to ruin the careers of many in the
state department and elsewhere through charges that they were
"communists." That is now used in schools and colleges as a
classic example of what can happen if we let our guard down, and
allow fear and paranoia become more important than the freedoms
upon which this country is based.
>This
> information came out after the fall of communism, when the KGB
> Bureau was opened up. Of course, it wasn't big news to the likes of
> Brokaw, Jennings and Rather etc, so you may not have "seen" that
> either.
Well, you were apparently asleep at the switch in the eighties
because everyone knew the Soviets were doing that long before the
fall of Communists. It created a number of scandals. I think
its appropriate to point out when such funding occurs, but it's
not at all the same as what McCarthy did.
> To paraphrase "extremist red-baiter" Dem. Senator Daniel Patrick
> Monaghan, "It turns out there WERE reds under the bed".
But the McCarthy era is recognized as a sad period where
Americans allowed fear and paranoia become more important than
freedom and liberty. McCarthy never had a list, most of his
charges were shown false, and ultimately the Senate stood up to
him and he died in ignomy, drinking himself to death, an
appropriate finish. Here in Maine we still honor how Republican
Margaret Chase Smith stood up to McCarthy, risking her career,
early on, when many still feared him. The man was an example of
what can happen when freedom to express ideas gets defined as
something that must be silenced. He provides an example of where
attack lies can lead.
> >A pathetic and essentially dishonest tactic of trying to claim
> >that pointing out flaws in policy or asking difficult questions
> >rationalizes evil by the otherside is a sign of intellectual
> >bankruptcy.
>
> Then it is also correct to point out that that the poster's
> viewpoint is shared and enunciated by all America haters, including
> communists, radical socialists and yes, Bin Laden, Castro, and the
> rest.
No more than it would be correct to point out that the view that
the earth is round is shared and enunciated by all "America
haters." The fact is that the poster clearly said that terror is
wrong. Thus the claim that he was justifying the murder of 6000
was completely wrong as well. He made a claim that we should not
support terror ourselves, a claim I consider very much in line
and supportive of America's values. Criticizing the policies of
ones' own country is ESSENTIAL for a democracy to work, it is
precisely in line with the ideals of the founders. To attack
someone for doing so is contrary to the ideals of this country.
> People are always free to take sides, and we are also free to point
> who's propaganda they parrot.
In this case, you are the propaganda parrot.
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:24:08 -0400, "Marc Sylvestre"
>> <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >msoja wrote in message ...
>> >>Wall Street Journal
>> >>October 5, 2001
>> >>Taste Feature
>> >>
>> >>Towers of Intellect
>> >>
>> >>By JAMES BOWMAN
>> >
>> >
>> >Oh what a bunch of crap. Calling people that disagree with past US policy
>> >"stalinist" kind of proves the writer has little mind at all (of course
>> >working at the WSJ helps).
>> >One can be horrified at the acts of terror on 9/11 and ALSO be disgusted at
>> >American foreign policy.
>> >Listening to news people whine about the Antrax scare, I wonder
>> >Where were you all when we were supporting right wing deth squads murdering
>> >nuns, murdering people who just want the vote?
>>
>> Yep, another Stalinist trying to justify 6,000+ murders.
>
>I see no attempt to justify murders in that post.
It's an attempt at moral equivalence and justification. But then you've
indulged in the same activity regarding our ending of WWII.
>Does lying come so easily to you, Chris? The sad thing is, as an
You're just defending a proponent of moral paralysis just like yourself. You
see in him the same urge to create false moral roadblocks to self-defense that
you experience.
>historian noted to me, the McCarthy era anti-communism is
>reminisicient of the attacks on academics today for daring to ask
>tough questions.
Apparently, they're the only ones who get to ask "tough questions". You have
the right to say pretty much anything you want. Nobody has any duty to respect
you for it. In fact, they have the same right to DISrespect you for it.
The alternative is an imaginary duty to take David Irving and Ernst Zundel
seriously.
>A pathetic and essentially dishonest tactic of trying to claim
>that pointing out flaws in policy or asking difficult questions
>rationalizes evil by the otherside is a sign of intellectual
>bankruptcy.
False moral equivalencies are a rationalization of evil.
>Especially given that you snipped off this statement in the
>poster's originally post, apparently because it would make it
>clear your response was a lie:
>
>"Terror is wrong, if it happens to us, or if our country does it
>to other
>people. Some of the people we supported (and cons still support)
>are as bad
>as or worse than Bin laden."
It's praising with faint damn. He dislikes our defense a lot more than the
original offense.
>
>What part of "terror is wrong" in his post didn't you
>understand? I'd say Don Henley said it best" "evil is still
>evil, in anybody's name."
It's sophistry in the way it's used. He doesn't really mean it.
Scott D. Erb
Chris Morton wrote:
>
> In article <3BCAD1B8...@worldnet.att.net>, "Scott says...
> >
> >> Yep, another Stalinist trying to justify 6,000+ murders.
> >
> >I see no attempt to justify murders in that post.
>
> It's an attempt at moral equivalence and justification. But then you've
> indulged in the same activity regarding our ending of WWII.
Saying that terrorism is just as evil from person X as from
person Y is to say they are both immoral, yes. That doesn't say
the acts are equivalent, only that they are both wrong.
Equivalence would take another argument beyond what he made.
Even if they were considered equivalent, and would still be
justifying NEITHER. It is a way of condemning BOTH evil acts.
You claimed that it JUSTIFIED the murder of 6000, a total
opposite conclusion than can be drawn from the analysis of what
he wrote.
> >Does lying come so easily to you, Chris? The sad thing is, as an
>
> You're just defending a proponent of moral paralysis just like yourself. You
> see in him the same urge to create false moral roadblocks to self-defense that
> you experience.
Perhaps you weren't lying, perhaps you simply need to think
through these things more carefully. Nothing in a condemnation
of acts of terror is a 'false moral roadblock to self defense.'
I defy you to find that in what he writes. He is making a point
that is very uncomfortable to you, perhaps: that if you judged
some of the actions of your own state with the same discernment
as you judge the evil acts of terrorists, you'd have to criticize
your own state.
If that is true, then you have to accept the validity of that
statement, and not reject it just because it makes you feel bad.
> >historian noted to me, the McCarthy era anti-communism is
> >reminisicient of the attacks on academics today for daring to ask
> >tough questions.
-snip-
> False moral equivalencies are a rationalization of evil.
Yet no one but you have claimed there was a 'false moral
equivalence,' and I've pointed out that condemning two acts of
evil doesn't justify either, nor does it mean they are the same
act. The evil of Jeffrey Dahlmer isn't the same as the evil of
Osama Bin Laden, but both did evil things. So did Stalin. So
did Pinochet. So did Mao. So did Saddam. One can even condemn
the ten year old gypsy girl I saw picking pockets in Rome last
winter. William Caley did evil things, so did George Armstrong
Custer. They didn't all do the same thing, one can't say they
are all 'morally equivalent.' But one can condemn their acts
without justifying the acts of others.
> >Especially given that you snipped off this statement in the
> >poster's originally post, apparently because it would make it
> >clear your response was a lie:
> >
> >"Terror is wrong, if it happens to us, or if our country does it
> >to other
> >people. Some of the people we supported (and cons still support)
> >are as bad
> >as or worse than Bin laden."
>
> It's praising with faint damn. He dislikes our defense a lot more than the
> original offense.
Yet the only arguments you can make against him is to put words
in his mouth, rather than react to what he wrote. That is also a
misguided tactic, as if you create a stereotyped view of what you
think he thinks and then, rather than engage in dialogue and read
what he writes, you respond to what you think he "really"
thinks. I haven't read his other posts much, I only see this
post and your reaction and I think, "holy cow, Chris is accusing
him of things contrary to what he wrote. That's bull----." So I
respond. If you want to draw him out in explaining what he
really thinks, ask him some questions, get him to make his case
more clearly. If you react to his words by accusing him of
"really thinking" something different than what he writes, that
isn't persausive.
> >
> >What part of "terror is wrong" in his post didn't you
> >understand? I'd say Don Henley said it best" "evil is still
> >evil, in anybody's name."
>
> It's sophistry in the way it's used. He doesn't really mean it.
Or it's pure principle. Terrorism is wrong, murdering is wrong.
We shouldn't just condemn it when we are the victims, we should
also condemn it if our country perpetrates it. Don't you agree
with that?
John D.
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> pounds on his pulpit and
preaches:
news:3BCB0150...@worldnet.att.net...
(snip)
> Or it's pure principle. Terrorism is wrong, murdering is wrong.
> We shouldn't just condemn it when we are the victims, we should
> also condemn it if our country perpetrates it. Don't you agree
> with that?
Nice association Erb, have you stopped beating your wife and children yet?
Oh, you don't but if you're really Jeffrey Dahlmer shouldn't we condemn you
for perpetrating such an awful act that is fully comparable to Stalin,
Hitler, Mao, Jane Fonda and all the other monsters out there?
Your problem Erb is to mistake what you're doing as intellectualism. The
reality of your life is nothing more than that of a foot solider of the left
pushing a collectivist agenda by highjacking the minds of innocents.
You are nothing more than a pedophilic mind molester whose sole purpose is
to motivate young minds against American culture.
John D.
Jeffrey Davis
"John D." wrote:
At this level, I'd start to worry where insult leaves off and slander begins.
Are you judgment proof? Things like "pedophilic" have an actual meaning that
say, "doofus" or "cheesehead" or some generic put-down doesn't have.
(Not encouraging Erb to sue as simply to bring the discussion back from the
merely ad hominem.)
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> E Pluribus unum
John D.
"Jeffrey Davis" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BCB0A3B...@verizon.net...
Of course I *don't* mean Erb is a sexual predator of Children, are you that
slow? The use of the word "pedophilic" in this context is an adjective to
slam home a methodology that Erb consistently uses in his posts.
That being said, can't we look at this as pure principle? Pedophilia is
wrong, molestation of children is wrong. We shouldn't just condemn it when
we are the victims, we should also condemn it if Erb perpetrates it. Don't
you agree with that?
Works well doesn't it. Thanks for playing.
