Re: Memorial Day Reminder To Wear a Service Ribbon...

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

roger wrote:
>
> As a military veteran it is your obligation to inspire others to

And mention the millions of innocent people murdered by *unnecessary*
military adventures (Iraq,Afghan,Vietnam,Granada,Panama,Nicaragua,...).

Teach and inspire the young boys to become anti-war...the right thing to do.
;-)


--
definition: murder - the immoral killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS

[Eugene Griessel]

[Dean]

On May 28, 7:34 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>
wrote:

Why Vinnie, are you being perverted now in addition to immorally
claiming qualifications you do not possess? So, you want to teach
YOUNG BOYS to become anti-war? Hmmmm....

[Daryl]

Everyone should be anti-war. That keeps the wars to a bare
minimum. But when someone needs to be fought, then let it be by
the anti-war boys. The Pro-war Boys will savor in it and do it
again and again. The Anti-War Boys will do it once and go back
to whatever they were doing before the war.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[willshak]

So, you are for the draft?
How do you train the anti-war boys to fight. They certainly are not
going to enlist.


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

[Bill]

In article <0MKdncSBa-eJTVnS...@supernews.com>, willshak@
00hvc.rr.com says...

Ask the men who fought WWII.

The men of every conscript army in the world just want to kill their
enemies and go home.

But they need a cause worth fighting for.

Only career soldiers are worried about a 'good war'.



--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Eugene Griessel]

Dean <dama...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 7:34=A0pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>

>wrote:
>> roger wrote:
>>
>> > As a military veteran it is your obligation to inspire others to
>>
>> And mention the millions of innocent people murdered by *unnecessary*
>> military adventures (Iraq,Afghan,Vietnam,Granada,Panama,Nicaragua,...).
>>

>> Teach and inspire the young boys to become anti-war...the right thing to =

>do.
>> ;-)
>>
>> --
>> definition: murder - the immoral killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS
>
>Why Vinnie, are you being perverted now in addition to immorally
>claiming qualifications you do not possess? So, you want to teach
>YOUNG BOYS to become anti-war? Hmmmm....

If he isn't a government disinformation agent paid to discredit the
anit-war movement then he should be - because he is doing a damned
good job in bringing it into disrepute.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

willshak wrote:

>>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>>> roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As a military veteran it is your obligation to inspire others to
>>>>
>>>> And mention the millions of innocent people murdered by *unnecessary*
>>>> military adventures (Iraq,Afghan,Vietnam,Granada,Panama,Nicaragua,...).
>>>>
>>>> Teach and inspire the young boys to become anti-war...the right
>>>> thing to do.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> definition: murder - the immoral killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS
>>>
>

> So, you are for the draft?
> How do you train the anti-war boys to fight. They certainly are not
> going to enlist.

When the country is genuinely threatened there will be no shortage of
volunteers for defense...the *real* patriots (not benefit seeking mercenaries).

Oh...you don't know what anti-war means...it means anti the usual U.S.
wars which have not been for national defense nor have they been
a last resort.

There is nothing wrong with having a standing well trained military as
long as it is used *only* for defense and not for immoral purposes.

Do you grasp? No, I thought not...you're a nut who glories in war talk.
;-)

p.s. yes, i favor the draft...then we have at least some with a conscience

[Eugene Griessel]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:

[David E. Powell]

As always no mention of the vastly higher numbers killed by our enmies
and the even higher numbers they would have killed if not stopped. Par
for the course with the Faux-Doc.

[Keith W]

There was a very moving ceremony at the American War Cemetery
in Cambridge yesterday where over 1000 people turned out to
pay their respects followed by a flypast of F-15's from Lakenheath
and the B-17 Sally B

http://www.madingleyamericancemetery.info/memorial-day.htm

Lest we forget

Keith

[george152]

Dean wrote:

> Why Vinnie, are you being perverted now in addition to immorally
> claiming qualifications you do not possess? So, you want to teach
> YOUNG BOYS to become anti-war? Hmmmm....

He's trying to prove his inadequacies in other fields

[MajorOz]

On May 29, 9:31 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <0MKdncSBa-eJTVnSnZ2dnUVZ_gOdn...@supernews.com>, willshak@

> 00hvc.rr.com says...
>
>
>
> > Daryl wrote the following on 5/29/2012 7:56 AM (ET):
> > > Everyone should be anti-war.  That keeps the wars to a bare minimum.
> > > But when someone needs to be fought, then let it be by the anti-war
> > > boys.  The Pro-war Boys will savor in it and do it again and again.  The
> > > Anti-War Boys will do it once and go back to whatever they were doing
> > > before the war.
>
> > So, you are for the draft?
> > How do you train the anti-war boys to fight. They certainly are not
> > going to enlist.
>
> Ask the men who fought WWII.
>
> The men of every conscript army in the world just want to kill their
> enemies and go home.
>
> But they need a cause worth fighting for.
>
> Only career soldiers are worried about a 'good war'.

