Clint Eastwood: "I'm a Libertarian"
Michael Zarlenga
-----------------------------------------
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
-----------------------------------------
For release: February 18, 1997
-----------------------------------------
For additional information:
George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
-----------------------------------------
Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian"
WASHINGTON, DC -- Watch out liberals and conservatives -- Dirty
Harry is a libertarian.
That's what movie star Clint Eastwood announced this month in
Playboy magazine.
In an interview in the March issue, the Oscar-winning actor
and director candidly affiliated himself with the growing libertarian
movement when he was asked: "How would you characterize yourself poli-
tically?"
The laconic Eastwood answered, "Libertarian" -- and then went
on to explain the philosophy in simple terms: "Everyone leaves everyone
else alone."
He also took a swipe at the Republicans and Democrats, noting
that neither of those political parties "seems to have the ability to
embrace that sort of thing."
"Talk about making my day," said the Libertarian Party's
National Director, Perry Willis. "Having Clint Eastwood declare him-
self a libertarian is better than a fistful of dollars. We hope his
announcement will have a sudden impact on the public's awareness of the
libertarian philosophy -- and the Libertarian Party, too."
However, voters shouldn't expect to see "Dirty Harry For
President" bumperstickers appearing soon; Eastwood flatly rejected a
career in politics. "Being a politician is about the last thing I'd
want to do," he said. "It's a lot of work and a lot of frustra-
tion."
But if the star of the new movie "Absolute Power" ever changes
his mind, Willis says he'd love to sit down and talk to him.
"If Mr. Eastwood ever decides to join the Libertarian Party or
seek public office on our ticket, we'd be happy to discuss with him how
that could advance the cause of liberty in America," he said. "Until
that time, however, we're delighted that he's on our side philosophi-
cally."
The 66-year-old Eastwood has been an increasingly outspoken
critic of government abuse in recent months -- echoing the Libertarian
Party's criticisms of the federal government's role in the bloodbath at
Waco, Texas, and the shooting of Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge,
Idaho.
In an essay he wrote for the January 12, 1997 issue of Parade
Magazine, Eastwood noted: "Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in
other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant."
For example, he wrote: "At Waco, was there really an urgency to
get those people out of the compound at that particular time? Was the
press going to make it look heroic for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms? At Ruby Ridge, there was one guy in a cabin at the top of
the mountain. Was it necessary for federal agents to go up there and
shoot a 14-year-old in the back and shoot a woman with a child in her
arms? What kind of mentality does that?"
And Eastwood displayed a keen cynicism about the lure of
political power. "Those in power get jaded, deluded, and seduced by
power itself," he wrote. "The hunger for absolute power and, more to
the point, the abuse of power, are part of human nature."
Eastwood joins a growing number of individuals in the
entertainment industry who have identified themselves as libertarians.
Included on that list are TV star John Laroquette, humorist Dave Barry,
author P.J. O'Rourke, movie actor Russell Means, magician Jillette
Penn, author Camille Paglia, TV reporter John Stossell, and comedian
Dennis Miller.
Since 1954, Eastwood has appeared in dozens of movies and
become one of the leading box office draws in the world. His films
include "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964), "Dirty Harry" (1971),"Any
Which Way You Can" (1980), "In the Line of Fire" (1993), and "The
Bridges of Madison County" (1995). His 1992 Wester"n Unforgiven"
earned him Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director. His one foray
into politics was as mayor of Carmel, California, from 1986-1988.
--
Dean, Greg
"moderates" are being attracted to the Libertarians. As we
move towards a five party system, with the Libertarians the
strongest third party, we see many move into other parties.
These individuals have already moved away from the two
major parties by not voting.
doid
hardcore moderate!
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote in article
<73fgkk$p10$1...@paperboy.ids.net>...
Eric, da Red
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>
> Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian"
>
> WASHINGTON, DC -- Watch out liberals and conservatives -- Dirty
> Harry is a libertarian.
Does this mean that Art Bell is off the ticket in 2000?
...
> The laconic Eastwood answered, "Libertarian" -- and then went
> on to explain the philosophy in simple terms: "Everyone leaves everyone
> else alone."
If I had big piles of money and a home in Carmel, I might have this
philosophy too.
...
--
Usenet Metaphysical Insight Of The Week:
"The Holy Spirit DOES have a personal name. You know, Holy Spirit."
Crash
on Tue, 24 Nov 1998 "Dean, Greg" wrote:
about: Re: Clint Eastwood: "I'm a Libertarian"
>This seems to mark an increasing trend. Those who we call
>"moderates" are being attracted to the Libertarians. As we
>move towards a five party system, with the Libertarians the
>strongest third party, we see many move into other parties.
>These individuals have already moved away from the two
>major parties by not voting.
>> "Talk about making my day," said the Libertarian Party's
There is good reason to be pissed off at the two Parties.
But don't kick up your heels yet.
Eastwood said "libertarian" not "Libertarian".
Big difference.
"Libertarians" are just too kooky, and they sure as
hell do NOT "leave everyone else alone". What? Eastwood
vote for child labor and child prostitution, McDonald's
and condos in Yosemite?? Legalizing pollution?
I don't think so.
You call that "leaving everyone else alone?"
Clint Eastwood is no Rick Boy's bootlick.
>> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
>> In an interview in the March issue, the Oscar-winning actor
>> and director candidly affiliated himself with the growing libertarian
>> movement when he was asked: "How would you characterize yourself poli-
>> tically?"
>>
>> The laconic Eastwood answered, "Libertarian" -- and then went
>> on to explain the philosophy in simple terms: "Everyone leaves everyone
>> else alone."
>>
enrique
>
> In article <73fgkk$p10$1...@paperboy.ids.net>,
> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> >
> > Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian"
> >
> >
also while they played hero roles for big bucks. I think you are
confusing movie stars with real life heroes.
Tom Wootton
On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, enrique wrote:
> > >
> John Wayne, Ronald Reagan and Charleton Heston were all draft dodgers
> also while they played hero roles for big bucks. I think you are
> confusing movie stars with real life heroes.
>
Completely untrue. Wayne had a deferment because of his age and the fact
that he was the father of two children at the time. Ronald Reagan and
Charlton Heston both served on active duty in the armed forces.
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
and kill him."
----Mark Twain
TOMofSNJ
<Pine.OSF.3.95.98120...@cheetah.it.wsu.edu>...
> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, enrique wrote:
> > John Wayne, Ronald Reagan and Charleton Heston were all draft dodgers
> > also while they played hero roles for big bucks. I think you are
> > confusing movie stars with real life heroes.
> >
>
> Completely untrue. Wayne had a deferment because of his age and the
fact
> that he was the father of two children at the time. Ronald Reagan and
> Charlton Heston both served on active duty in the armed forces.
Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
the military at the time.
Dean, Greg
>> > John Wayne, Ronald Reagan and Charleton Heston were all draft dodgers
>> > also while they played hero roles for big bucks. I think you are
>> > confusing movie stars with real life heroes.
>> >
>>
>> Completely untrue. Wayne had a deferment because of his age and the
>>fact that he was the father of two children at the time. Ronald Reagan
and
>> Charlton Heston both served on active duty in the armed forces.
>
>Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
>the military at the time.
>
No, Reagan was an Army officer. Remember, just because you
do serve in the military does not mean you are automatically in
combat. Lots of guys who went to Vietnam only got as far as
Saigon. There are usually 14 men in support roles for every gunt
on the front line.
Tom Wootton
On 8 Dec 1998, TOMofSNJ wrote:
>
> Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
> the military at the time.
Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
films.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On 8 Dec 1998, TOMofSNJ wrote:
: >
: > Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
: > the military at the time.
: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
: films.
I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
--
Buddy K
Reagan told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on November 29, 1983
that he had photographed Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when
he had actually never left the country. Source: Lou Cannon, President
Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), pp.
486-490.
pa...@nospam.hsh.com
: Tom Wootton (tw...@mail.wsu.edu) wrote:
:: On 8 Dec 1998, TOMofSNJ wrote:
:: >
:: > Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
:: > the military at the time.
:: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
:: films.
: I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
If only someone could liberate your mind from its straitjacket,
Henry.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann,
who regrets the need to remove 'nospam' to reply by email.
"See, it's not the coffee that's the problem for me, it's those
damned styrofoam cups. Other people look at me strange the first
time they see me finish one off, but I say, if you're going to
enjoy a cup of coffee, you might as well get the whole
experience."
-- <c...@zipcon.net>
SemiScholar
sez:
>>
>> Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
>> the military at the time.
>
>
>Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
>films.
Including those films he made of the liberation of concentration
camps?
----------------
SemiScholar
"Don't sweat the petty things,
and don't pet the sweaty things."
Dean, Greg
>>: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
>>: films.
>
>The California Vegetable was active screwing Hollywood sluts like
>Nancy Davis while others were defending their country.
>
>Another GOP Chicken hawk joins the flock!
>
>>I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
>
Just because one is in the military does not mean that one
is on the front lines. Many Vietnam Vets never stepped one
foot outside of Saigon. Most black soldiers during WW2 just
drove trucks and worked as laborers even though in the Army.
On average, it takes 14 support troops for every combat troop.
That includes those working in Hollywood.