John D.
Scott D. Erb
Jeffrey Davis wrote:
Obviously the guys response was pure ad hominem and did not have anything to do
with the point made. That's what happens on open forums like this, you get some
thoughtful communication, and others who just want to rant, even if it is pure
lies like in his post above. As I understand it it isn't slander unless he can
do some real damage. I suspect given his style he's doing more damage to his own
reputation.
John D.
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BCB1230...@worldnet.att.net...
I used your style Erb. It's your reputation that is in question here,
Professor.
Here is my answer to Jeffery:
(Of course I *don't* mean Erb is a sexual predator of Children, are you that
slow? The use of the word "pedophilic" in this context is an adjective to
slam home a methodology that Erb consistently uses in his posts.
That being said, can't we look at this as pure principle? Pedophilia is
wrong, molestation of children is wrong. We shouldn't just condemn it when
we are the victims, we should also condemn it if Erb perpetrates it. Don't
you agree with that?
Works well doesn't it. Thanks for playing.)
That's the way you play Scott, and it's violent, I hope you don't teach the
same way because if you do I feel sorry for your students.
Do you teach your students the same way you "teach" here?
John D.
Gandalf Grey
John D. <Not...@now.com> wrote in message
news:tsm53vt...@corp.supernews.com...
John had to. John has no style. John also has a reputation for zero
honesty.
msoja
>msoja posted in message ...
>>Wall Street Journal
>>October 5, 2001
>>Taste Feature
>>Towers of Intellect
>>By JAMES BOWMAN
>Oh what a bunch of crap. Calling people that disagree with past US policy
>"stalinist" kind of proves the writer has little mind at all (of course
<drunken blather snipped>
The author didn't call anyone Stalinist. You might want to reread a
bit more closely.
Mike
Brain Death
So are you not a Stalinist?
I had assumed from your posts that you were.
BD
Calmus
You did too much!
Time to stop you. End of course. Get on the next train. Asta la vista.
"Marc Sylvestre" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9qdksk$s1g$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
msoja
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>John had to. John has no style. John also has a reputation for zero
>honesty.
No, Dick, it's You with the reputation for lying and unbridled
hypocrisy. Your aspersions against others are just another symptom of
your hate and hypocrisy.
Mike
Tom Abbott
communist movement in the early 1900's. The communists and
their sympathizers in the United States and elsewhere tried
to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of murderous
communist dictators and the United States in opposing said
communist dictators.
Naturally, this propaganda portrayed the United States as
the evil in the world, and communism as the cure. This
propaganda was accelerated during the Vietnam war where most
of our current college professors learned it by rote, and
continue to spout it even unto this very day.
They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
is something inherently evil in the United States. They
have been around for decades and as you can see from the
current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
are in a position to poison too many minds.
TA
Scott D. Erb
Tom Abbott wrote:
> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
> are in a position to poison too many minds.
>
> TA
Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
Bin Laden is evil. Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
policy. Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
what government does and trying to hold government use of power
accountable to the public and rule of law.
In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
and was not worth the loss of life. Public speaking out against
that mistake helped end the war, as Nixon and Kissinger
recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
not.
John D.
That being said, can't we look at this as pure principle? Pedophilia is
wrong, molestation of children is wrong. We shouldn't just condemn it when
we are the victims, we should also condemn it if Erb perpetrates it. Don't
you agree with that?
Chris Morton
>
>
>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>
>> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
>> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
>> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
>> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
>> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
>> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
>> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
>> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
>> are in a position to poison too many minds.
>>
>> TA
>
>Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
I see a LOT of people doing it, and for various reasons.
Some like Zepp, are so consumed with partisan hatred, that they'll always hate
George Bush more than Bin Laden.
Others hate the United States, because they hate liberal democracy and
capitalism.
Others still, wallow in guilt and self loathing, and redirect that self-hatred
toward the US in which they live.
The naive simply can't conceive of anyone being as exultantly evil as Bin Laden,
and have to find some hint of fault in the victims.
>Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
>Bin Laden is evil. Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
Almost everyone is. A vocal minority aren't.
>everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
>policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
If you equate a small number of accidental deaths with 6,000+ INTENTIONAL
MURDERS, that's by design... unless you're saying that the people who do this
are just STUPID.
>Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
>try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
>policy. Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
>what government does and trying to hold government use of power
>accountable to the public and rule of law.
Some dishonest types cry out for the United States to stop doing things, it
isn't doing and doesn't plan to do. There's no plan for the US to intentionally
carpet bomb civilians and it isn't happening... but every day you hear idiots
wailing for us not to do it.
Some dishonest types pretend that they think we should "arrest" Bin Laden... but
don't have any serious suggestions as to how this might be accomplished without
the cooperation of the Taliban.
Some of the MOST dishonest types ask why Afghanistan is bombed but Oklahoma
wasn't bombed over Tim McVeigh... never volunteering the obvious truth that the
state of Oklahoma didn't HARBOR McVeigh and refuse to turn him over to justice.
These are some of the most despicable wretches. They want neither bombing, NOR
the capture or death of Bin Laden. They want only a pretext to blame the
victims.
>In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
>(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
>recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
That's hardly true either. Apparently the name Jane Fonda has escaped your
intention for all these years. A significant portion of academia was and
continues to be Marxist or sympathetic to Marxism. That is of course their
right. They have however, no right to be liked or respected for it.
>Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
>not.
William Pierce and the neo-Nazi National Alliance explicitly refer to themselves
as "dissidents". Do you consider their message of Holocaust denial and race
hate "patriotic"? Or is only SOME dissent patriotic?
You may believe, and largely speak as you wish. You have no right for you or
your beliefs to be either popular or respected. The alternative is a legal duty
for everyone to respect the beliefs and pronouncements of NAMBLA and the Church
of the Creator.
h0mi
Chris Morton wrote:
>
> In article <3BCC6842...@worldnet.att.net>, "Scott says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Tom Abbott wrote:
> >
> >> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
> >> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
> >> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
> >> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
> >> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
> >> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
> >> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
> >> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
> >> are in a position to poison too many minds.
> >
> >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
Erb seems to be closing his eyes and ears to what is transpiring, and what
people are actually saying and writing.
> I see a LOT of people doing it, and for various reasons.
>
> Some like Zepp, are so consumed with partisan hatred, that they'll always hate
> George Bush more than Bin Laden.
>
> Others hate the United States, because they hate liberal democracy and
> capitalism.
>
> Others still, wallow in guilt and self loathing, and redirect that self-hatred
> toward the US in which they live.
>
> The naive simply can't conceive of anyone being as exultantly evil as Bin Laden,
> and have to find some hint of fault in the victims.
>
> >Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
> >Bin Laden is evil. Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
>
> Almost everyone is. A vocal minority aren't.
>
> >everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
> >policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
>
> If you equate a small number of accidental deaths with 6,000+ INTENTIONAL
> MURDERS, that's by design... unless you're saying that the people who do this
> are just STUPID.
I should've snipped some of this out but these points all bear repeating.
Accidentally bombing a civilian complex and intentionally bombing a
civilion building are not identical. It is dishonest to equate the 2
actions. But that is what is happening.
By blurring the differences between the 2 actions, it makes it easier to
say that the US is wrong. Meanwhile any and all attempts to bring those
people to 'justice' are thwarted, because that would be no different than
spreading Anthrax or bombing the WTC.
The really sad thing is that 11 years ago, rather than go to war with Iraq,
it was suggested that we not resort to violence, but stick with "economic
sanctions" because that will convince Hussein in allowing inspections, end
his weapons program, etc. etc.
11 years later, these same people critisize these sanctions as causing the
deaths of Iraqi children every day, and want them ended.
> >Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
> >try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
> >policy. Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
> >what government does and trying to hold government use of power
> >accountable to the public and rule of law.
>
> Some dishonest types cry out for the United States to stop doing things, it
> isn't doing and doesn't plan to do. There's no plan for the US to intentionally
> carpet bomb civilians and it isn't happening... but every day you hear idiots
> wailing for us not to do it.
>
> Some dishonest types pretend that they think we should "arrest" Bin Laden... but
> don't have any serious suggestions as to how this might be accomplished without
> the cooperation of the Taliban.
>
> Some of the MOST dishonest types ask why Afghanistan is bombed but Oklahoma
> wasn't bombed over Tim McVeigh... never volunteering the obvious truth that the
> state of Oklahoma didn't HARBOR McVeigh and refuse to turn him over to justice.
> These are some of the most despicable wretches. They want neither bombing, NOR
> the capture or death of Bin Laden. They want only a pretext to blame the
> victims.
It isn't much different when the subject is self-defense, the utility of
firearms in the same, and their pro-crime/criminal attitude. The
possibility that you may kill a criminal breaking into your home outweighs
that criminal's threat to your life and property.
> >In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
> >(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
> >recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
>
> That's hardly true either. Apparently the name Jane Fonda has escaped your
> intention for all these years. A significant portion of academia was and
> continues to be Marxist or sympathetic to Marxism. That is of course their
> right. They have however, no right to be liked or respected for it.
I think the anti-war protests in Vietnam ruined the "reputation" of people
who are anti-war and the concept of an 'anti-war' movement. Normally it was
not considered that anti-war meant anti US, and anti-military, but spitting
on soldiers returning home from a war they didn't choose to fight is what
has provoked the backlash from which we've not quite recovered from. It
doesn't help that Marxists have been prevelant in the anti-war movement
since then as well.
> >Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
> >not.
>
> William Pierce and the neo-Nazi National Alliance explicitly refer to themselves
> as "dissidents". Do you consider their message of Holocaust denial and race
> hate "patriotic"? Or is only SOME dissent patriotic?
>
> You may believe, and largely speak as you wish. You have no right for you or
> your beliefs to be either popular or respected. The alternative is a legal duty
> for everyone to respect the beliefs and pronouncements of NAMBLA and the Church
> of the Creator.
All this talk about dissent and complaints about stifling of dissent. But
Senator Helms can dissent and be labelled "Senator No" for his trouble, and
what a horrible man he is for his dissent.