Upon what informed opinion or objective research do you base this
drivel ?

[MajorOz]

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

And, when you need pros, all you will get are amateurs.

Then.........you will never need any of them again..........your
masters will provide for you.

[Bill]

In article <d6faf03b-afeb-4de7-9224-62e98193b972
@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, Maj...@centurytel.net says...

WWII.

[Bill]

In article <6f29552c-88ba-41b4-b2a3-d431189914b3
@qs4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Maj...@centurytel.net says...

Yeah right.

The steppes of Western Russia are littered with the bodies of Germans
who thought that as well.

[jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message
news:RdidneiMVe1LflnS...@supernews.com...

>
>
> When the country is genuinely threatened there will be no shortage of
> volunteers for defense...the *real* patriots (not benefit seeking
> mercenaries)

We don't seem to have a shortage of volunteers.

Genuinely threatened? So the rest of the world can just
burn to the ground for all you care, is that right? Unless
we're directly attacked? Don't you think what happens
around the world effects our way of life too?

>
> Oh...you don't know what anti-war means...

s

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

And so? Then you complain when tat happens for tit....
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai

[Daryl]

I Was a Pro. 20+ years of service. But I am still anti-war and
always will be. Wars are to be prevented by whatever methods
possible. Even if it means fighting a War to prevent the larger
war. But Deterrence works normally unless your enemy is a
Religious Nutcase. In that case, you already have war declared
on you and you take to them. Pakistan should be NEXT on the list
of countries to take it to them. Imagine the problems that would
go away if that were to happen.

The problem is, Pakistan plays both ends against the middle. And
they think they have no possibility of invasion to get at the bad
guys. The War on Terror is not a one sided affair where the Bad
Guys are waging war any way they can while we are not fighting
the war anymore. Afganistan should have been a very strong
message that somehow went very badly wrong.



--

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Daryl wrote:

>>>> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>>>> roger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a military veteran it is your obligation to inspire others to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And mention the millions of innocent people murdered by *unnecessary*
>>>>> military adventures
>>>>> (Iraq,Afghan,Vietnam,Granada,Panama,Nicaragua,...).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Teach and inspire the young boys to become anti-war...the right
>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> definition: murder - the immoral killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS
>
>

> I am still anti-war and always will be.

No, son, anti-war does not mean "I hope they capitulate to our demands so
we don't have to kill them". You have twisted your brain.

> Wars are to be prevented by whatever methods possible. Even
> if it means fighting a War to prevent the larger war. But Deterrence
> works normally unless your enemy is a Religious Nutcase. In that case,
> you already have war declared on you and you take to them.

Son, we took it to them FIRST...we Americans are in THEIR land, and
have been there for decades; they are not in our land...WE started the wars
and have been killing their people for decades. WE are the guilty party
who attacked them FIRST.

Your "deterrence" is to kill whoever does not bow to
our demands in THEIR country.

> Pakistan
> should be NEXT on the list of countries to take it to them. Imagine the
> problems that would go away if that were to happen.
>
> The problem is, Pakistan plays both ends against the middle. And they
> think they have no possibility of invasion to get at the bad guys. The
> War on Terror is not a one sided affair where the Bad Guys are waging
> war any way they can while we are not fighting the war anymore.
> Afganistan should have been a very strong message that somehow went very
> badly wrong.

And again, mr. nutcase, you advocate killing in yet another country
HALFWAY around the world, as if the U.S. is an innocent party and
how dare those people defend themselves.

anti-war my ass...you are lying to yourself, son
;-)

[dino]

In article <MPG.2a2eee12d...@news.eternal-september.org>, Bill says...

>
>In article <0MKdncSBa-eJTVnS...@supernews.com>, willshak@
>00hvc.rr.com says...
>>
>> Daryl wrote the following on 5/29/2012 7:56 AM (ET):
>
>> > Everyone should be anti-war. That keeps the wars to a bare minimum.
>> > But when someone needs to be fought, then let it be by the anti-war
>> > boys. The Pro-war Boys will savor in it and do it again and again. The
>> > Anti-War Boys will do it once and go back to whatever they were doing
>> > before the war.
>>
>> So, you are for the draft?
>> How do you train the anti-war boys to fight. They certainly are not
>> going to enlist.
>
>Ask the men who fought WWII.
>
>The men of every conscript army in the world just want to kill their
>enemies and go home.
>
>But they need a cause worth fighting for.