Zepp
>On 8 Dec 1998 19:18:56 GMT, hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK
>JR.) wrote:
>
>>Tom Wootton (tw...@mail.wsu.edu) wrote:
>
>>: On 8 Dec 1998, TOMofSNJ wrote:
>>
>>: >
>>: > Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
>>: > the military at the time.
>>
>>
>>: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
>>: films.
>
>The California Vegetable was active screwing Hollywood sluts like
>Nancy Davis while others were defending their country.
Reagan was who Lord Haw Haw had in mind when he broadcast to American
troops that their wives and daughters were sleeping around while they
wallowed about in European mud.
>
>Another GOP Chicken hawk joins the flock!
>
>>I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
>
>He forgot about that too.
Don't forget the dying bombadier story that Reagan once told to
astonished reporters. It's very touching.
>
> Jim
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>========================================================================
>"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the murkier
>grayness of the real world, choices must often be made."
>
> --Henry Hyde (Hypocrite-Ill), 1987
>========================================================================
-------------------------------------------
"Impeach Klinton.... and his little dog too!!!"
-- Tommy Tillman, with a singular explanation of why
it could possibly be a witchhunt.
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat,
'cos a ferret has merit!
-----------------------------------------------------
Tom Wootton
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Dean, Greg wrote:
>Re: Ronald Reagan in the military
> Just because one is in the military does not mean that one
> is on the front lines. Many Vietnam Vets never stepped one
> foot outside of Saigon. Most black soldiers during WW2 just
> drove trucks and worked as laborers even though in the Army.
>
> On average, it takes 14 support troops for every combat troop.
> That includes those working in Hollywood.
I am not aware of the ratio between support and combat troops, but it
sounds plausible.
Reagan's stint in the United States Army was varied, but it did not
involve a combat assignment.
Entering service as 2nd Liutenant in the United States Army reserve in
April 1942, he served as Liaison Officer of the Port and Transportation
Office at the Fort Mason, CA Port of Embarkation.
He transfered to the Army Air Corps in June and assigned to the AAC Public
Relations office in Burbank, CA. He worked in the Motion Picture unit of
that office and was promoted 1st Lieutenant in January 1943. He narrated
and assisted in the production of no fewer than 400 training films as well
as participating in large scale Hollywood projects made under the auspices
of the U.S. War Department. Probably the best known project in which he
worked while on active duty was "This is the Army".
He participated in War loan Drives, performed duties at the
18th AAF Base Unit at Culver city as Personnel Officer, Post Adjutant,
Executive Officer, and finally, Commanding Officer. received promotion to
Captain and was separated from active duty, after the war ended, in
December 1945.
All in all, Reagan's military career makes him look like Audie Murphy when
compared with Clinton.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: In alt.politics.clinton HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. <hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu> sez:
: : Tom Wootton (tw...@mail.wsu.edu) wrote:
: :: On 8 Dec 1998, TOMofSNJ wrote:
: :: >
: :: > Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
: :: > the military at the time.
: :: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
: :: films.
: : I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
: If only someone could liberate your mind from its straitjacket,
: Henry.
Why did you cut my "sig?" Are you denying the story is accurate? Do you
want to argue it, or just whine because I posted it? Does it bother you
because the public accepted a "different reality" from Ronnie and may be
applying the same standard to Clinton? Here it is again:
Reagan told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on November 29, 1983
that he had photographed Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when
he had never left the country. Source: Lou Cannon, President Reagan:
The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), pp. 486-490.
--
Buddy K
"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the murkier
grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: >>
: >>: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made the
: >>: films.
: >
: >The California Vegetable was active screwing Hollywood sluts like
: >Nancy Davis while others were defending their country.
: >Another GOP Chicken hawk joins the flock!
: >
: >>I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
: >
: Just because one is in the military does not mean that one
: is on the front lines. Many Vietnam Vets never stepped one
: foot outside of Saigon. Most black soldiers during WW2 just
: drove trucks and worked as laborers even though in the Army.
: On average, it takes 14 support troops for every combat troop.
: That includes those working in Hollywood.
But here's what he said about his service:
Reagan told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on November 29, 1983
that he had photographed Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when
he actually had never left the country. Source: Lou Cannon, President
Linus Zimmerman
protestor". Because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, in WWII Henry
Koward would have been taken out and shot. Henry's butt was more valuable
than dummies who couldn't get a college deferment so Henry had to be saved
to make his valuable contribution to humanity.
Henry K's name should be chiseled into a stone wall along with others for
all the world to see.
LZ
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74mr7i$6...@portal.gmu.edu>...
Linus Zimmerman
Andrew Hall wrote in message ...
>>>>>> Tom Wootton writes:
>
> Tom> All in all, Reagan's military career makes him look like Audie
Murphy when
> Tom> compared with Clinton.
>
>Reagan and Murphy supported and aided a cause they felt
>just. So did Clinton. What is the difference?
>
The difference El Stupido, is that if Clinton had carried that sign and
protested against the U.S. in a foreign country during WWII he would have
been charged with treason and (Hopefully) shot.
Lz
>ah
>(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74n6lk$b...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>
>: Andrew Hall wrote in message ...
>: >>>>>> Tom Wootton writes:
>: >
>: > Tom> All in all, Reagan's military career makes him look like Audie
>: Murphy when
>: > Tom> compared with Clinton.
>: >
>: >Reagan and Murphy supported and aided a cause they felt
>: >just. So did Clinton. What is the difference?
>: >
>: The difference El Stupido, is that if Clinton had carried that sign and
>: protested against the U.S. in a foreign country during WWII he would have
>: been charged with treason and (Hopefully) shot.
>
>Resolution are the same thing?
>
>Makes me wonder why you rightwing nuts are so adamantly opposed to
>Congressional censure of Clinton if you think a resolution is such a big
>deal it could be used as a means to justify a treason conviction.
>
>Of course, Herr Zimmerman apparently knows nothing of the views of the
>isolationists, such as Henry Ford, who protested getting into the war
>before a declaration of war was issued by Congress.
>
>-Did we have several hundred thousand Americans committed to battle and
dying when he registered his protest?
Hell no! You may be surprised as to how much history I know buttly.
However I do not have to stretch to find an analogy to cover my ass and that
of Coward Clinton as you do.
LZ
>Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Buddy is the REAL hero of the Vietnam war. He was a "sign carrying
: protestor". Because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, in WWII Henry
: Koward would have been taken out and shot.
Stop whining. WWII was a declared war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
wasn't exactly a declaration of war.
: Henry's butt was more valuable
: than dummies who couldn't get a college deferment so Henry had to be saved
: to make his valuable contribution to humanity.
My butt was at least as valuable as Limbaugh's, Quayles, Noot's,
Buchanan's, Lott's, Engler's, and all the rest of the chickenhawk's butts.
: Henry K's name should be chiseled into a stone wall along with others for
: all the world to see.
Herr Zimmerman's name should be chiseled up there with all the
totalitarians who don't believe in the 1st Amendment and all the
chickenhawks he supports because they "believed" in something they
weren't willing to fight for.
--
Buddy K
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74mr7i$6...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >Dean, Greg (N9...@GTE.net) wrote:
: >: >>
: >: >>: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made
: the
: >: >>: films.
: >: >
: >: >The California Vegetable was active screwing Hollywood sluts like
: >: >Nancy Davis while others were defending their country.
: >: >
: >: >Another GOP Chicken hawk joins the flock!
: >: >
: >: >>I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
: >: >
: >
: >
: >: Just because one is in the military does not mean that one
: >: is on the front lines. Many Vietnam Vets never stepped one
: >: foot outside of Saigon. Most black soldiers during WW2 just
: >: drove trucks and worked as laborers even though in the Army.
: >
: >: On average, it takes 14 support troops for every combat troop.
: >: That includes those working in Hollywood.
: >
: >But here's what he said about his service:
: >
: >Reagan told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on November 29, 1983
: >that he had photographed Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when
: >he actually had never left the country. Source: Lou Cannon, President
: >Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), pp.
: >486-490.
: >
: >--
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Andrew Hall wrote in message ...
: >>>>>> Tom Wootton writes:
: >
: > Tom> All in all, Reagan's military career makes him look like Audie
: Murphy when
: > Tom> compared with Clinton.
: >
: >Reagan and Murphy supported and aided a cause they felt
: >just. So did Clinton. What is the difference?
: >
: The difference El Stupido, is that if Clinton had carried that sign and
: protested against the U.S. in a foreign country during WWII he would have
: been charged with treason and (Hopefully) shot.
So an official declaration of war from Congress and the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution are the same thing?
Makes me wonder why you rightwing nuts are so adamantly opposed to
Congressional censure of Clinton if you think a resolution is such a big
deal it could be used as a means to justify a treason conviction.
Of course, Herr Zimmerman apparently knows nothing of the views of the
isolationists, such as Henry Ford, who protested getting into the war
before a declaration of war was issued by Congress.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74n6lk$b...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Andrew Hall wrote in message ...
: >: >>>>>> Tom Wootton writes:
: >: >
: >: > Tom> All in all, Reagan's military career makes him look like Audie
: >: Murphy when
: >: > Tom> compared with Clinton.
: >: >
: >: >Reagan and Murphy supported and aided a cause they felt
: >: >just. So did Clinton. What is the difference?
: >: >
: >: The difference El Stupido, is that if Clinton had carried that sign and
: >: protested against the U.S. in a foreign country during WWII he would have
: >: been charged with treason and (Hopefully) shot.