It's all bullshit. They didn't decry David Horowitz' "dissent" on
reparations for slavery, having no problems with newspapers being seized
from college campuses that dared to run the ad.
--
Chutzpah of the century:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/calreport/data/N2001-09-18-1600-1.html
"We're violently opposed to the idea of going to war to revenge what
happened," she (Lu Irwin) said firmly. "The real worry is that there
will be this hysterical overreaction."
Nothing wrong with being for peace, but "Violently opposed"?
http://home.pacbell.net/pwage/ktf.html
Richard
Your troll is stupid if not lying, irrelevant if not stupid.
I suppose you just had to say SOMETHING. ANYTHING.
You have a bad case of diarrhoea of the mouth.
>
--
Liberal
Signifies an openness to change and respect for individual liberties within
a societal framework in which all have equal opportunity (See Rawls Theory
of Justice or Walzer's Spheres of Justice)
---Richard
Scott D. Erb
h0mi wrote:
> > >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
>
> Erb seems to be closing his eyes and ears to what is transpiring, and what
> people are actually saying and writing.
Then please, post an example. Remember, just criticizing past US
policy or expressing concern about current policy is not the same
as hating America or supporting the terrorists. Indeed, true
patriotism recognizes that it is the role of an informed
citizenry in a democracy to watch what the government does and to
critique its actions. We are a system defined by avoiding the
kind of blind 'follow the leader' approach of totalitarian
systems.
> Accidentally bombing a civilian complex and intentionally bombing a
> civilion building are not identical. It is dishonest to equate the 2
> actions. But that is what is happening.
Can you show me one place where these are equated? I doubt your
assertion that this 'is happening.'
> By blurring the differences between the 2 actions, it makes it easier to
> say that the US is wrong. Meanwhile any and all attempts to bring those
> people to 'justice' are thwarted, because that would be no different than
> spreading Anthrax or bombing the WTC.
Yet I defy you to show where anyone is 'equating' these things.
Until you do that, your assertion is rejected.
> The really sad thing is that 11 years ago, rather than go to war with Iraq,
> it was suggested that we not resort to violence, but stick with "economic
> sanctions" because that will convince Hussein in allowing inspections, end
> his weapons program, etc. etc.
That was actually the initial view of 'doves' like Colin Powell
and Gen. Schwarzkopf. Do they hate America?
> 11 years later, these same people critisize these sanctions as
causing the
> deaths of Iraqi children every day, and want them ended.
The sanctions at that time were designed to force Iraq to leave
Kuwait. Now, after 11 years with Iraq out of Kuwait and Saddam
selling oil on the black market and doing just fine, those who
want to continue sanctions should explain just what they are
accomplishing.
> It isn't much different when the subject is self-defense, the utility of
> firearms in the same, and their pro-crime/criminal attitude. The
> possibility that you may kill a criminal breaking into your home outweighs
> that criminal's threat to your life and property.
Where on earth do you get that? Your kind of rhetoric is
reminiscient of Herr Goebbels. You make broad assertions,
unsupported by evidence, which when looked at closely are
obviously false.
> I think the anti-war protests in Vietnam ruined the "reputation" of people
> who are anti-war and the concept of an 'anti-war' movement. Normally it
No, it actually elevated their reputation because the war was
wrong, it was futile, and the US never should have gotten
involved. The protests forced a change in policy, showing the
power of democracy -- that if the government screws up, the
people can act and make it impossible for the government to
continue its bad policies.
> not considered that anti-war meant anti US, and anti-military, but spitting
> on soldiers returning home from a war they didn't choose to fight is what
> has provoked the backlash from which we've not quite recovered from. It
That's absurd. Only a small minority did such a despicable thing
as spit on soldiers, and nearly everyone condemns that. When the
Vietnam war is taught in schools and universities students learn
what really happened and how it is a lesson about a
miscalculation by government and an irrational fear of an 'ism'
that blinded leaders to reality.
> doesn't help that Marxists have been prevelant in the anti-war movement
> since then as well.
Cold war rhetoric like that is anachronistic, impotent, and
simply false. Very few in the anti-war movement are "marxists"
and the term itself has no real meaning these days. You're
behind the times.
> All this talk about dissent and complaints about stifling of dissent. But
> Senator Helms can dissent and be labelled "Senator No" for his trouble,
Actually it's hard to really consider statements by some of the
most powerful people in government as 'dissent.' However, I
personally defended Trent Lott when he joined the anti-war
brigade and criticized Clinton's bombing of Iraq, and praised Ron
Paul when he dissented on Kosovo. Funny how dissent to some
seems OK if it's Republicans doing it. I'm consistent at least.
> what a horrible man he is for his dissent.
You're fantasizing. People don't like Helms for his views and
what he is, and dissent is in fact criticizing powerful
government figures.
> It's all bullshit. They didn't decry David Horowitz' "dissent" on
> reparations for slavery, having no problems with newspapers being seized
> from college campuses that dared to run the ad.
Horowitz has every right to state his opinion, just as people
have a right to criticize him. I personally think college
newspapers should run the ad, it can be used as a teaching tool
(I've used some contrary articles posted here to show how
rhetoric is misused, helping make sure people don't fall for
those ploys).
Chris Morton
>The sanctions at that time were designed to force Iraq to leave
>Kuwait. Now, after 11 years with Iraq out of Kuwait and Saddam
>selling oil on the black market and doing just fine, those who
>want to continue sanctions should explain just what they are
>accomplishing.
Do you want Saddam Hussein to get weapons of mass destruction?
If not, what's your alternative for preventing that?
Scott D. Erb
Can you provide evidence that current sanctions are effective at
preventing this? Of course we should continue sanctions of
specific materials that are used for production of weapons of
mass destruction, but the sanctions regime in place in Iraq goes
beyond that, and I don't see any evidence that it effectively
weakens Saddam. I doubt the US can prevent other countries,
including ones we oppose, from getting weapons of mass
destruction. That's simple reality.
John D.
"Richard" <richar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9qjd5v$kjq$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Don't forget your milk money this morning.
Dr Fuji Kamikase
How could we possibly know if Iraq has developed and stockpiled
weapons of mass destruction? The only way we can prevent Iraq
from such developments is to have on the ground inspectors in
Iraq. You may recall that an inept former US President allowed
Saddam to expel all foreign inspectors.
A lot of Americans enjoyed the daily soap opera that
entertained them for eight years. We are only now beginning to
pay for our prurient self indulgence: A devastated economy, a
resurgence of nihilism, a divided country, and a new hundred-
years war. Thanks Bill & Al.
Scott D. Erb
Dr Fuji Kamikase wrote:
>
> A lot of Americans enjoyed the daily soap opera that
> entertained them for eight years. We are only now beginning to
> pay for our prurient self indulgence: A devastated economy, a
> resurgence of nihilism, a divided country, and a new hundred-
> years war. Thanks Bill & Al.
Just another example of a "blame America first" approach. It's
absolutely pathetic that some people out of hatred for an extremely
popular and effective President will try to blame all the worlds ills on
their administration (it is just as irrational to blame former President
Bush for Saddam). Believe it or not, America cannot prevent and is not
the cause of most of the world's problems, no matter who the President
is.
Azzendogorph the Tacky
How about advocating genocide and racism. Does wanting to wipe all "Islamic
fundys" make you a Stalinist, Marc?
>>"Marc Sylvestre" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:9no1vf$76l$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>>> We (us, the Bushies, the Dems, and the USA) are making one mistake -
>>> the enemy isn't terrorism.
>>> The enemy is Islamic Fundamentalism
>>> terrorism is their weapon, but they are the enemy.
>>> They don't merely want us dead, they want us to never have been.
>>> In the eyes of Islamic Fundys we are "unclean", like human shit or pork.
>>> They don't just want to have their own countries, they want our
countries.
>>>
>>> We cannot treat islamic Fundys like they are misunderstood, we cannot
>>> negotiate with them. We need to rid the world of them.
>>> Any country that is run by islamic fundamentalists needs to be
conquered.
>>> Any country that has a problem with a large minority of Islamic fundys
we
>>> need to help stomp them out.
>>> The Idea, the belief system of Islamic Fundamentalism needs to be
defeated
>>> just like the idea of Japanese Devine right.
>>> We showed the Japs that they were not a country led by God, that they
could
>>> be defeated, and in their defeat we imposed our own values on them -
>>> democracy, capitalism, freedom. They are strong allies of ours now.
>>> In the same way Islamic countries need to be defeated.
>>> If they are not at open war with us, they are using puppets like Bin
Laudin
>>> to attack us.
>>> Saying we will "defeat terrorism" is like saying we will defeat "nuclear
>>> weapons". Terrorism is the weapon, and we need to go after the hand
using
>>> the weapon.
Dr Fuji Kamikase
No need to convince me that you
enjoyed the Clinton/Gore soap opera!
God Bless America
Fuji
Non illegitimi carborundum est
Naivete in grownups is often charming; but when coupled with vanity it is
indistinguishable from stupidity. - Eric Hoffer
Richard
No, I didn't forget. I had to give it to your kindergarten teacher because
you would lose it.
Wilson
>
>
>h0mi wrote:
>> > >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
>>
>> Erb seems to be closing his eyes and ears to what is transpiring, and what
>> people are actually saying and writing.
>
>Then please, post an example.
Check your posts Scottie. How many include the words "I don't see".
As if you not seeing things means they are not there. Not much of an
argument, really.
Where I am right now, a farmer is serving a life sentence for
murder. His crime? Shooting at two robbers in his house in the
middle of the night. He killed one.
This is England, of course, but the leftist mindset is what allows
such legal atrocities.
>
>> I think the anti-war protests in Vietnam ruined the "reputation" of people
>> who are anti-war and the concept of an 'anti-war' movement. Normally it
>No, it actually elevated their reputation because the war was
>wrong, it was futile, and the US never should have gotten
>involved. The protests forced a change in policy, showing the
>power of democracy -- that if the government screws up, the
>people can act and make it impossible for the government to
>continue its bad policies.