Bullshit! They fight for their comrades and their survival.

[Andrew Swallow]

That is what professional soldiers fight for.

The families of conscripts to a 'cause that they do not believe in'
organise anti-war demonstrations and tell their sons how to avoid the draft.

Andrew Swallow

[dino]

In article <JrWdnYL4sZsyClTS...@bt.com>, Andrew Swallow says...

>
>On 01/06/2012 03:50, dino wrote:
>>In article<MPG.2a2eee12d...@news.eternal-september.org>, Bill says...
>>>
>>> In article<0MKdncSBa-eJTVnS...@supernews.com>, willshak@
>>> 00hvc.rr.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Daryl wrote the following on 5/29/2012 7:56 AM (ET):
>>>
>>>>> Everyone should be anti-war. That keeps the wars to a bare minimum.
>>>>> But when someone needs to be fought, then let it be by the anti-war
>>>>> boys. The Pro-war Boys will savor in it and do it again and again. The
>>>>> Anti-War Boys will do it once and go back to whatever they were doing
>>>>> before the war.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are for the draft?
>>>> How do you train the anti-war boys to fight. They certainly are not
>>>> going to enlist.
>>>
>>> Ask the men who fought WWII.
>>>
>>> The men of every conscript army in the world just want to kill their
>>> enemies and go home.
>>>
>>> But they need a cause worth fighting for.
>>
>> Bullshit! They fight for their
>> comrades and their survival.
>>
>That is what professional soldiers
>fight for.

True. Drawing from my combat experience in Vietnam, there was absolutely no way
that I could tell whether my comrades volunteered or was drafted unless I asked
them. The old wives tale about drafted combatants being somehow inferior to
'professional' combatants is simply a myth, judging from my experience.

>The families of conscripts to a 'cause
>that they do not believe in' organise
>anti-war demonstrations and tell their

>ons how to avoid the draft.

Your opinion is based upon what? I was a volunteer but I became anti-war based
upon empirical knowledge. While some draft dodgers were sincere, many were
simply cowards.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op 2 Jun 2012 04:34:05 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:


>The old wives tale about drafted combatants being somehow inferior to
>'professional' combatants is simply a myth, judging from my experience.

If they were most wars would be lost before they are begun.

Eugene L Griessel

Adroitness, concupiscence, and perspicacity are the epitome of
savoir-faire. -- Spam

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

dino wrote:
>
> I was a volunteer but I became anti-war based
> upon empirical knowledge. While some draft dodgers were sincere, many were
> simply cowards.

You have no way of knowing how many were cowards, and you are wrong
for painting with a broad brush. More likely, the vast majority
had reasoned, correctly as you now agree, that the war was immoral.

It is the coward who takes the easy road of conformity, afraid to
stand up, and then finds himself trapped killing innocent people.

Society brainwashes boys into thinking they *must* prove themselves
by combat...*the* rite of passage to manhood. Nonsense.

It is a brave man who openly defies unjust authority.
;-)

[Dai Uy]

On Jun 2, 4:21 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>
wrote:

> You have no way of knowing how many were cowards, and you are wrong
> for painting with a broad brush.  More likely, the vast majority
> had reasoned, correctly as you now agree, that the war was immoral.

Actually, there is a way to determine how many were cowards.

Just look at the number of supporters of the anti-war movement
when there was a draft, compared to the few remaining after the draft
ended.

Anti-war protests included thousands of participants right up to
the time that the threat of having to serve was removed. Once the
draft was ended, the majority, who we can safely say were simply
cowards, no longer cared one way or the other. Their sincerely held
beliefs that the war was immoral evaporated along with their chance of
having to serve.

Your views may differ, but I'd like to hear your explanation as
to why the anti-war movement imploded when the draft ended.

***

[Richard Casady]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:23:45 -0700 (PDT), Dai Uy <Dai...@Hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:

The anti-war movement disappeared when its aims were achieved.The war
was ending, at least for the US, when the draft ended.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Dai Uy wrote:
> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:

>> dino wrote:
>>>
>>> I was a volunteer but I became anti-war based
>>> upon empirical knowledge. While some draft dodgers were sincere, many were
>>> simply cowards.
>>

>>You have no way of knowing how many were cowards, and you are wrong
>>for painting with a broad brush. More likely, the vast majority
>>had reasoned, correctly as you now agree, that the war was immoral.
>
>
> Actually, there is a way to determine how many were cowards.
> Just look at the number of supporters of the anti-war movement
> when there was a draft,

Son, there were millions of people who were not eligible for the
draft who were in the anti-war movement. Your logic is *extremely* goofy.