: >
: >So an official declaration of war from Congress and the Tonkin Gulf
: >Resolution are the same thing?
: >
: >Makes me wonder why you rightwing nuts are so adamantly opposed to
: >Congressional censure of Clinton if you think a resolution is such a big
: >deal it could be used as a means to justify a treason conviction.
: >
: >Of course, Herr Zimmerman apparently knows nothing of the views of the
: >isolationists, such as Henry Ford, who protested getting into the war
: >before a declaration of war was issued by Congress.
: >
: >-Did we have several hundred thousand Americans committed to battle and
: dying when he registered his protest?
: Hell no! You may be surprised as to how much history I know buttly.
You don't seem to know much.
: However I do not have to stretch to find an analogy to cover my ass and that
: of Coward Clinton as you do.
You sure do if you think a declaration of war and a Congressional
resolution are the same.
--
Buddy K
: LZ
: >Buddy K
: >
: >
: >
Zepp
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>Buddy is the REAL hero of the Vietnam war. He was a "sign carrying
>protestor". Because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, in WWII Henry
>Koward would have been taken out and shot. Henry's butt was more valuable
>than dummies who couldn't get a college deferment so Henry had to be saved
>to make his valuable contribution to humanity.
>
>Henry K's name should be chiseled into a stone wall along with others for
>all the world to see.
Perhaps someday it will be. You see, some of us think it's more moral
not to kill, even though Johnson or Nixon wanted us to.
>LZ
>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74mr7i$6...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>>Dean, Greg (N9...@GTE.net) wrote:
>>: >>
>>: >>: Reagan was on active duty in the U.S. Army Signal Corps when he made
>the
>>: >>: films.
>>: >
>>: >The California Vegetable was active screwing Hollywood sluts like
>>: >Nancy Davis while others were defending their country.
>>: >
>>: >Another GOP Chicken hawk joins the flock!
>>: >
>>: >>I thought Ronnie was busy liberating the concentration camps.
>>: >
>>
>>
>>: Just because one is in the military does not mean that one
>>: is on the front lines. Many Vietnam Vets never stepped one
>>: foot outside of Saigon. Most black soldiers during WW2 just
>>: drove trucks and worked as laborers even though in the Army.
>>
>>: On average, it takes 14 support troops for every combat troop.
>>: That includes those working in Hollywood.
>>
>>But here's what he said about his service:
>>
>>Reagan told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on November 29, 1983
>>that he had photographed Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when
>>he actually had never left the country. Source: Lou Cannon, President
>>Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), pp.
>>486-490.
>>
>>--
>>Buddy K
>>
>>"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the murkier
>>grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
>>
>>--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------------------------------------
gdy52150
ok tell us what you would do to the corporate whores that supported
Hitler throughout the war, that includes Ford, Gm, CHase, Standard
Oil,ITT, RCA and a host of others.
>However I do not have to stretch to find an analogy to cover my ass and that
>of Coward Clinton as you do.
>LZ
>>Buddy K
>>
>>Reagan told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on November 29, 1983
>>that he had photographed Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when
>>he actually had never left the country. Source: Lou Cannon, President
>>Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), pp.
>>486-490.
>>
>>
>>
>
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Tom Wootton
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
> ok tell us what you would do to the corporate whores that supported
> Hitler throughout the war, that includes Ford, Gm, CHase, Standard
> Oil,ITT, RCA and a host of others.
Although I take it for granted that American corporations had
dealings with German businesses up to 11 December 1941, when Germany
declared war on America (Soviet Russia and Germany were still trading,
right up to the Nazi invasion of Russia on 22 June of that year), I'm not
aware of any data supporting such a claim as this one here.
Tom Wootton
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Andrew Hall wrote:
> Do you imagine that the Constitution was suspended during
> WWII? Clearly you support suspending the Constitution.
I know the always estimable Andrew was respondint to Linus and not to me
(see sometimes I CAN get attributes right!), but I'll respond to some of
Andrew's questions.
To the first question: yes. When Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive
order 9066 on 19 Febrary 1942, the act presaged a forced internment of
more than a hundred thousand American citizens of Japanese descent into
captivity, violating their Constitutional rights against Habeus Corpus and
loss of property without compensation.
I will not comment on Linus' inclination to suspending the constitution.
As far as protesting government policy was concerned, I know of no
substantive pro-Nazi, pro-Fascist, or pro-Japanese militarist public
demonstrations in America during World War II, so the point may be moot.
No one argues, or should argue, that Americans who protested the Vietnam
war were acting in excess of what was permitted under their constitutional
rights. Rather, it is more to the point to ask if the exercise of their
rights under these conditions was wise and moral: despite their manifest
detestation of goverment policy, might it not be deemed reasonable that
their activities might encourage the forces engaged in battle against our
own troops?
Frank Pittel
: Tom Wootton <tw...@mail.wsu.edu> wrote in article
: <Pine.OSF.3.95.98120...@cheetah.it.wsu.edu>...
: > On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, enrique wrote:
: > > John Wayne, Ronald Reagan and Charleton Heston were all draft dodgers
: > > also while they played hero roles for big bucks. I think you are
: > > confusing movie stars with real life heroes.
: > >
: >
: > Completely untrue. Wayne had a deferment because of his age and the
: fact
: > that he was the father of two children at the time. Ronald Reagan and
: Reagan made training films during W.W.II and I do not believe he was in
: the military at the time.
You believe wrong. He was serving in the military at the time.
: >
: > Tom Wootton
: >
: > "I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
: > take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet
: place
: > and kill him."
: >
: > ----Mark Twain
: >
: >
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
lighton...@hotmail.com
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------
> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
> Washington DC 20037
> -----------------------------------------
> For release: February 18, 1997
> -----------------------------------------
> For additional information:
> George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications
> Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian"
>
I looked into this when in a fit of insecurity Libertarian Party members
began yelling long and loudly about Eastwood's statement.
Eastwood is not nor has never been a member of the Libertarian Party.
To all appearances Eastwood made a referance to the old classic definations
of libertarianisem. Eastwood in no way endorsed the Libertarian Party of
it's definition of libertarianisem.
This is just a variation of an old tactic of their's. Usualy they pick
someone from history, long dead and cannot dispute them, and declare that
person as "Libertarian". Then they take excerpts of that person's
writings or some quote that taken out of context gives the apeparance
of supporting or endorsing their own views.
--
Kevin O'Connell
Light on Liberty - The anti-Libertarian Party internet site.
http://members.tripod.com/~Kevin_OConnell
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gdy52150
wrote:
>
>
>
>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
>>
>> ok tell us what you would do to the corporate whores that supported
>> Hitler throughout the war, that includes Ford, Gm, CHase, Standard
>> Oil,ITT, RCA and a host of others.
>
>Although I take it for granted that American corporations had
>dealings with German businesses up to 11 December 1941, when Germany
>declared war on America (Soviet Russia and Germany were still trading,
>right up to the Nazi invasion of Russia on 22 June of that year), I'm not
>aware of any data supporting such a claim as this one here.
>
sorry you loose there is at least one book on the subject entitlted "
"Trading with the enemy" by Charles Higham.
You might want to point your browser to this site, it contains
fragments from the book.
http://home.pacbell.net/slamnan/helpinghitler.html
>Tom Wootton
>
>"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
>take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
>and kill him."
>
> ----Mark Twain
>
>
>
====================================================
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
: >
: > ok tell us what you would do to the corporate whores that supported
: > Hitler throughout the war, that includes Ford, Gm, CHase, Standard
: > Oil,ITT, RCA and a host of others.
: Although I take it for granted that American corporations had
: dealings with German businesses up to 11 December 1941, when Germany
: declared war on America (Soviet Russia and Germany were still trading,
: right up to the Nazi invasion of Russia on 22 June of that year), I'm not
: aware of any data supporting such a claim as this one here.
That's because they've taken great pains to conceal it. There was a front
page article in the Washington Post about it, particularly Ford, either
this week or last. You could probably find it in the archives of
www.washingtonpost.com.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Andrew Hall wrote:
: > Do you imagine that the Constitution was suspended during
: > WWII? Clearly you support suspending the Constitution.
: I know the always estimable Andrew was respondint to Linus and not to me
: (see sometimes I CAN get attributes right!), but I'll respond to some of
: Andrew's questions.
: To the first question: yes. When Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive
: order 9066 on 19 Febrary 1942, the act presaged a forced internment of
: more than a hundred thousand American citizens of Japanese descent into
: captivity, violating their Constitutional rights against Habeus Corpus and
: loss of property without compensation.
: I will not comment on Linus' inclination to suspending the constitution.
: As far as protesting government policy was concerned, I know of no
: substantive pro-Nazi, pro-Fascist, or pro-Japanese militarist public
: demonstrations in America during World War II, so the point may be moot.
: No one argues, or should argue, that Americans who protested the Vietnam
: war were acting in excess of what was permitted under their constitutional
: rights.
Linus does make that argument.
: Rather, it is more to the point to ask if the exercise of their
: rights under these conditions was wise and moral: despite their manifest
: detestation of goverment policy, might it not be deemed reasonable that
: their activities might encourage the forces engaged in battle against our
: own troops?
If they believed it was not wise or moral to be in Vietnam, should people
simply have kept their mouths shut and followed along like sheep? Don't
people have an obligation to speak out against what they believe is
immoral and unwise?