>
>> not considered that anti-war meant anti US, and anti-military, but spitting
>> on soldiers returning home from a war they didn't choose to fight is what
>> has provoked the backlash from which we've not quite recovered from. It
>
>That's absurd. Only a small minority did such a despicable thing
>as spit on soldiers, and nearly everyone condemns that. When the
>Vietnam war is taught in schools and universities students learn
>what really happened and how it is a lesson about a
>miscalculation by government and an irrational fear of an 'ism'
>that blinded leaders to reality.
Was the fear of commun*ism* in the 70s "irrational" Scottie?
>
>> doesn't help that Marxists have been prevelant in the anti-war movement
>> since then as well.
>
>Cold war rhetoric like that is anachronistic, impotent, and
>simply false. Very few in the anti-war movement are "marxists"
>and the term itself has no real meaning these days. You're
>behind the times.
Ah, now where have they all gone?
>
>> All this talk about dissent and complaints about stifling of dissent. But
>> Senator Helms can dissent and be labelled "Senator No" for his trouble,
>Actually it's hard to really consider statements by some of the
>most powerful people in government as 'dissent.' However, I
>personally defended Trent Lott when he joined the anti-war
>brigade and criticized Clinton's bombing of Iraq, and praised Ron
>Paul when he dissented on Kosovo. Funny how dissent to some
>seems OK if it's Republicans doing it. I'm consistent at least.
Then you must agree with the latest statement from Berkeley,
criticizing America's bombing of Afganistan?
>
>> what a horrible man he is for his dissent.
>
>You're fantasizing. People don't like Helms for his views and
>what he is, and dissent is in fact criticizing powerful
>government figures.
>
>> It's all bullshit. They didn't decry David Horowitz' "dissent" on
>> reparations for slavery, having no problems with newspapers being seized
>> from college campuses that dared to run the ad.
>
>Horowitz has every right to state his opinion, just as people
>have a right to criticize him. I personally think college
>newspapers should run the ad, it can be used as a teaching tool
>(I've used some contrary articles posted here to show how
>rhetoric is misused, helping make sure people don't fall for
>those ploys).
We don't fall for your ploys either, Scottie.
Christopher Morton
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>>
>> In article <3BCD71B3...@worldnet.att.net>, "Scott says...
>>
>> >The sanctions at that time were designed to force Iraq to leave
>> >Kuwait. Now, after 11 years with Iraq out of Kuwait and Saddam
>> >selling oil on the black market and doing just fine, those who
>> >want to continue sanctions should explain just what they are
>> >accomplishing.
>>
>> Do you want Saddam Hussein to get weapons of mass destruction?
>>
>> If not, what's your alternative for preventing that?
>
>Can you provide evidence that current sanctions are effective at
>preventing this? Of course we should continue sanctions of
You didn't answer my question. What's the alternative to stop him?
>specific materials that are used for production of weapons of
>mass destruction, but the sanctions regime in place in Iraq goes
>beyond that, and I don't see any evidence that it effectively
>weakens Saddam. I doubt the US can prevent other countries,
>including ones we oppose, from getting weapons of mass
>destruction. That's simple reality.
What will you do if he gets them?
What will you do if he USES them?
--
In Haiti, the dead walk.
In Chicago, they vote.
Scott D. Erb
I don't know how to "stop him." I just know that sanctions
aren't really limiting him effectively, that was my point. The
sanctions probably hurt US interests in the region more than they
help.
Tom Abbott
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>
>> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
>> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
>> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
>> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
>> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
>> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
>> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
>> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
>> are in a position to poison too many minds.
>>
>> TA
>
>Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
Then you are not paying attention.
>Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
>Bin Laden is evil.
Most are, some are not.
> Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
>everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
>policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
The "Blame America Firsters" are easy to pick out: they
blame America.
>Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
>try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
>policy.
Is this the professor's way of saying I'm dishonest?
> Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
>what government does and trying to hold government use of power
>accountable to the public and rule of law.
>
Democracy is also built on exposing propaganda for what it
is, so that the *real* truth can be discerned.
>In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
>(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
>recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
>but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
>correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
>and was not worth the loss of life.
You should beware of speaking for the entire middle class
of America or for college campuses for that matter. The
truth is, the Vietnam war was supported by the MAJORITY of
Americans from beginning to end. The support did go down as
the war progressed, but there was never a majority opposing
the war. This was just more leftwing, anti-war propagada.
> Public speaking out against
>that mistake helped end the war,
No, the liberal news media created the false impression
that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
from the US media.
> as Nixon and Kissinger
>recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
It was hurting political interests only. Unfortunately,
political interests are more important than national
security to most politicians.
>Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
>not.
I'm not trying to stifle dissent, I'm just calling them
liars. They can lie all they want, and I'll call them liars
all *I* want. That's the American way.
TA
Tom Abbott
The U.S. can stop Saddam if they send inspection teams
into Iraq and look at *everything*. I expect that will take
place in the very near future, too.
TA
Jeffrey Davis
Tom Abbott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:56:53 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tom Abbott wrote:
> >
> >> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
> >> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
> >> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
> >> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
> >> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
> >> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
> >> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
> >> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
> >> are in a position to poison too many minds.
> >>
> >> TA
> >
> >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
>
> Then you are not paying attention.
>
> >Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
> >Bin Laden is evil.
>
> Most are, some are not.
Some = hardly anyone.
>
>
> > Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
> >everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
> >policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
>
> The "Blame America Firsters" are easy to pick out: they
> blame America.
I'm sure there are Blame America Firsters. They = hardly anyone
>
>
> >Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
> >try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
> >policy.
>
> Is this the professor's way of saying I'm dishonest?
Are you?
>
>
> > Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
> >what government does and trying to hold government use of power
> >accountable to the public and rule of law.
> >
>
> Democracy is also built on exposing propaganda for what it
> is, so that the *real* truth can be discerned.
Your statement is true and you could still be wrong or dishonest.
>
>
> >In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
> >(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
> >recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
> >but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
> >correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
> >and was not worth the loss of life.
>
> You should beware of speaking for the entire middle class
> of America or for college campuses for that matter. The
> truth is, the Vietnam war was supported by the MAJORITY of
> Americans from beginning to end. The support did go down as
> the war progressed, but there was never a majority opposing
> the war. This was just more leftwing, anti-war propagada.
It's been too long to know if you're correct here. It doesn't make
much difference. Wars shouldn't be fought without consensus.
>
>
> > Public speaking out against
> >that mistake helped end the war,
>
> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
> from the US media.
That's why the war was just a blip (1961-1973) in our national
experience. The media short circuited it.
>
>
> > as Nixon and Kissinger
> >recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
>
> It was hurting political interests only. Unfortunately,
> political interests are more important than national
> security to most politicians.
If they'd only put our security interests first, we wouldn't be
writing this in Vietnamese.
>
>
> >Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
> >not.
>
> I'm not trying to stifle dissent, I'm just calling them
> liars. They can lie all they want, and I'll call them liars
> all *I* want. That's the American way.
Right. Calling liars liars is a good thing
The American people support the president's moves against terrorism
an an historically high level. My take is that there are some people who
are just addicted to being a) defensive and b) partisan whiners. The 10
year anniverary of the All-Purpose Clinton Excuse is coming up. That's
one serious monkey on your back, you guys. That's going to be a really
tough addiction to shake.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> E Pluribus unum
Scott D. Erb
Tom Abbott wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:56:53 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tom Abbott wrote:
> >
> >> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
> >> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
> >> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
> >> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
> >> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
> >> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
> >> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
> >> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
> >> are in a position to poison too many minds.
> >>
> >> TA
> >
> >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
>
> Then you are not paying attention.
Quite the contrary, I am paying close attention.
> >Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
> >Bin Laden is evil.
>
> Most are, some are not.
That is true about almost every political position, some people
still worship Hitler.
> > Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
> >everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
> >policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
>
> The "Blame America Firsters" are easy to pick out: they
> blame America.
Rational people know that you can criticize US policy and
recognize policy mistakes of the past without blaming America for
a terrorist attack.
> >Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
> >try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
> >policy.
>
> Is this the professor's way of saying I'm dishonest?
Do you think that statement applies to you?
> > Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
> >what government does and trying to hold government use of power
> >accountable to the public and rule of law.
> >
> Democracy is also built on exposing propaganda for what it
> is, so that the *real* truth can be discerned.
And that can only be done effectively by an informed public
questioning what government does and trying to hold government
use of power accountable to the public and rule of law.
> >In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
> >(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
> >recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
> >but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
> >correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
> >and was not worth the loss of life.
>
> You should beware of speaking for the entire middle class
> of America or for college campuses for that matter. The
> truth is, the Vietnam war was supported by the MAJORITY of
> Americans from beginning to end. The support did go down as
> the war progressed, but there was never a majority opposing
> the war. This was just more leftwing, anti-war propagada.
By the end it was clear that the public wanted out, though they
did indeed prefer what Nixon called 'peace with honor' to pulling
out more quickly. It was a damned stupid war, and the people who
protested it rationally (that is, not those who spat on troops or
got violent, but those who argued clearly that the war was
contrary to US interests and principles) did the country a
service. It is an example of how democratic institutions and
freedoms caused a policy debacle to finally be backed away from,
it is a sign of the strength of our country.
> > Public speaking out against
> >that mistake helped end the war,
>
> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
> from the US media.
You unsubstantiated assertion, one which I don't find credible,
is noted.
> > as Nixon and Kissinger
> >recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
>
> It was hurting political interests only. Unfortunately,
> political interests are more important than national
> security to most politicians.
In this case they were directly related, especially since our
national security was being hurt by the continuing war, not
helped.
> >Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
> >not.
>
> I'm not trying to stifle dissent, I'm just calling them
> liars. They can lie all they want, and I'll call them liars
> all *I* want. That's the American way.
Who are you calling "liars?"
Scott D. Erb
Tom Abbott wrote:
>
>
> The U.S. can stop Saddam if they send inspection teams
> into Iraq and look at *everything*. I expect that will take
> place in the very near future, too.
>
> TA
How do you think that's going to happen, and what do you mean by
"very near future"?
Tom Abbott
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:56:53 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Tom Abbott wrote:
>> >
>> >> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
>> >> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
>> >> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
>> >> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
>> >> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
>> >> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
>> >> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
>> >> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
>> >> are in a position to poison too many minds.