I suspect that after 1973 many knew the war was winding down...Paris
Peace Accords...U.S. combat troops officially out...draft ended...etc.

Even so, after 1973 *millions* of Americans (not your "few") were in
the anti-war camp...as evidenced by the end of the war.

A better question for your unhealed psyche is where were the "patriot"
volunteers, were they cowards (I say yes)? Or why was it necessary
to force young American men to fight in little Vietnam...why weren't
there enough "South" Vietnamese men *and* women to defend this phoney
little country? Few "patriots" there too, eh?

Put simply, you (Tom Rau) got fucked and don't care who you blame for it.
;-)

[red...@lava.net]

True enough Doc for the civies. But there are very good statistics
for GI resisters. In 1971, seven of every 100 soldiers in the U.S.
Army deserted, while another seventeen of every 100 went AWOL
(desertion is being defined as AWOL for thirty days or more). In real
numbers this translated into 98,059 deserters in the Army in 1971,
most of whom (around 67 percent), came from the lowest ranks, E-1s and
E-2s. Further, most desertions and AWOLs took place not in Vietnam (an
estimated 3 percent) but stateside (around 88 percent), for the simple
reason that there were very few places for GIs to hide in Vietnam
(see: Bell, D. Bruce and Bell, Beverly W., "Desertion and Antiwar
Protest: Findings from the Ford Clemency Program," 'Armed Forces and
Society,' May 1977 pg.435; Gabriel, Richard A. and Savage, Paul L.,
"Crisis in Command: Mismanagement in the Army" p. 181, table 1 - New
York: Hill and Wang, 1978)
GIs in the Vietnam War deserted for very different reasons. For some
it was a political stand against the war and the U.S., and these
soldiers deserted to take part in the antiwar movement in the U.S. and
Europe. For others it was simply a desire not to get killed in
Vietnam; this was an especially prevalent sentiment after major troop
reductions began in 1970. Probably the bulk of the deserters could at
least agree on the FTA/FTW orientation - Fuck the Army/Fuck the War.
The military eventually had to establish no less than nine "personnel
control facilities" on bases from New Jersey to California solely to
house deserters and AWOLs.
But to understand the full import of this phenomenon, other figures
must be added. In 1944, during World War 2, the U.S. Army's desertion
rate was nearly as high as in 1971: 6.3 percent. (Further, the highest
desertion rate to date in the Marine Corps occurred in 1975 - 10.5
percent, and that in the Navy in 1976 - 2.4 percent, both after U.S.
forces were out of Vietnam). While the real figures in Vietnam would
undoubtedly have been higher if the army had not instituted the
practice of charging many deserters with only being AWOL, it is very
misleading to look only at figures from various and times when
analyzing a military's morale and support for a war. More important is
to examine the quality of the desertions by asking the question: what
would it have taken to get the soldiers "back into the fold". In World
War 2 the desertion rate mainly reflected war weariness in general,
while in Vietnam it reflected much more profound opposition to the war
itself, and simple soldiers looking to save their own hides. This is
revealed in the fact that desertion was often the strategy of choice
among the most politically advanced GIs and sailors and in the fact
that many of the troops deserted after returning from Vietnam, not
before going there.

- redvet

[Dai Uy]

On Jun 4, 2:44 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>
wrote:

> Son, there were millions of people who were not eligible for the
> draft who were in the anti-war movement.  Your logic is *extremely* goofy.

So, you with the phony name, phony title, and phony address,
where did all those millions go when the draft ended?

Your phony anti-war movement was an anti-draft movement.

Those millions were simply concerned about themselves. They
didn't want themselves, or their precious darlings, to serve, and they
didn't want to spend another dime to protect some Asian -- they're not
their brother's keeper.

As for the moral outrage, where did that moral outrage go when
the communists murdered millions in Cambodia, and the Vietnamese and
Lao disappeared tens of thousands in reeducation camps and seminars?
Why didn't those millions march in support of Joan Baez's efforts to
bring attention to the communist excesses?

They couldn't care less about the war, morality, or anything
other than their comfortable existence. And, you know it. You've
got to live with your hypocritical cowardly self -- that must really
suck.

***