--
Buddy K
Linus Zimmerman
Where did I say suspend the Constitution?
Buddy always points out that if we don't like things the way they are we
should use the ballot box.
He's trying to justify being a moral and physical coward by being a
sign-carrying protestor instead of serving his country in some useful
capacity.
Those who served first and then protested have my respect. Those who were
opposed and served in a non-combat capacity likewise. Even if Buddy had
marched off to jail and served a term for draft-dodging he would get some
reluctant respect. Those who protested without doing any of the above were
mostly interested in demoralizing the troops and making sure the public
didn't support them. They have my contempt.
LZ
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74rcoq$l...@portal.gmu.edu>...
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: As per usual Buddy can only make a case by twisting words or meanings.
: Where did I say suspend the Constitution?
I didn't say you did - it appears to be Tom Wootton who did & it's hazy as
to whether he is leveling an accusation or accepting Andrew Hall's. You
should get your attributes straight. However, the statement appears to be
accurate. You obviously don't believe in 1st Amendment rights for those
you disagree with.
: Buddy always points out that if we don't like things the way they are we
: should use the ballot box.
Yes. And then stop bawling if you lose.
: He's trying to justify being a moral and physical coward by being a
: sign-carrying protestor instead of serving his country in some useful
: capacity.
That was useful. And one hell of a lot more useful than what your
chickenhawk conservatives did.
: Those who served first and then protested have my respect. Those who were
: opposed and served in a non-combat capacity likewise. Even if Buddy had
: marched off to jail and served a term for draft-dodging he would get some
: reluctant respect. Those who protested without doing any of the above were
: mostly interested in demoralizing the troops and making sure the public
: didn't support them. They have my contempt.
Those who wholeheartedly supported the Vietnam war effort have my
contempt. Those who supported it but dodged it, refusing to put their own
asses on the line but expecting others to, have an extra measure of it. I
respect those who were torn over the events, but reluctantly went to war
for whatever personal reason they had.
--
Buddy K
"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the murkier
grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74rcoq$l...@portal.gmu.edu>...
Eric, da Red
Tom Wootton <tw...@mail.wsu.edu> wrote:
>I will not comment on Linus' inclination to suspending the constitution.
>As far as protesting government policy was concerned, I know of no
>substantive pro-Nazi, pro-Fascist, or pro-Japanese militarist public
>demonstrations in America during World War II, so the point may be moot.
>No one argues, or should argue, that Americans who protested the Vietnam
>war were acting in excess of what was permitted under their constitutional
>rights. Rather, it is more to the point to ask if the exercise of their
>rights under these conditions was wise and moral: despite their manifest
>detestation of goverment policy, might it not be deemed reasonable that
>their activities might encourage the forces engaged in battle against our
>own troops?
That depends entirely on the view of the war.
If one regarded the war as either immoral or just incredibly stupid,
then protesting the war was one of the most moral actions possible.
After all, most war protesters wanted to bring the troops home
immediately, which is the ultimate way to show support for them.
The so-called enemy may have drawn comfort from the actions of war
protesters, just as the enemy drew comfort from the use of US
stupidity by using it for propaganda purposes. Whether they drew
comfort is not the primary criterion by which the actions of war
protesters should be evaluated.
--
Quote Of The Week: "Libertarians are just a bunch of highschool algebra
teachers passing hot air about privatizing the side walks."
Larry Hewitt
Eric, da Red wrote in message <74rq7h$m12$1...@bigger.aa.net>...
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.981210...@cheetah.it.wsu.edu>,
>Tom Wootton <tw...@mail.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I will not comment on Linus' inclination to suspending the constitution.
>>As far as protesting government policy was concerned, I know of no
>>substantive pro-Nazi, pro-Fascist, or pro-Japanese militarist public
>>demonstrations in America during World War II, so the point may be moot.
>>No one argues, or should argue, that Americans who protested the Vietnam
>>war were acting in excess of what was permitted under their constitutional
>>rights. Rather, it is more to the point to ask if the exercise of their
>>rights under these conditions was wise and moral: despite their manifest
>>detestation of goverment policy, might it not be deemed reasonable that
>>their activities might encourage the forces engaged in battle against our
>>own troops?
>
>That depends entirely on the view of the war.
>
I woudn;t even grant this caveat. I cannot think of _any_ set of
circumstances that would justify even the voluntary suspension of an
American's constitutional rights. Exercsing those rights is each and every
citizen's _obligation_.
WE are not a monolithic society where we must all conform and accept
whatever our leaders dictate.
I do not buy the assertion that the public's discussion of differnces can
encourage or discourage an enemy. Far more relevant are teh actions taken by
our government. It was the White House's response to public discontent of a
vocal minorty ( and I will admit I was one of that minority) that fueled
Viet Nam's resistance.
Despite the right's rose covered glasses memory of histroy, there has been
public discontent during every war the US has fought. THe difference is the
government's response. For example, during WWII there were massive strikes
at defense plants. Now I can think of nothing that would eneregize an enemy
more than the crippling of defense production. Yet the Roosevelt admin
didn;t waffle and dither, then _fuel_ the opposition by using illegal
methods to respond to the demonstrations. Bith sides exercised their
constitutional responsibilities.
Larry
Tom Wootton
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
> sorry you loose there is at least one book on the subject entitlted "
> "Trading with the enemy" by Charles Higham.
> You might want to point your browser to this site, it contains
> fragments from the book.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/slamnan/helpinghitler.html
I thank gdy for the website reference. I checked it out, and even
stipulating every claim made on behalf of author Higham, none of the
citations refer to American corporations maintaining business contacts
with Nazi Germany AFTER the 11 December 1941 outbreak of war between the
United States and Germany. I will not comment on the putative moral
problems in dealing with the pre-war Nazi regime, except to note that it
was not exclusive to American corporations. As I noted in my original
post, Stalin's Soviet Union, otherwise Nazism's most deadly foe,
maintained business relations with Nazi Germany right up until the Nazi
invasion of Russia earlier in 1941.
Tom Wootton
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Frank Pittel wrote:
> TOMofSNJ (tomo...@aol.com) wrote:
<snip>
>>allegation that R. Reagan was not in the military
>
> You believe wrong. He was serving in the military at the time.
Frank is corredt. Although I erred in a previous post in stating that
Reagan served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps, which was responsible for the
production of wartime propaganda. Reagan actually served in the U.S. Army
Air Corps as a training film producer and narrator. He reached the rank
of Captain before being mustered out of active duty in 1945.
Tom Wootton
On 11 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>
> If they believed it was not wise or moral to be in Vietnam, should people
> simply have kept their mouths shut and followed along like sheep? Don't
> people have an obligation to speak out against what they believe is
> immoral and unwise?
>
> --
> Buddy K
They may have the right...but the existence of that right does not
automatically render the act wise or moral.
Linus Zimmerman
Larry Hewitt wrote in message <74rse7$261$1...@kitt.charm.net>...
Vietnam veterans as they returned and were shunned for obeying orders.
Also protests went a lot further than "peaceful". At the U of Minn they
wanted to destroy the ROTC building, at the U of Wis they blew up a lab and
killed a math researcher.
I know it's fashionable to wrap the protesters in a wreath of purity but
it's mostly bullshit. They were AFRAID: to face discomfort, to face the
enemy, to leave mommy and their girlfriend, to interrupt their precious
lives. Everything else is pure smoke and hokum. I'm not buying it. Very
few had a legitimate motive.
Tom Wootton
On 11 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
> Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
> : As per usual Buddy can only make a case by twisting words or meanings.
> : Where did I say suspend the Constitution?
>
> I didn't say you did - it appears to be Tom Wootton who did & it's hazy as
> to whether he is leveling an accusation or accepting Andrew Hall's. You
> should get your attributes straight. However, the statement appears to be
> accurate. You obviously don't believe in 1st Amendment rights for those
> you disagree with.
>
Not Guilty! Or rather, the only thing to which I plead guilty is noting
tha the Federal government did explicitly violate (or suspend)
constitutional protections during wartime. And I'm glad to see
I'm not the only one in this group having difficulty with attributions! :)
Tom Wootton
On 11 Dec 1998, Eric, da Red wrote:
<in another very good post>
>
> If one regarded the war as either immoral or just incredibly stupid,
> then protesting the war was one of the most moral actions possible.
> After all, most war protesters wanted to bring the troops home
> immediately, which is the ultimate way to show support for them.
>
> The so-called enemy may have drawn comfort from the actions of war
> protesters, just as the enemy drew comfort from the use of US
> stupidity by using it for propaganda purposes. Whether they drew
> comfort is not the primary criterion by which the actions of war
> protesters should be evaluated.
The "so-called" enemy was a bona fide one. They had real bullets,
real grenades, real mortars, real rockets, and real missiles, and expended
them liberally at U.S. forces. The legality or morality of the war was a
question of overwhelming divisiveness at the time, and although the
passage of time has permitted to to look with far more sanguinuity at the
sincerity of those protesting the war, it is still encumbant upon a
reasonable person to elavuate the "primary criterion" of war
protestors by consequences of their actions, not by their intent.