>> >>
>> >> TA
>> >
>> >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
>>
>> Then you are not paying attention.
>>
>> >Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
>> >Bin Laden is evil.
>>
>> Most are, some are not.
>
>Some = hardly anyone.
>
One is too many.
>>
>>
>> > Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
>> >everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
>> >policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
>>
>> The "Blame America Firsters" are easy to pick out: they
>> blame America.
>
>I'm sure there are Blame America Firsters. They = hardly anyone
>
One is too many.
>>
>>
>> >Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
>> >try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
>> >policy.
>>
>> Is this the professor's way of saying I'm dishonest?
>
>Are you?
>
What do you think?
>>
>>
>> > Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
>> >what government does and trying to hold government use of power
>> >accountable to the public and rule of law.
>> >
>>
>> Democracy is also built on exposing propaganda for what it
>> is, so that the *real* truth can be discerned.
>
>Your statement is true and you could still be wrong or dishonest.
>
But not about the statement, if it is true.
>>
>>
>> >In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
>> >(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
>> >recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
>> >but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
>> >correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
>> >and was not worth the loss of life.
>>
>> You should beware of speaking for the entire middle class
>> of America or for college campuses for that matter. The
>> truth is, the Vietnam war was supported by the MAJORITY of
>> Americans from beginning to end. The support did go down as
>> the war progressed, but there was never a majority opposing
>> the war. This was just more leftwing, anti-war propagada.
>
>It's been too long to know if you're correct here. It doesn't make
>much difference. Wars shouldn't be fought without consensus.
>
What do you call a majority of the American people
supporting the Vietnam war? I call it a consensus.
>>
>>
>> > Public speaking out against
>> >that mistake helped end the war,
>>
>> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
>> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
>> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
>> from the US media.
>
>That's why the war was just a blip (1961-1973) in our national
>experience. The media short circuited it.
>
In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
Let's pretend Afghanistan is Vietnam. How long do you
think bin Laden and the Taliban could hold out if the U.S.
Congress passed a law preventing President Bush from putting
ground troops into Afghanistan, and only allowed bombing?
Answer: they could hold out for decades, just like the North
Vietnamese were able to hold out.
>>
>>
>> > as Nixon and Kissinger
>> >recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
>>
>> It was hurting political interests only. Unfortunately,
>> political interests are more important than national
>> security to most politicians.
>
>If they'd only put our security interests first, we wouldn't be
>writing this in Vietnamese.
>
Well, even though South Vietnam eventually fell to the
communists, the ten years the U.S. spent fighting communism
in Southeast Asia exhausted not only the North Vietnamese
military, but also had a hand in bankrupting the Soviet
Union.
We might very well be writing in a different language had
we allowed North Vietnam and its communist backers to focus
its strength on the other countries in the area rather than
on American military forces. All the countries of Southeast
Asia would have fallen to the communists in pretty short
order had the U.S. not intervened. And that's why we
intervened.
>>
>>
>> >Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
>> >not.
>>
>> I'm not trying to stifle dissent, I'm just calling them
>> liars. They can lie all they want, and I'll call them liars
>> all *I* want. That's the American way.
>
>Right. Calling liars liars is a good thing
>
I think so, too.
>The American people support the president's moves against terrorism
>an an historically high level. My take is that there are some people who
>
>are just addicted to being a) defensive and b) partisan whiners. The 10
>year anniverary of the All-Purpose Clinton Excuse is coming up. That's
>one serious monkey on your back, you guys. That's going to be a really
>tough addiction to shake.
I think the Clintonistas would be much better off
forgetting about Clinton. They should stop associating
themselves with him, and then they won't feel bad when
Clinton receives criticism.
TA
philsaudio
: Let's pretend Afghanistan is Vietnam. How long do you
: think bin Laden and the Taliban could hold out if the U.S.
: Congress passed a law preventing President Bush from putting
: ground troops into Afghanistan, and only allowed bombing?
: Answer: they could hold out for decades, just like the North
: Vietnamese were able to hold out.
That's funny? I remember ground troops in Vietnam for years and years.
I served with many AF personnel who were sent to be ground forces in
Viet Nam. I know many who were killed on the ground in Vietnam. What ya
smokin? I also recall that ground forces in Viet Nam did not win much
for America other than 58,000 dead sons and a lot of purple harts.
Jeffrey Davis
Tom Abbott wrote:
I think you like to hand-wring.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
> >> >what government does and trying to hold government use of power
> >> >accountable to the public and rule of law.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Democracy is also built on exposing propaganda for what it
> >> is, so that the *real* truth can be discerned.
> >
> >Your statement is true and you could still be wrong or dishonest.
> >
>
> But not about the statement, if it is true.
Well, we got that one nailed down.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
> >> >(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
> >> >recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
> >> >but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
> >> >correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
> >> >and was not worth the loss of life.
> >>
> >> You should beware of speaking for the entire middle class
> >> of America or for college campuses for that matter. The
> >> truth is, the Vietnam war was supported by the MAJORITY of
> >> Americans from beginning to end. The support did go down as
> >> the war progressed, but there was never a majority opposing
> >> the war. This was just more leftwing, anti-war propagada.
> >
> >It's been too long to know if you're correct here. It doesn't make
> >much difference. Wars shouldn't be fought without consensus.
> >
>
> What do you call a majority of the American people
> supporting the Vietnam war? I call it a consensus.
I don't call a slim majority the kind of consensus necessary to wage a war.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Public speaking out against
> >> >that mistake helped end the war,
> >>
> >> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
> >> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
> >> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
> >> from the US media.
> >
> >That's why the war was just a blip (1961-1973) in our national
> >experience. The media short circuited it.
> >
>
> In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
> criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
> politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
> not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
> a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
> take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
> allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
> would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
None of you guys if-only scenarios ever include the horror of nuclear
war.
>
>
> Let's pretend Afghanistan is Vietnam. How long do you
> think bin Laden and the Taliban could hold out if the U.S.
> Congress passed a law preventing President Bush from putting
> ground troops into Afghanistan, and only allowed bombing?
> Answer: they could hold out for decades, just like the North
> Vietnamese were able to hold out.
The Taliban is crumbling even as we speak.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > as Nixon and Kissinger
> >> >recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
> >>
> >> It was hurting political interests only. Unfortunately,
> >> political interests are more important than national
> >> security to most politicians.
> >
> >If they'd only put our security interests first, we wouldn't be
> >writing this in Vietnamese.
> >
>
> Well, even though South Vietnam eventually fell to the
> communists, the ten years the U.S. spent fighting communism
> in Southeast Asia exhausted not only the North Vietnamese
> military, but also had a hand in bankrupting the Soviet
> Union.
Right. Which is why the North Vietnamese beat back a Red
Chinese assault a few years later.
>
>
> We might very well be writing in a different language had
> we allowed North Vietnam and its communist backers to focus
> its strength on the other countries in the area rather than
> on American military forces. All the countries of Southeast
> Asia would have fallen to the communists in pretty short
> order had the U.S. not intervened. And that's why we
> intervened.
Vietnam has shown amazing imperialistic intentions.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
> >> >not.
> >>
> >> I'm not trying to stifle dissent, I'm just calling them
> >> liars. They can lie all they want, and I'll call them liars
> >> all *I* want. That's the American way.
> >
> >Right. Calling liars liars is a good thing
> >
>
> I think so, too.
>
> >The American people support the president's moves against terrorism
> >an an historically high level. My take is that there are some people who
> >
> >are just addicted to being a) defensive and b) partisan whiners. The 10
> >year anniverary of the All-Purpose Clinton Excuse is coming up. That's
> >one serious monkey on your back, you guys. That's going to be a really
> >tough addiction to shake.
>
> I think the Clintonistas would be much better off
> forgetting about Clinton. They should stop associating
> themselves with him, and then they won't feel bad when
> Clinton receives criticism.
Whose a Clintonista? I don't know how far back Google goes.
Hopefully they've got some stuff from the impeachment days.
I'm just laughing at you guys. Clinton is such a crutch for your
failures. To use new right rhetoric, Clinton is your Welfare..
John D.
"Jeffrey Davis" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD097A5...@verizon.net...
(snip)
>
> He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
> except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
>
> None of you guys if-only scenarios ever include the horror of nuclear
> war.
You need to check your sources, you are very wrong. Nixon did keep it
daylight in Hanoi for about a week at the end of the war but only for the
purpose of prisoner release. The Vietnam War wasn't executed in a manner to
attain an American victory.
Christopher Morton
Well, absent any alternative, your opinion loses a lot of weight.
Scott D. Erb
Except, of course, you don't contradict my opinion.
Billy Beck
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>> In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
>> criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
>> politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
>> not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
>> a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
>> take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
>> allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
>> would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
>
>He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
>except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
Yeah: that must've been what the Hanoi and Haiphong exclusionary
zones and aerial rules of engagement were all about.
You oughta go over the history, sonny, before you address this
stuff.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Who Cares?
"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3bd0f6d8...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> You oughta go over the history, sonny, before you address this
> stuff.
Here, maybe this will do you some good -
http://www.drbond.com/flex%20sig.htm
Scroll to "bottom" for a reality check. Yuk Yuk
If you're lucky, maybe they'll let you
watch real-time, like I did!
Jeffrey Davis
Billy Beck wrote:
There will always be finger-pointing and if-only minutiae. Nothing that
wouldn't have brought in the Soviet Union as an active participant
and brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation was left untried.
Billy Beck
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>
>> >Tom Abbott wrote:
>>
>> >> In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
>> >> criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
>> >> politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
>> >> not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
>> >> a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
>> >> take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
>> >> allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
>> >> would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
>> >
>> >He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
>> >except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
>>
>> Yeah: that must've been what the Hanoi and Haiphong exclusionary
>> zones and aerial rules of engagement were all about.
>>
>> You oughta go over the history, sonny, before you address this
>> stuff.
>
>There will always be finger-pointing and if-only minutiae.
Excuse me: the difference between politically constraind
conventional tactics and "nukes on North Vietnam" is not "minutiae".