I stipulate, and agree, that the motives of Eric--and even Clinton, I
suppose--were entirely pure, and that what they wanted was good. Leaving
Clinton aside for a moment--whose disingenuousness about the consequences
of his protests was, in my opinion, eclipsed by the low regard with which
he stood by his principles when his political future was at stake--the
consistent flaw I beheld in the anti-war crowd--granted their best
possible intentions--was their egregious failure to see, or admit, what
"ending the war" really meant. I witnessed protest after protest, and
heard slogan after slogan during my time as a college student, and they
uniformly resonated with an "end the war!" theme. No one, among the
"mainstream" anti war protesters anyway, cared to give voice to the
obvious conclustion that ending the war on their terms would necessarily
entail a complete communist victory in Southeast Asia. The conclusion may
have been implied, but I never heard it admitted to. The New Left crowd,
and I saw a few of these too (but not as numerous) at least, was more
honest about their agenda: "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is gonna win!"
Linus Zimmerman
Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>On 11 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>
>> Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>> : As per usual Buddy can only make a case by twisting words or meanings.
>> : Where did I say suspend the Constitution?
>>
>> I didn't say you did - it appears to be Tom Wootton who did & it's hazy
as
>> to whether he is leveling an accusation or accepting Andrew Hall's. You
>> should get your attributes straight. However, the statement appears to
be
>> accurate. You obviously don't believe in 1st Amendment rights for those
>> you disagree with.
>>
disagree with but I THINK you are full of horsey poop. Why would I even
waste my valuable time here if I believed that?
Actually I didn't want the government involved. I was hoping the families
of those killed and wounded would do the shooting for everyone. So there.
>
>
>Not Guilty! Or rather, the only thing to which I plead guilty is noting
>tha the Federal government did explicitly violate (or suspend)
>constitutional protections during wartime. And I'm glad to see
>I'm not the only one in this group having difficulty with attributions! :)
>
Linus Zimmerman
Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>
><in another very good post>
>>
>> If one regarded the war as either immoral or just incredibly stupid,
>> then protesting the war was one of the most moral actions possible.
>> After all, most war protesters wanted to bring the troops home
>> immediately, which is the ultimate way to show support for them.
>>
>> The so-called enemy may have drawn comfort from the actions of war
>> protesters, just as the enemy drew comfort from the use of US
>> stupidity by using it for propaganda purposes. Whether they drew
>> comfort is not the primary criterion by which the actions of war
>> protesters should be evaluated.
>
When I think back to our group of volunteer gunners during the Korean War I
see a whole different mindset. We CHOSE to make a big sacrifice that South
Korea would not be taken over by the North. Just last week I chatted with
the Korean who is webmaster at Kunsan airbase where I was in 53-53. He was
8 years old then. He considers us heroes and the greatest people on this
planet. On the other hand not too many people in Viet Nam would be thanking
you protesters for forcing us to leave them to the mercy of the communists.
I hope your conscience rests as easy as mine does.
Check out our Web site: http://members.xoom.com/13thbbsq
>The "so-called" enemy was a bona fide one. They had real bullets,
>real grenades, real mortars, real rockets, and real missiles, and expended
>them liberally at U.S. forces. The legality or morality of the war was a
>question of overwhelming divisiveness at the time, and although the
>passage of time has permitted to to look with far more sanguinuity at the
>sincerity of those protesting the war, it is still encumbant upon a
>reasonable person to elavuate the "primary criterion" of war
>protestors by consequences of their actions, not by their intent.
>
>I stipulate, and agree, that the motives of Eric--and even Clinton, I
>suppose--were entirely pure, and that what they wanted was good. Leaving
>Clinton aside for a moment--whose disingenuousness about the consequences
>of his protests was, in my opinion, eclipsed by the low regard with which
>he stood by his principles when his political future was at stake--the
>consistent flaw I beheld in the anti-war crowd--granted their best
>possible intentions--was their egregious failure to see, or admit, what
>"ending the war" really meant. I witnessed protest after protest, and
>heard slogan after slogan during my time as a college student, and they
>uniformly resonated with an "end the war!" theme. No one, among the
>"mainstream" anti war protesters anyway, cared to give voice to the
>obvious conclustion that ending the war on their terms would necessarily
>entail a complete communist victory in Southeast Asia. The conclusion may
>have been implied, but I never heard it admitted to.
Very few, in fact almost none of the people who protested the war did
anything to help the refugees who fled when the communists took over. The
refugees were a direct result of their protests to end the war but where
were the protestors when the "boat people" came looking for asylum? Looking
the other way so as not to feel guilty about some of the misery they had
caused.
The New Left crowd,
>and I saw a few of these too (but not as numerous) at least, was more
>honest about their agenda: "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is gonna win!"
>
gdy52150
wrote:
>
>
>
>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
>>
>> sorry you loose there is at least one book on the subject entitlted "
>> "Trading with the enemy" by Charles Higham.
>> You might want to point your browser to this site, it contains
>> fragments from the book.
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/slamnan/helpinghitler.html
>
>I thank gdy for the website reference. I checked it out, and even
>stipulating every claim made on behalf of author Higham, none of the
>citations refer to American corporations maintaining business contacts
>with Nazi Germany AFTER the 11 December 1941 outbreak of war between the
>United States and Germany. I will not comment on the putative moral
>problems in dealing with the pre-war Nazi regime, except to note that it
>was not exclusive to American corporations. As I noted in my original
>post, Stalin's Soviet Union, otherwise Nazism's most deadly foe,
>maintained business relations with Nazi Germany right up until the Nazi
>invasion of Russia earlier in 1941.
>
buy the book, I don't know what all is on the website, other than a
few snippets from the book. But the Book definitely proved
conclusively that those companies maintained trading with the Nazis
during the war. I think the website just carries the names of the
companies that did trade with the Nazis and none of the documentary
evidence of trading during the war.
>
>
>Tom Wootton
>
>"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
>take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
>and kill him."
>
> ----Mark Twain
>
====================================================
E Right
"joining" the party, whatever that means...
Tell me, what document does a communist carry
to prove he is a party member? ###8up
"> -----------------------------------------
"> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
"> 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
"> Washington DC 20037
"> -----------------------------------------
"> For release: February 18, 1997
"> -----------------------------------------
"> For additional information:
"> George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications
"> Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
"> -----------------------------------------
">
"> Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian"
">
"
"I looked into this when in a fit of insecurity Libertarian Party members
"Eastwood is not nor has never been a member of the Libertarian Party.
Mike Jones
than a
few snippets from the book. But the Book definitely proved
conclusively that those companies maintained trading with the Nazis
during the war. I think the website just carries the names of the
companies that did trade with the Nazis and none of the documentary
evidence of trading during the war."
After all, if it's in print, it MUST be true. Right, GdyBozo? Especially if
there is a website about it. More of your 'corporate whores' there,
GdyCommiePinkoFagboy?
Whatsa matta there, GdyMoronic? You can't find any honest, hard-working
Americans to put out of a job and starve their children in the name of your
gawd Enviro-Wacko?
hahahahahaha.... GdyBozo, you're a hoot. One stupid, dumbassed, useless
piece of human excrement hoot, but a hoot nonetheless.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....
MIke.
--
"Yes, Lady Aster, I am drunk. And you are exceedingly ugly
and in the morning I shall be quite sober."- Sir Winston Churchill
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On 11 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
: >
: > If they believed it was not wise or moral to be in Vietnam, should people
: > simply have kept their mouths shut and followed along like sheep? Don't
: > people have an obligation to speak out against what they believe is
: > immoral and unwise?
: >
: > --
: > Buddy K
: They may have the right...but the existence of that right does not
: automatically render the act wise or moral.
So it is not wise or moral to speak out against that which you believe to
be unwise or immoral?
Then, of course, nobody should say anything negative about Clinton's
blowjobs.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On 11 Dec 1998, Eric, da Red wrote:
: <in another very good post>
: >
: > If one regarded the war as either immoral or just incredibly stupid,
: > then protesting the war was one of the most moral actions possible.
: > After all, most war protesters wanted to bring the troops home
: > immediately, which is the ultimate way to show support for them.
: >
: > The so-called enemy may have drawn comfort from the actions of war
: > protesters, just as the enemy drew comfort from the use of US
: > stupidity by using it for propaganda purposes. Whether they drew
: > comfort is not the primary criterion by which the actions of war
: > protesters should be evaluated.
: The "so-called" enemy was a bona fide one. They had real bullets,
: real grenades, real mortars, real rockets, and real missiles, and expended
: them liberally at U.S. forces. The legality or morality of the war was a
: question of overwhelming divisiveness at the time, and although the
: passage of time has permitted to to look with far more sanguinuity at the
: sincerity of those protesting the war, it is still encumbant upon a
: reasonable person to elavuate the "primary criterion" of war
: protestors by consequences of their actions, not by their intent.
: I stipulate, and agree, that the motives of Eric--and even Clinton, I
: suppose--were entirely pure, and that what they wanted was good. Leaving
: Clinton aside for a moment--whose disingenuousness about the consequences
: of his protests was, in my opinion, eclipsed by the low regard with which
: he stood by his principles when his political future was at stake--the
: consistent flaw I beheld in the anti-war crowd--granted their best
: possible intentions--was their egregious failure to see, or admit, what
: "ending the war" really meant. I witnessed protest after protest, and
: heard slogan after slogan during my time as a college student, and they
: uniformly resonated with an "end the war!" theme. No one, among the
: "mainstream" anti war protesters anyway, cared to give voice to the
: obvious conclustion that ending the war on their terms would necessarily
: entail a complete communist victory in Southeast Asia. The conclusion may
: have been implied, but I never heard it admitted to. The New Left crowd,
: and I saw a few of these too (but not as numerous) at least, was more
: honest about their agenda: "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is gonna win!"
You weren't paying attention. We all knew who was going to win. Many of
us knew that Ho Chi Minh tried to enlist our help against the French after
WWII and was turned down. We also knew some of the history of Southeast
Asia and knew there was animosity between Vietnam and China.
But the rightwing thought it could just yell, COMMIE, COMMIE, COMMIE! and
get away with anything as though there were some monolithic ideology that
we all had to jerk our knee and rush out to kill in response to.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
: >
: >
: >
: >On 11 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
: >
: >> Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
: >> : As per usual Buddy can only make a case by twisting words or meanings.
: >> : Where did I say suspend the Constitution?
: >>
: >> I didn't say you did - it appears to be Tom Wootton who did & it's hazy
: as
: >> to whether he is leveling an accusation or accepting Andrew Hall's. You
: >> should get your attributes straight. However, the statement appears to
: be
: >> accurate. You obviously don't believe in 1st Amendment rights for those
: >> you disagree with.
: >>
: >Well, you THINK I don't believe in 1st Amendment rights for those I
: disagree with but I THINK you are full of horsey poop. Why would I even
: waste my valuable time here if I believed that?
You're the one doing the criticizing of the government now. By your
standards, you should be shot I suppose.
: Actually I didn't want the government involved. I was hoping the families
: of those killed and wounded would do the shooting for everyone. So there.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74usm6$s...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>
>: Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: >On 11 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>: >
>: >> Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>: >> : As per usual Buddy can only make a case by twisting words or
meanings.
>: >> : Where did I say suspend the Constitution?
>: >>
>: >> I didn't say you did - it appears to be Tom Wootton who did & it's
hazy
>: as
>: >> to whether he is leveling an accusation or accepting Andrew Hall's.
You
>: >> should get your attributes straight. However, the statement appears
to
>: be
>: >> accurate. You obviously don't believe in 1st Amendment rights for
those
>: >> you disagree with.
>: >>
>: >Well, you THINK I don't believe in 1st Amendment rights for those I
>: disagree with but I THINK you are full of horsey poop. Why would I even
>: waste my valuable time here if I believed that?
>
>You're the one doing the criticizing of the government now. By your
>standards, you should be shot I suppose.
>
You are trying to twist that into me criticizing government. What criticism
were you referring to? I rthink you are up to your usual weasel game of
twisting things to what people never said.
You are a dishonest piece of garbage.
>: Actually I didn't want the government involved. I was hoping the
families
>: of those killed and wounded would do the shooting for everyone. So
there.
>
>--
Linus Zimmerman
Linus Zimmerman wrote in message <74s88f$sob$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>then protesting the war was one of the most moral actions possible.
>>>After all, most war protesters wanted to bring the troops home
>>>immediately, which is the ultimate way to show support for them.
>>>
>>>The so-called enemy may have drawn comfort from the actions of war
>>>protesters, just as the enemy drew comfort from the use of US
>>>stupidity by using it for propaganda purposes. Whether they drew
>>>comfort is not the primary criterion by which the actions of war
>>>protesters should be evaluated.
>>>
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74rji6$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>>
>Buddy is still trying to justify being a moral and physical coward by being
a
>: sign-carrying protestor instead of serving his country in some useful
>
>That was useful. And one hell of a lot more useful than what your
>chickenhawk conservatives did.
>
>: Those who served first and then protested have my respect. Those who
were
>: opposed and served in a non-combat capacity likewise. Even if Buddy had
>: marched off to jail and served a term for draft-dodging he would get some
>: reluctant respect. Those who protested without doing any of the above
were
>: mostly interested in demoralizing the troops and making sure the public
>
: >
>I remember when I was in Korea 52-53 our group of volunteer gunners had a
completely different mindset. We were proud to be there helping the South
Koreans keep their country free.
Last week I chatted with the Kunsan Air Base Korea webmaster. He was 8
years old when I was there. He thinks the Americans who helped save his
country are heroes and the greatest people on this planet.
People like buddy and their ilk are held in great contempt not only by me
but by people in Vietnam & Cambodia who did the suffering. Buddy and fellow
protestors were the "5th column" of the Vietnam War. Their actions helped
defeat us from within.
When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by their new
masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
LZ
user
Mark Gibson wrote in message <5Zbc2.527$D71.46@firefly>...
>Andrew Hall (ahall-...@world.std.com) wrote:
>>>>>>> Linus Zimmerman writes:
>>
>> Linus> Buddy is the REAL hero of the Vietnam war. He was a "sign
carrying
>> Linus> protestor". Because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, in
WWII Henry
>> Linus> Koward would have been taken out and shot. Henry's butt was
more valuable
>>
>>Liar, the US government was not the despotic government you
>>desire, even then.
>
>Tell that to the thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry who were
>rounded up and thrown into prison camps during WWII.
>
>Once again you've proven to be quite a fool, Andi.
You might mention that the despot crackpot that ordered this
unconstitutional
action was a LIBERAL - F.D.R.
>
>
>--
>GET THE REAL FACTS AT: www.free-market.net www.reason.com
> www.lp.org/lp-news.html www.drudgereport.com www.i2i.org
> www.nra.org/nraila.html www.freerepublic.com www.jpfo.org
> www.worldnetdaily.com www.2ndLawLib.org www.foxnews.com
Tom Wootton
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Linus Zimmerman wrote:
> Well, that is your opinion and I feel a biased one.
All opinions are biased. Thucydides was biased. So was Lincoln. So was
Christ.
Tom Wootton
On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
> buy the book, I don't know what all is on the website, other than a
> few snippets from the book. But the Book definitely proved
> conclusively that those companies maintained trading with the Nazis
> during the war. I think the website just carries the names of the
> companies that did trade with the Nazis and none of the documentary
> evidence of trading during the war.
>
That would have been a pretty neat trick. Since all German assets in the
US were frozen after the outbreak of the war. Just how did Nazi Germany
pay for all that neat U.S. stuff? And how did Nazi Germany compete with
the U.S. government for lucrative war contracts after 1941? I am open to
evidence, but the allegations make no sense.
lighton...@hotmail.com
e.r...@NOSPAmailexcite.com (E Right) wrote:
> People can claim to be Republicans or Democrats without
> "joining" the party, whatever that means...
>
True, but out of context to the post and has no bearing on Mr. Eastwood
and his non-relationship with the Libertarian Party.
> Tell me, what document does a communist carry
> to prove he is a party member? ###8up
>
The same thing the members of the Libertarian Party carry,
a membership card.
In this case the center of the post was the Libertarian Party. When a
person joins the Libertarian Party by paying membership dues they are
issued a membership ID number and a party membership card.
> "> -----------------------------------------
> "> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
> "> 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
> "> Washington DC 20037
> "> -----------------------------------------
> "> For release: February 18, 1997
> "> -----------------------------------------
> "> For additional information:
> "> George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications
> "> Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
> "> -----------------------------------------
> ">
> "> Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian"
--
Kevin O'Connell
Light on Liberty - The anti-Libertarian Party internet site.
http://members.tripod.com/~Kevin_OConnell
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tom Wootton
On 12 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
> : automatically render the act wise or moral.
>
> So it is not wise or moral to speak out against that which you believe to
> be unwise or immoral?
Not if such acts encourage an armed enemy in the field.
>
> Then, of course, nobody should say anything negative about Clinton's
> blowjobs.
>
If sodomites are encouraged by criticism against Clinton, then that is a
risk, I suspect, most reasonable people would be prepared to take.
Encouraging an enemy in the midst of a shooting war is another matter.
Tom Wootton
On 12 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>
> You weren't paying attention. We all knew who was going to win. Many of
> us knew that Ho Chi Minh tried to enlist our help against the French after
> WWII and was turned down. We also knew some of the history of Southeast
> Asia and knew there was animosity between Vietnam and China.
Quite right, on all counts. But the Ho Chi Minh of 1965 war far different
from the Ho of 1945, much to U.S. bungling. This does not alter the fact
that by the late sixties, the NLF and NVA was committed to putting all of
Southeast Asia under a Marxist-Leninist tyranny. The New Left antiwar
movement in the US enthusiastically applauded the prospect, while the
"sincere" liberal, mainstream anti war crowd simply didn't care.
The U.S. has had something of a revenge however. The DRV lost its Soviet
sponsor, and is now avidly soliciting U.S. investment. Too bad it cost
the lives of two million of their own people before they found out that
tyrannical collectivist oligarchy doesn't work.
gdy52150
wrote:
>
>
>
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
>>
>> buy the book, I don't know what all is on the website, other than a
>> few snippets from the book. But the Book definitely proved
>> conclusively that those companies maintained trading with the Nazis
>> during the war. I think the website just carries the names of the
>> companies that did trade with the Nazis and none of the documentary
>> evidence of trading during the war.
>>
>
>That would have been a pretty neat trick. Since all German assets in the
>US were frozen after the outbreak of the war. Just how did Nazi Germany
>pay for all that neat U.S. stuff? And how did Nazi Germany compete with
>the U.S. government for lucrative war contracts after 1941? I am open to
>evidence, but the allegations make no sense.