Facts are what they are, and they don't go away when you're suddenly
embarrassed with evidence of your ignorance.
>Nothing that
>wouldn't have brought in the Soviet Union as an active participant
>and brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation was left untried.
That's what you think, but it's already established that you
don't know what you're talking about.
be...@burgerking.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
> Excuse me: the difference between politically constraind
>conventional tactics and "nukes on North Vietnam" is not "minutiae".
>Facts are what they are, and they don't go away when you're suddenly
>embarrassed with evidence of your ignorance.
> That's what you think, but it's already established that you
>don't know what you're talking about.
GUFFAW
The Batshit explaining to someone THEY don't know what they're talking
about
A Common netwhiner like you Batshit hasn't got any more credibility to
tell someone that.
Jeffrey Davis
Billy Beck wrote:
> Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy Beck wrote:
> >
>
> >> >Tom Abbott wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
> >> >> criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
> >> >> politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
> >> >> not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
> >> >> a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
> >> >> take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
> >> >> allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
> >> >> would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
> >> >
> >> >He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
> >> >except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
> >>
> >> Yeah: that must've been what the Hanoi and Haiphong exclusionary
> >> zones and aerial rules of engagement were all about.
> >>
> >> You oughta go over the history, sonny, before you address this
> >> stuff.
> >
> >There will always be finger-pointing and if-only minutiae.
>
> Excuse me: the difference between politically constraind
> conventional tactics and "nukes on North Vietnam" is not "minutiae".
> Facts are what they are, and they don't go away when you're suddenly
> embarrassed with evidence of your ignorance.
As someone whose draft board got to within 5 numbers of my own, I'm not
embarassed by anything regarding the Vietnam War. The potential for nuclear
annihilation is not merely "politically constrained" unless you see our
existence on the planet as merely a political decision.
>
>
> >Nothing that
> >wouldn't have brought in the Soviet Union as an active participant
> >and brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation was left untried.
>
> That's what you think, but it's already established that you
> don't know what you're talking about.
I'm thinking you were a MacArthur fan. Am I right? Am I right? Yalu ho!!!
Have you wondered what are the reasons why your advice isn't sought in the
highest reaches of government?
Gandalf Grey
It may have something to do with the fact that Beck is a stool pigeon and a
tax dodger.
be...@burgerking.com
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
And has been outed as one of the worst Usenet idiots masquerading as
"intellectual"
Gandalf Grey
<be...@burgerking.com> wrote in message
news:3bd47f35....@news.enetis.net...
I doubt that too many consider Beck to be "an intellectual" any longer. The
pornography and spamming pretty much took care of that.
>
>
be...@burgerking.com
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>> >It may have something to do with the fact that Beck is a stool pigeon and
>a
>> >tax dodger.
>>
>> And has been outed as one of the worst Usenet idiots masquerading as
>> "intellectual"
>
>I doubt that too many consider Beck to be "an intellectual" any longer. The
>pornography and spamming pretty much took care of that.
Until a month or so ago, Batshit was considered fairly "intellectual"
among his peers
Now only Buttmaster Raffaniello is more disgusting.
>>
>
>
Gandalf Grey
<be...@burgerking.com> wrote in message
news:3bd496e1....@news.enetis.net...
Consider well just how much THAT recommendation counts.
LOL!
Billy Beck
be...@burgerking.com:
Gary Roselles
4215 Cedar Ridge Pl. #4242
Rapid City, South Dakota 57702
(605) 341-2445
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
philsaudio
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BCC6842...@worldnet.att.net...
:
:
: Tom Abbott wrote:
:
: > They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
: > is something inherently evil in the United States. They
: > have been around for decades and as you can see from the
: > current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
: > to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
: > They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
: > guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
: > U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
: > are in a position to poison too many minds.
: >
: > TA
:
: Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
: Bin Laden is evil. Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
: everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
: policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
: try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
: what government does and trying to hold government use of power
: accountable to the public and rule of law.
: In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
: (though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
: recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
: but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
: correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
: that mistake helped end the war, as Nixon and Kissinger
: recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
: not.
Well Said Scott
Billy Beck
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
If there was a good case for incipient nuclear annihilation over
a sound tactical approach in North Vietnam, you would have an argument
here, but there isn't -- and wasn't -- so you don't. And the fact
remains that your original remark -- that Johnson and Nixon "used
everything except nukes on North Viet Nam" -- is simply wrong.
>> >Nothing that
>> >wouldn't have brought in the Soviet Union as an active participant
>> >and brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation was left untried.
>>
>> That's what you think, but it's already established that you
>> don't know what you're talking about.
>
>I'm thinking you were a MacArthur fan. Am I right?
Actually not. My all time favorite reference to MacArthur was
Eisenhower's crack: "I studied drama under him."
Jeffrey Davis
Billy Beck wrote:
We didn't drop cats on them, either.
We didn't organize Morris Dancers to dispirit them. We didn't send them
boxes of jujubes to pull their fillings out. We didn't broadcast old tapes
of the Bishop Sheen Show to convert them.
Wrong. Yes. Overstatement. Hyperbole.
We did bomb them to smithereens twice over.
>
>
> >> >Nothing that
> >> >wouldn't have brought in the Soviet Union as an active participant
> >> >and brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation was left untried.
> >>
> >> That's what you think, but it's already established that you
> >> don't know what you're talking about.
> >
> >I'm thinking you were a MacArthur fan. Am I right?
>
> Actually not. My all time favorite reference to MacArthur was
> Eisenhower's crack: "I studied drama under him."
Then at least you recognize that political and humanitarian decisions
sometimes trump military game boards.
Billy Beck
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
Nor did we properly interdict their logistics, for instance,
which is the difference between your cutesy Broadway musical script
and a sound tactical approach.
>Wrong. Yes. Overstatement. Hyperbole.
And wrong. Like: counter-factual.
>We did bomb them to smithereens twice over.
Really? Let's take the case of the railway that ran north out of
Hanoi to the Chicom border. Because of the Hanoi exclusionary zone
and the Chicom buffer, there were only ten miles of that railway open
to attack. Do you know anything about aerial interdiction of
railways? How 'bout air-defense of such a target? Do you know when
the Paul Doumer Bridge was finally dropped? Do you know when Haiphong
Harbor was mined?
"Twice over"? Do you know how many SAM sites were operating in
Hanoi by the time of Linebacker II in December of 1972, or how many
missiles they fired in the eleven days of that campaign? Do you know
when the airfield at Phuc Yen was attacked? Can you recite the rules
of engagement for shooting MiG's or SAM's according to period?
Do you know that your "smithereens twice over" remark is bloody
ignorant nonsense?
>> >> >Nothing that
>> >> >wouldn't have brought in the Soviet Union as an active participant
>> >> >and brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation was left untried.
>> >>
>> >> That's what you think, but it's already established that you
>> >> don't know what you're talking about.
>> >
>> >I'm thinking you were a MacArthur fan. Am I right?
>>
>> Actually not. My all time favorite reference to MacArthur was
>> Eisenhower's crack: "I studied drama under him."
>
>Then at least you recognize that political and humanitarian decisions
>sometimes trump military game boards.
I "recognize" people and pets. I understand concepts. They're
different things, and people who get them confused are generally
fashion-twits who don't know what they're talking about. In any case,
that "sometimes" in your sentence is very important. "Sometimes",
military imperatives make all the difference in a war, which is about
a hell of a lot more than "game boards".
The main thing I have against MacArthur is that he couldn't keep
his eye on the ball in Korea. Inchon was a master's stroke, forever
gilded in the annals of military history, but he let his head get away
from him and the Chinese just about sent it home on a plate. And,
then, he went and forgot who he was working for, and he deserved to
get the chop.
Richard
My favorite about MacArthur was when Chester Nimitz was asked why he had a
picture of MacArthur on his office bureau.
Nimitz's answer: "I keep it there to remind me not to utter Jovan statements
and issue orders full of fire and thunder that I would later regret".
Maybe something Putsch should learn.
--
Liberal
Signifies an openness to change and respect for individual liberties within
a societal framework in which all have equal opportunity (See Rawls Theory
of Justice or Walzer's Spheres of Justice)
---Richard
Mark Steirer
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote in message
news:k0o0ttc627s9njcl9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:56:53 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tom Abbott wrote:
> >
> >> They are the "Blame America First" crowd. They think there
> >> is something inherently evil in the United States. They
> >> have been around for decades and as you can see from the
> >> current situation, they won't go away even when it is plain
> >> to everyone who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
It's rather plain that BOTH sides are bad guys.
> >> They keep trying to make the United States out to be the bad
> >> guy in any and every situation. They are detrimental to
> >> U.S. national security because they distort the truth and
> >> are in a position to poison too many minds.
> >>
> >> TA
> >
> >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
>
> Then you are not paying attention.
>
>
> >Almost everyone is blaming the terrorists and believes that Osama
> >Bin Laden is evil.
>
> Most are, some are not.
>
>
>
> > Beware of the logical error of trying to lump
> >everyone who criticizes different policies or speaks out against
> >policies one finds objectionable as 'blaming America first.'
>
>
> The "Blame America Firsters" are easy to pick out: they
> blame America.
I haven't heard of ANYONE blaming America for anything connected to the
terrorist attacks. But some people are blaming the US government for
(1)pursuing a corrupt foreign policy that put American lives at risk to
advance the interests of a nation other than the US, while simultaneously
(2) pursuing an anti-American immigration policy that encouraged the people
the government's foreign policy pissed off to come live in the US.
> >Some dishonest types try to use that kind of attack as a way to
> >try to avoid considering any legitimate criticism of American
> >policy.
>
> Is this the professor's way of saying I'm dishonest?
>
> > Democracy is built on an informed public questioning
> >what government does and trying to hold government use of power
> >accountable to the public and rule of law.
> >
>
> Democracy is also built on exposing propaganda for what it
> is, so that the *real* truth can be discerned.
>
> >In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
> >(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
> >recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
> >but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
> >correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
> >and was not worth the loss of life.