>
much of it was channeled through South America. Business between
American corporations and the Nazis continued right through the war.
>Tom Wootton
>
>"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
>take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
>and kill him."
>
> ----Mark Twain
>
====================================================
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74usm6$s...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >On 11 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
: >: >
You're a lying old fart, you're senile or both. You claimed (without
evidence) that WWII protesters would have been shot. You implied that
Vietnam protesters should have been shot for protesting. And now you
protest Clinton's actions (at least verbally - I suspect you're too lazy
to get off your ass and picket anything). This, by your standards, should
get you shot.
--
Buddy K
"When Gary Bauer says jump, we jump. When the NRA says no, we say no.
When Mr. Dobson wants us to do something, we try to accommodate him ...
even when it runs contrary to other long-held beliefs within the
Republican Party."
Chris Shays (R-CT)
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74rji6$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >>
: >Buddy is still trying to justify being a moral and physical coward by being
: a
: >: sign-carrying protestor instead of serving his country in some useful
: >: capacity during the Vietnam War.
: >
: >That was useful. And one hell of a lot more useful than what your
: >chickenhawk conservatives did.
: >
: >: Those who served first and then protested have my respect. Those who
: were
: >: opposed and served in a non-combat capacity likewise. Even if Buddy had
: >: marched off to jail and served a term for draft-dodging he would get some
: >: reluctant respect. Those who protested without doing any of the above
: were
: >: mostly interested in demoralizing the troops and making sure the public
: >: didn't support them. They have my contempt.
: >
: : >
: >I remember when I was in Korea 52-53 our group of volunteer gunners had a
: completely different mindset. We were proud to be there helping the South
: Koreans keep their country free.
: Last week I chatted with the Kunsan Air Base Korea webmaster. He was 8
: years old when I was there. He thinks the Americans who helped save his
: country are heroes and the greatest people on this planet.
: People like buddy and their ilk are held in great contempt not only by me
: but by people in Vietnam & Cambodia who did the suffering.
Why didn't they win the war by themselves? Could it be that they didn't
really have popular support?
: Buddy and fellow
: protestors were the "5th column" of the Vietnam War. Their actions helped
: defeat us from within.
What "defeated" us from within was the notion that a few Americans would
get the guns and fight and die while everyone else, such as the
chickhawks, would get the butter and profit handsomely from the war, along
with the fact that South Vietnam's leaders were seen to be corrupt as
well as inept and on the wrong side of history in a civil war.
: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by their new
: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his commanding
officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
nowhere to be seen.
--
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On 12 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
: > : automatically render the act wise or moral.
: >
: > So it is not wise or moral to speak out against that which you believe to
: > be unwise or immoral?
: Not if such acts encourage an armed enemy in the field.
What if the armed "enemy" is neither my enemy nor the Constitutionally
declared enemy of the United States? I am obligated to go along with any
policy the US government pursues as long as it provides someone to shoot
at some "enemy" due to an argument about dominoes that I do not adhere to
or some other esoteric argument?
No, I am not going to subjugate my moral standards to that line of
reasoning. If you wish to, be my guest.
: >
: > Then, of course, nobody should say anything negative about Clinton's
: > blowjobs.
: >
: If sodomites are encouraged by criticism against Clinton, then that is a
: risk, I suspect, most reasonable people would be prepared to take.
But what if our foreign "enemies" such as Suddam Hussein, or any "commies"
who happen to exist right now are encouraged by this attack on the
president and see the US as weak? Don't we have soldiers in the field
right now ready to confront armed "enemies?"
: Encouraging an enemy in the midst of a shooting war is another matter.
I had no enemies at the time and there was no war declared by Congress.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On 12 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
: >
: > You weren't paying attention. We all knew who was going to win. Many of
: > us knew that Ho Chi Minh tried to enlist our help against the French after
: > WWII and was turned down. We also knew some of the history of Southeast
: > Asia and knew there was animosity between Vietnam and China.
: Quite right, on all counts. But the Ho Chi Minh of 1965 war far different
: from the Ho of 1945, much to U.S. bungling. This does not alter the fact
: that by the late sixties, the NLF and NVA was committed to putting all of
: Southeast Asia under a Marxist-Leninist tyranny.
As opposed to the tyranny of the South Vietnamese governments that seemed
to come and go and the drop of a coup or the self-immolation of a monk?
: The New Left antiwar
: movement in the US enthusiastically applauded the prospect, while the
: "sincere" liberal, mainstream anti war crowd simply didn't care.
I think the mainstream were capable of reading newspapers and watching tv.
: The U.S. has had something of a revenge however. The DRV lost its Soviet
: sponsor, and is now avidly soliciting U.S. investment. Too bad it cost
: the lives of two million of their own people before they found out that
: tyrannical collectivist oligarchy doesn't work.
Are you getting Cambodia mixed up with Vietnam to jack up the numbers?
You better check your history a bit closer.
Note that the US lost quite a few men in order to prevent the South from
seceding. Was Lincoln running a collectivist oligarchy?
--
Buddy K
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751alt$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
public protests during WWII I guess the question is moot. However where I
grew up, the family members of wounded and killed servicemen would at least
have tarred and feathered you if not shot you outright. In my hometown you
would have been completely ostracized for carrying out protests against WWII
in public.
I did not speak against a right or duty to picket. Your specialty is
twisting words and then argue against those "in your mind" words.
My context was clear to everyone else. I despise the people who protested
in public and vilified the military while we had troops dying in the field.
You are proud to be one of them. Fine, I despise you.
Is that clear? Maybe you wouldn't have been shot for protesting in public
during WWII. Why don't you go to a VA Hospital and ask some crippled up old
vet what HE would have done if sent to quell the protests had there been
any? While you're there ask a Vietnam vet too. Myabe they can forgive you
your stupidity. I can't.
LZ
--
>Buddy K
>
>
>"When Gary Bauer says jump, we jump. When the NRA says no, we say no.
>When Mr. Dobson wants us to do something, we try to accommodate him ...
>even when it runs contrary to other long-held beliefs within the
>Republican Party."
>
>Chris Shays (R-CT) Speaking as a Democrat but running as a Republican.
>
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751alt$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
Proof?
: I did not speak against a right or duty to picket. Your specialty is
: twisting words and then argue against those "in your mind" words.
You're speciality is to deny everything once you're caught.
: My context was clear to everyone else. I despise the people who protested
: in public and vilified the military while we had troops dying in the field.
: You are proud to be one of them. Fine, I despise you.
: Is that clear?
Sure Herr Zimmerman. And I don't exactly think highly of you either, but
you already knew that.
: Maybe you wouldn't have been shot for protesting in public
: during WWII. Why don't you go to a VA Hospital and ask some crippled up old
: vet what HE would have done if sent to quell the protests had there been
: any? While you're there ask a Vietnam vet too. Myabe they can forgive you
: your stupidity. I can't.
Many Vietnam vets joined in the protests when they returned. Of course,
Herr Zimmerman thinks they are all a bunch of commies also.
: --
: >Buddy K
: >
: >
: >"When Gary Bauer says jump, we jump. When the NRA says no, we say no.
: >When Mr. Dobson wants us to do something, we try to accommodate him ...
: >even when it runs contrary to other long-held beliefs within the
: >Republican Party."
: >
: >Chris Shays (R-CT) Speaking as a Democrat but running as a Republican.
I see Herr Zimmerman dishonestly altered my post.
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751b76$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
Vietnamese. Their cadres had been fighting both the French and Japanese for
many years. When the country was split and the French departed many in the
north fled to the south to escape the communists. Their only wish was to be
left alone. The South Vietnamese governments had no basic ideology to
sustain them as the communists did. They were also disorganized and
corrupt.
Most of the peasants were never motivated to fight for the government since
they considered them just another variety of bloodsucker.
People can argue forever on whether we should have intervened in the war.
Funny, the Korean War was not that different but not many condemn us for
helping there. Why not? My point is that once we had committed troops to
the field they should have been supported and not condemned for doing their
duty. The protesters did what they could not achieve at the ballot box.
What if people who wanted Clinton gone started harassing in the violent
manner the protesters did? The Liberals would be screaming "violent
takeover of the government". You are a phony jackass buttly and nothing you
can say will convince me otherwise.
>: Buddy and fellow
>: protestors were the "5th column" of the Vietnam War. Their actions
helped
>: defeat us from within.
>
>What "defeated" us from within was the notion that a few Americans would
>get the guns and fight and die while everyone else, such as the
>chickhawks, would get the butter and profit handsomely from the war, along
>with the fact that South Vietnam's leaders were seen to be corrupt as
>well as inept and on the wrong side of history in a civil war.
>
>: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by their
new
>: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
>
>When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his commanding
>officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
>Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
>nowhere to be seen.
Wrong. I was at my duty station every day and proudly wearing my uniform in
public. Anybody who gave me crap soon found out they had bitten off more
than they could handle.
>
>--
>Buddy K
>
>"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the murkier
>grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
>
>--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his flawed
Hero.
>
>
>
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751b76$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
Most of the condemnation was of US policy, not the grunts on the ground -
except in the case of Calley and other such incidents.
: The protesters did what they could not achieve at the ballot box.
No, the war did not end for 5 years after Nixon said he had a secret plan
to end it.