>
>
> You should beware of speaking for the entire middle class
> of America or for college campuses for that matter. The
> truth is, the Vietnam war was supported by the MAJORITY of
> Americans from beginning to end. The support did go down as
> the war progressed, but there was never a majority opposing
> the war. This was just more leftwing, anti-war propagada.
You are correct that much of the opposition to the Vietnam War came from
Leftist Commie types who wanted the Commies to win.
> > Public speaking out against
> >that mistake helped end the war,
> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
> from the US media.
The Left-wing media also conveniently left out the Communist banners etc.
that were present at anti-war rallies and presented the opposition in a
false light.
> > as Nixon and Kissinger
> >recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
>
>
> It was hurting political interests only. Unfortunately,
> political interests are more important than national
> security to most politicians.
>
> >Dissent is American and patriotic.
Not necessarily.
> Trying to stifle dissent is
> >not.
True.
Tom Abbott
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:56:53 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
>> > Public speaking out against
>> >that mistake helped end the war,
>>
>> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
>> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
>> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
>> from the US media.
>
>You unsubstantiated assertion, one which I don't find credible,
>is noted.
>
You don't think American politicans are political cowards!
I laughed for two solid minutes after I read your reply! I
sure hope you don't teach political science at your college.
In fact, I'm *still* laughing about it!
>> > as Nixon and Kissinger
>> >recognized it was hurting American interests to continue.
>>
>> It was hurting political interests only. Unfortunately,
>> political interests are more important than national
>> security to most politicians.
>
>In this case they were directly related, especially since our
>national security was being hurt by the continuing war, not
>helped.
>
>> >Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
>> >not.
>>
>> I'm not trying to stifle dissent, I'm just calling them
>> liars. They can lie all they want, and I'll call them liars
>> all *I* want. That's the American way.
>
>Who are you calling "liars?"
The liberal news media for one.
TA
Tom Abbott
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>
>>
>> The U.S. can stop Saddam if they send inspection teams
>> into Iraq and look at *everything*. I expect that will take
>> place in the very near future, too.
>>
>> TA
>
>How do you think that's going to happen, and what do you mean by
>"very near future"?
I think we will inspect Saddam's weapons after a military
confrontation, since Saddam said yesterday he would not
allow United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq
voluntarily.
I expect organized Taliban resistance in Afghanistan to be
over within a month. And then I think Saddam will become
the focus of attention.
TA
Tom Abbott
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:34:02 GMT, Jeffrey Davis
>> <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >In the Vietnam war opposition was not just on college campuses
>> >> >(though most opposition was not pro-communist, communism was
>> >> >recognized by almost everyone as an evil system of government)
>> >> >but also included the middle class and rooted in a belief, a
>> >> >correct belief, that it was a war that did not serve US interests
>> >> >and was not worth the loss of life.
>> >>
>> >> You should beware of speaking for the entire middle class
>> >> of America or for college campuses for that matter. The
>> >> truth is, the Vietnam war was supported by the MAJORITY of
>> >> Americans from beginning to end. The support did go down as
>> >> the war progressed, but there was never a majority opposing
>> >> the war. This was just more leftwing, anti-war propagada.
>> >
>> >It's been too long to know if you're correct here. It doesn't make
>> >much difference. Wars shouldn't be fought without consensus.
>> >
>>
>> What do you call a majority of the American people
>> supporting the Vietnam war? I call it a consensus.
>
> I don't call a slim majority the kind of consensus necessary to wage a war.
>
Oh? Well, what percentage would you prefer? 100 percent?
The war was supported by 70 percent of Americans in one poll
done during the Nixon adminstration. Is that not enough of
a margin for you?
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Public speaking out against
>> >> >that mistake helped end the war,
>> >>
>> >> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
>> >> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
>> >> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
>> >> from the US media.
>> >
>> >That's why the war was just a blip (1961-1973) in our national
>> >experience. The media short circuited it.
>> >
>>
>> In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
>> criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
>> politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
>> not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
>> a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
>> take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
>> allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
>> would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
>
>He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
>except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
>
No, they used everything except nukes and US ground
forces. Had they used US ground forces in North Vietnam,
the war would have been over in six months.
>None of you guys if-only scenarios ever include the horror of nuclear
>war.
>
Mine always include it.
Vietnam is tired and exhausted. At the time of the
Vietnam war, though, North Vietnam had the fourth largest
military in the world, behind only China, the Soviet Union
(Russia) and the United States.
>>
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Dissent is American and patriotic. Trying to stifle dissent is
>> >> >not.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not trying to stifle dissent, I'm just calling them
>> >> liars. They can lie all they want, and I'll call them liars
>> >> all *I* want. That's the American way.
>> >
>> >Right. Calling liars liars is a good thing
>> >
>>
>> I think so, too.
>>
>> >The American people support the president's moves against terrorism
>> >an an historically high level. My take is that there are some people who
>> >
>> >are just addicted to being a) defensive and b) partisan whiners. The 10
>> >year anniverary of the All-Purpose Clinton Excuse is coming up. That's
>> >one serious monkey on your back, you guys. That's going to be a really
>> >tough addiction to shake.
>>
>> I think the Clintonistas would be much better off
>> forgetting about Clinton. They should stop associating
>> themselves with him, and then they won't feel bad when
>> Clinton receives criticism.
>
>Whose a Clintonista? I don't know how far back Google goes.
>Hopefully they've got some stuff from the impeachment days.
>
Obviously, I'm not referring to you then.
>I'm just laughing at you guys. Clinton is such a crutch for your
>failures. To use new right rhetoric, Clinton is your Welfare..
Clinton is the source of many of our present national
security problems. Laugh that off.
TA
Tom Abbott
<phils...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>: Let's pretend Afghanistan is Vietnam. How long do you
>: think bin Laden and the Taliban could hold out if the U.S.
>: Congress passed a law preventing President Bush from putting
>: ground troops into Afghanistan, and only allowed bombing?
>: Answer: they could hold out for decades, just like the North
>: Vietnamese were able to hold out.
>:
>
>
>That's funny? I remember ground troops in Vietnam for years and years.
>I served with many AF personnel who were sent to be ground forces in
>Viet Nam. I know many who were killed on the ground in Vietnam. What ya
>smokin? I also recall that ground forces in Viet Nam did not win much
>for America other than 58,000 dead sons and a lot of purple harts.
>
You must be a troll.
In case you are just ignorant, I'll give you some
enlightenment: During the Vietnam war there was a country
called *South* Vietnam and a country called *North* Vietnam.
North Vietnam wanted to conquer South Vietnam, a US ally.
No American ground troops, other than a few commando raids
and intelligence raids, ever entered the territory of North
Vietnam. All fighting between North Vietnamese and US
military forces took place in *South* Vietnam.
Therefore, North Vietnam was a sanctuary from which the
communists could wage war as long as their population
lasted, since they cared nothing about sacraficing millions
of their own people in a war. Add to this, the fact that
the whole communist world was resupplying North Vietnam with
everything the US was destroying with it bombs, and you have
a situation where ruthless communists dictators can hold out
for decades: the North Vietnamese dictators supply the warm
bodies for the military, and the other communist countries
supply the weapons and ammunition.
The same would happen in Afghanistan, if the US does not
send in ground troops to end the fighting. Although in this
circumstance, the Taliban are not getting much outside
resupply, but that could change if the Taliban continue to
hold out for months and months, which they will do without a
decisive ground assault.
TA
Jeffrey Davis
Tom Abbott wrote:
By the last days of the Johnson administration, the public was under the
impression that the war was winding down and would soon be over. Nixon campaigned
on a secret plan to end the war. I'd have to know what your numbers refer to.
After the Tet Offensive, I doubt that Americans were thinking, "5 more years of
this? Sure!"
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Public speaking out against
> >> >> >that mistake helped end the war,
> >> >>
> >> >> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
> >> >> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
> >> >> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
> >> >> from the US media.
> >> >
> >> >That's why the war was just a blip (1961-1973) in our national
> >> >experience. The media short circuited it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
> >> criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
> >> politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
> >> not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
> >> a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
> >> take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
> >> allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
> >> would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
> >
> >He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
> >except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
> >
>
> No, they used everything except nukes and US ground
> forces. Had they used US ground forces in North Vietnam,
> the war would have been over in six months.
Sooner than that. What with a Soviet nuclear response and all.
>
>
> >None of you guys if-only scenarios ever include the horror of nuclear
> >war.
> >
>
> Mine always include it.
Apparently not.
Ha.
Tom Abbott
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
Johnson was still in Office during the Tet Offensive, so
the poll Nixon held in his hand showing 70 percent approval
was taken long after the Tet Offensive.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Public speaking out against
>> >> >> >that mistake helped end the war,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, the liberal news media created the false impression
>> >> >> that everyone was against the war, and American politicians
>> >> >> are noted for being cowards who fear any kind of criticism
>> >> >> from the US media.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's why the war was just a blip (1961-1973) in our national
>> >> >experience. The media short circuited it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> In my opinion, the liberal media prolonged the war by
>> >> criticizing every move the politicians made, which paralyzed
>> >> politicians like Lyndon Johnson to the point that he would
>> >> not prosecute the war as a war, but rather prosecuted it as
>> >> a "holding action" and holding actions and wars of attrition
>> >> take a long time. Had the Democrat-controlled Congress
>> >> allowed American troops to enter North Vietnam, the war
>> >> would have been over in six months instead of ten years.
>> >
>> >He did nothing of the kind. He and Nixon used everything
>> >except nukes on North Viet Nam. Sheesh.
>> >
>>
>> No, they used everything except nukes and US ground
>> forces. Had they used US ground forces in North Vietnam,
>> the war would have been over in six months.
>
>Sooner than that. What with a Soviet nuclear response and all.
>
What happened to deterrrence? One minute we are told we
don't need missile defense because the Russians nor anyone
else would dare attack us because we could utterly destroy
their country, and the next minute our military is being
restrained by fears the Russians will suddenly lose their
minds and commit suicide by attacking with nuclear weapons.
You can't have it both ways.
>>
>>
>> >None of you guys if-only scenarios ever include the horror of nuclear
>> >war.
>> >
>>
>> Mine always include it.
>
>Apparently not.
>
See above.
Yeah, but I'll bet you are not really laughing at the
situation we find ourselves in today.
TA
Thom
snip snip
I don't see what people are getting upset over. Kids protest against
everything they don't like or don't understand.
I went to college in the 60's and early 70's and I feel sorry for kids
today. How can you rebell against your parents when your parents are
groovier than you are!!!!
THOM
>In article <3BCD71B3...@worldnet.att.net>, "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>h0mi wrote:
>>> > >Funny thing is, I don't see hardly anyone trying to do that.
>>>
>>> Erb seems to be closing his eyes and ears to what is transpiring, and what
>>> people are actually saying and writing.
>>
>>Then please, post an example.
>
>Check your posts Scottie. How many include the words "I don't see".
>As if you not seeing things means they are not there. Not much of an
>argument, really.
>
>> Remember, just criticizing past US
>>policy or expressing concern about current policy is not the same
>>as hating America or supporting the terrorists. Indeed, true
>>patriotism recognizes that it is the role of an informed
>>citizenry in a democracy to watch what the government does and to
>>critique its actions. We are a system defined by avoiding the
>>kind of blind 'follow the leader' approach of totalitarian
>>systems.
>>
>>> Accidentally bombing a civilian complex and intentionally bombing a
>>> civilion building are not identical. It is dishonest to equate the 2
>>> actions. But that is what is happening.
>>
>>Can you show me one place where these are equated? I doubt your
>>assertion that this 'is happening.'
>>
>>> By blurring the differences between the 2 actions, it makes it easier to
>>> say that the US is wrong. Meanwhile any and all attempts to bring those
>>> people to 'justice' are thwarted, because that would be no different than
>>> spreading Anthrax or bombing the WTC.
>>
>>Yet I defy you to show where anyone is 'equating' these things.
>>Until you do that, your assertion is rejected.
>>
>>> The really sad thing is that 11 years ago, rather than go to war with Iraq,
>>> it was suggested that we not resort to violence, but stick with "economic
>>> sanctions" because that will convince Hussein in allowing inspections, end
>>> his weapons program, etc. etc.
>>
>>That was actually the initial view of 'doves' like Colin Powell
>>and Gen. Schwarzkopf. Do they hate America?
>>
>> > 11 years later, these same people critisize these sanctions as
>>causing the
>>> deaths of Iraqi children every day, and want them ended.
>>
>>The sanctions at that time were designed to force Iraq to leave
>>Kuwait. Now, after 11 years with Iraq out of Kuwait and Saddam
>>selling oil on the black market and doing just fine, those who
>>want to continue sanctions should explain just what they are
>>accomplishing.
>>
>>> It isn't much different when the subject is self-defense, the utility of
>>> firearms in the same, and their pro-crime/criminal attitude. The
>>> possibility that you may kill a criminal breaking into your home outweighs
>>> that criminal's threat to your life and property.
>>
>>Where on earth do you get that? Your kind of rhetoric is
>>reminiscient of Herr Goebbels. You make broad assertions,
>>unsupported by evidence, which when looked at closely are
>>obviously false.
>
>Where I am right now, a farmer is serving a life sentence for
>murder. His crime? Shooting at two robbers in his house in the
>middle of the night. He killed one.
>
>This is England, of course, but the leftist mindset is what allows
>such legal atrocities.
>
>>
>>> I think the anti-war protests in Vietnam ruined the "reputation" of people
>>> who are anti-war and the concept of an 'anti-war' movement. Normally it
>>No, it actually elevated their reputation because the war was
>>wrong, it was futile, and the US never should have gotten
>>involved. The protests forced a change in policy, showing the
>>power of democracy -- that if the government screws up, the
>>people can act and make it impossible for the government to
>>continue its bad policies.
>>
>>> not considered that anti-war meant anti US, and anti-military, but spitting
>>> on soldiers returning home from a war they didn't choose to fight is what
>>> has provoked the backlash from which we've not quite recovered from. It
>>
>>That's absurd. Only a small minority did such a despicable thing
>>as spit on soldiers, and nearly everyone condemns that. When the
>>Vietnam war is taught in schools and universities students learn
>>what really happened and how it is a lesson about a
>>miscalculation by government and an irrational fear of an 'ism'
>>that blinded leaders to reality.
>
>Was the fear of commun*ism* in the 70s "irrational" Scottie?
>
>>
>>> doesn't help that Marxists have been prevelant in the anti-war movement
>>> since then as well.
>>
>>Cold war rhetoric like that is anachronistic, impotent, and
>>simply false. Very few in the anti-war movement are "marxists"
>>and the term itself has no real meaning these days. You're
>>behind the times.
>
>Ah, now where have they all gone?
>
>>
>>> All this talk about dissent and complaints about stifling of dissent. But
>>> Senator Helms can dissent and be labelled "Senator No" for his trouble,
>>Actually it's hard to really consider statements by some of the
>>most powerful people in government as 'dissent.' However, I
>>personally defended Trent Lott when he joined the anti-war
>>brigade and criticized Clinton's bombing of Iraq, and praised Ron
>>Paul when he dissented on Kosovo. Funny how dissent to some
>>seems OK if it's Republicans doing it. I'm consistent at least.
>
>Then you must agree with the latest statement from Berkeley,
>criticizing America's bombing of Afganistan?
>
>>
>>> what a horrible man he is for his dissent.
>>
>>You're fantasizing. People don't like Helms for his views and
>>what he is, and dissent is in fact criticizing powerful
>>government figures.
>>
>>> It's all bullshit. They didn't decry David Horowitz' "dissent" on
>>> reparations for slavery, having no problems with newspapers being seized
>>> from college campuses that dared to run the ad.
>>
>>Horowitz has every right to state his opinion, just as people
>>have a right to criticize him. I personally think college
>>newspapers should run the ad, it can be used as a teaching tool
>>(I've used some contrary articles posted here to show how
>>rhetoric is misused, helping make sure people don't fall for
>>those ploys).
>
>We don't fall for your ploys either, Scottie.
Wilson
>
>
>Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Ah reminiscing about McCarthyism? Are you aware of the confirming
>> reports in the European press about the former Soviet support and
>> financing for the radical left in America and around the world?
>
>Well, DUH. That was never in doubt.
Ah, poor Scotty. I have to assume you were not alive back in the
50s, 60s and 70s.
>They gave financial support
>to a lot of groups, especially in Europe, with the hope of
>decoupling the American-European relationship. This was
>especially true in the early eighties during the controversy on
>installing Pershing II and Cruise missiles in Germany. That not
>only gave rise to the German Green party (currently in
>government, with Joschka Fischer, a Green party member from way
>back and former left wing activist as foreign minister), but had
>500,000 protesting in marches against missile deployment.
>
>But Soviet attempts to foster such actions are quite different
>than McCarthy.
This should be good!
> McCarthy and his minions lied and violated
>constitutional protections to ruin the careers of many in the
>state department and elsewhere through charges that they were
>"communists."
Careers ruined? My, how that compares to international communism and
it's black record.
> That is now used in schools and colleges as a
>classic example of what can happen if we let our guard down, and
>allow fear and paranoia become more important than the freedoms
>upon which this country is based.
Yeah, well Scottie, that much is true. Ah, those schools and
colleges!
>
>>This
>> information came out after the fall of communism, when the KGB
>> Bureau was opened up. Of course, it wasn't big news to the likes of
>> Brokaw, Jennings and Rather etc, so you may not have "seen" that
>> either.
>
>Well, you were apparently asleep at the switch in the eighties
>because everyone knew the Soviets were doing that long before the
>fall of Communists. It created a number of scandals. I think
>its appropriate to point out when such funding occurs, but it's
>not at all the same as what McCarthy did.
Unless you were asleep at the switch, McCarthy was fighting what
"everybody knows now was the Evil Empire" right?
When you take on an evil empire out to take over the world by force,
some eggs may get cracked and some careers may be "ruined".
Collateral damage, Scottie. As wars go, not really much of that,
either.
>
>> To paraphrase "extremist red-baiter" Dem. Senator Daniel Patrick
>> Monaghan, "It turns out there WERE reds under the bed".
>
>But the McCarthy era is recognized as a sad period where
>Americans allowed fear and paranoia become more important than
>freedom and liberty.
It was also a period when the Evil Empire had lots of sympathizers
in the U.S., even as their nukes were being trained on New York.
I call that sad.
> McCarthy never had a list, most of his
>charges were shown false,
Not all? Maybe he was on to something after all?
>and ultimately the Senate stood up to
>him and he died in ignomy, drinking himself to death, an
>appropriate finish. Here in Maine we still honor how Republican
>Margaret Chase Smith stood up to McCarthy, risking her career,
>early on, when many still feared him. The man was an example of
>what can happen when freedom to express ideas gets defined as
>something that must be silenced. He provides an example of where
>attack lies can lead.
He provides an example of what happenes to politicians, when they go
against the left, and their friends in the Media. It happened to
Republicans during and after the Impeachment of Slick Willie.
>
>> >A pathetic and essentially dishonest tactic of trying to claim
>> >that pointing out flaws in policy or asking difficult questions
>> >rationalizes evil by the otherside is a sign of intellectual
>> >bankruptcy.
>>
>> Then it is also correct to point out that that the poster's
>> viewpoint is shared and enunciated by all America haters, including
>> communists, radical socialists and yes, Bin Laden, Castro, and the
>> rest.
>
>No more than it would be correct to point out that the view that
>the earth is round is shared and enunciated by all "America
>haters." The fact is that the poster clearly said that terror is
>wrong. Thus the claim that he was justifying the murder of 6000
>was completely wrong as well. He made a claim that we should not
>support terror ourselves, a claim I consider very much in line
>and supportive of America's values. Criticizing the policies of
>ones' own country is ESSENTIAL for a democracy to work, it is
>precisely in line with the ideals of the founders. To attack
>someone for doing so is contrary to the ideals of this country.
So, you now think dissent is bad, after all?
>
>> People are always free to take sides, and we are also free to point
>> who's propaganda they parrot.
>
>In this case, you are the propaganda parrot
And Lenin is smiling from his grave.