: What if people who wanted Clinton gone started harassing in the violent
: manner the protesters did?
You mean like the anti-abortion radicals? I would be against it.
: The Liberals would be screaming "violent
: takeover of the government". You are a phony jackass buttly and nothing you
: can say will convince me otherwise.
So are all anti-abortionists the same as those who execute doctors? Or
are you just a phony asshole?
: >: Buddy and fellow
: >: protestors were the "5th column" of the Vietnam War. Their actions
: helped
: >: defeat us from within.
: >
: >What "defeated" us from within was the notion that a few Americans would
: >get the guns and fight and die while everyone else, such as the
: >chickhawks, would get the butter and profit handsomely from the war, along
: >with the fact that South Vietnam's leaders were seen to be corrupt as
: >well as inept and on the wrong side of history in a civil war.
: >
: >: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by their
: new
: >: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
: >
: >When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his commanding
: >officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
: >Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
: >nowhere to be seen.
: Wrong. I was at my duty station every day and proudly wearing my uniform in
: public. Anybody who gave me crap soon found out they had bitten off more
: than they could handle.
A big mouth to go with that block of a head, no doubt.
: >--
: >Buddy K
: >
: >"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the murkier
: >grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
: >
: >--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
: Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his flawed
: Hero.
Herr Zimmerman has one standard for those who throw government money at
him and another for those who do not.
--
Buddy K
"I never bought Poindexter's story. To begin with, it would have been
totally out of character for him to have authorized either the diversion
or coverup on his own."
--Arthur Liman. Excerpted from LAWYER: A LIFE OF COUNSEL AND CONTROVERSY
by Ellen Liman.
Buddy
Linus Zimmerman
>: >
>: >: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message
<74usm6$s...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>: >: >Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>: >: >
Clinton alone does not = government you silly shit.
Herr Zimmerman (in a portion erased by buttly) said he respected vets who
returned and THEN protested. Buttly is caught in another lie.
Plus he hasn't got back to us on the WWII vets yet. Does anyone think he
will? I have a friend who spent 3 1/2 years in a Japanese Prison Camp. I
bet buttly wouldn't ask him
>: --
>: >Buddy K
>: >
>: >
>: >"When Gary Bauer says jump, we jump. When the NRA says no, we say no.
>: >When Mr. Dobson wants us to do something, we try to accommodate him ...
>: >even when it runs contrary to other long-held beliefs within the
>: >Republican Party."
>: >
>: >Chris Shays (R-CT) Speaking as a Democrat but running as a
Republican.LZ (sorry, forgot the LZ)
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751c5k$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
argument.
LZ
>Buddy K
gdy52150
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751b76$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>duty. The protesters did what they could not achieve at the ballot box.
>What if people who wanted Clinton gone started harassing in the violent
>manner the protesters did? The Liberals would be screaming "violent
you fucking fool they are already bombing abortion clinics and
murdering the staff. In short the in action of the FBI in protecting
these right wing loons has given us the American equivlaent of the
Crystal Night.
>takeover of the government". You are a phony jackass buttly and nothing you
>can say will convince me otherwise.
>
>
>
>>: Buddy and fellow
>>: protestors were the "5th column" of the Vietnam War. Their actions
>helped
>>: defeat us from within.
>>
>>What "defeated" us from within was the notion that a few Americans would
>>get the guns and fight and die while everyone else, such as the
>>chickhawks, would get the butter and profit handsomely from the war, along
>>with the fact that South Vietnam's leaders were seen to be corrupt as
>>well as inept and on the wrong side of history in a civil war.
>>
>>: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by their
>new
>>: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
>>
>>When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his commanding
>>officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
>>Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
>>nowhere to be seen.
>
>
>Wrong. I was at my duty station every day and proudly wearing my uniform in
>public. Anybody who gave me crap soon found out they had bitten off more
>than they could handle.
>
>>
>>--
>>Buddy K
>>
>>"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the murkier
>>grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
>>
>>--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
>
>
>Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his flawed
>Hero.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
====================================================
gdy52150
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751alt$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>>Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>>
>>: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <74usm6$s...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>>: >Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>>: >
>>: >: Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
>>: >: >
>>: >: >
>>: >: >
>>protest Clinton's actions (at least verbally - I suspect you're too lazy
>>to get off your ass and picket anything). This, by your standards, should
>>get you shot.
>>
>Since people were obviously smart enough (and in a minority) not to hold
>public protests during WWII I guess the question is moot. However where I
>grew up, the family members of wounded and killed servicemen would at least
>have tarred and feathered you if not shot you outright. In my hometown you
>would have been completely ostracized for carrying out protests against WWII
>in public.
>
>I did not speak against a right or duty to picket. Your specialty is
>twisting words and then argue against those "in your mind" words.
>
>My context was clear to everyone else. I despise the people who protested
>in public and vilified the military while we had troops dying in the field.
>You are proud to be one of them. Fine, I despise you.
>Is that clear? Maybe you wouldn't have been shot for protesting in public
>during WWII. Why don't you go to a VA Hospital and ask some crippled up old
>vet what HE would have done if sent to quell the protests had there been
>any? While you're there ask a Vietnam vet too. Myabe they can forgive you
sure thing asshole now just which Vietnam Veteran Agaist the War do
you want me to ask?
Maybe you should take a trip to their website and call em a few
names while your at it. Hint fool I got a link for their web site on
my home page so you don't have no excuse not to. And while your at it
why don't you tell us how tricky dick along with Hoover and the FBI
tried filing bogus charges against the leader of the VVAW during the
1972 republiCON convention. Is that the way all you right wingers
treat vets by filing bogus chartges on them?
Oh and while you are at it be sure to include the parts about that
FBI agent that inflitrated the VVAW who was the only one guilty of
violent acts when it came to court.
>your stupidity. I can't.
>LZ
>
>
>--
>>Buddy K
>>
>>
>>"When Gary Bauer says jump, we jump. When the NRA says no, we say no.
>>When Mr. Dobson wants us to do something, we try to accommodate him ...
>>even when it runs contrary to other long-held beliefs within the
>>Republican Party."
>>
>>Chris Shays (R-CT) Speaking as a Democrat but running as a Republican.
>>
>
====================================================
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751bqb$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
protester and a leech on the body of humanity. Parsing words like his hero.
LZ
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751fvf$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
the stock market too? Is that where you learned how? I thought maybe
Hillary had given you a few hot tips.
>
>: >: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by their
>: new
>: >: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
>: >
>: >When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his commanding
>: >officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
>: >Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
>: >nowhere to be seen.
>
>
>: Wrong. I was at my duty station every day and proudly wearing my uniform
in
>: public. Anybody who gave me crap soon found out they had bitten off more
>: than they could handle.
>
>A big mouth to go with that block of a head, no doubt.
>
Actually I'm known as a pretty mellow guy until you get me fired up. Once I
do get fired up it takes a lot to get me stopped.
LZ
>
>: >--
>: >Buddy K
>: >
>: >"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the
murkier
>: >grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
>: >
>: >--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
>
>
>: Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his flawed
>: Hero.
>
>Herr Zimmerman has one standard for those who throw government money at
>him and another for those who do not.
>
Where does this diversion come from? Buddy is jealous of my pension after
he was chickenshit to serve himself?
Buddy's grant ran out? What? Please explain?
Mike Jones
about that
FBI agent that inflitrated the VVAW who was the only one guilty of
violent acts when it came to court."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... The closer Clinton gets to Impeachment,
the sillier you commie-libs get. This is getting to be TOO damn funny.
hahahahahaqhahaahahahahahahahqhqhqhqaqhhaqqhaqqqqhahqqaqqqq....
ROFLFAO...
MIke.
--
"Yes, Lady Aster, I am drunk. And you are exceedingly ugly
and in the morning I shall be quite sober."- Sir Winston Churchill
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751r8l$5...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
>
>: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751fvf$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
So what is so different about it? The fact that they have a few loonies who
shot some doctors? Don't forget your loony who bombed that lab at U of Wis
and killed that Math researcher. Are you responsible for that act?
Anti abortion protesters want to change government policy, same as you claim
you were doing.
I don't support their methods either. Let them do their thing at the ballot
box and in grass roots organizing.
I just read in the news where a math student shot his professor at Ann
Arbor. Didn't like one of the questions I guess. Just because you are a
student should we assume that you would do likewise? Well?
That question makes as much sense as you dragging in the anti-abortionists.
Just another one of your ploys to divert attention from the fact that you
ARE and always were a sorry coward. Face it buttly.
>: >
>: >: The Liberals would be screaming "violent
>: >: takeover of the government". You are a phony jackass buttly and
nothing
>: you
>: >: can say will convince me otherwise.
>: >
>: >So are all anti-abortionists the same as those who execute doctors? Or
>: >are you just a phony asshole?
>: >
>: >: >: Buddy and fellow
>: >: >: protestors were the "5th column" of the Vietnam War. Their actions
>: >: helped
>: >: >: defeat us from within.
>: >: >
>: >: >What "defeated" us from within was the notion that a few Americans
would
>: >: >get the guns and fight and die while everyone else, such as the
>: >: >chickhawks, would get the butter and profit handsomely from the war,
>: along
>: >: >with the fact that South Vietnam's leaders were seen to be corrupt as
>: >: >well as inept and on the wrong side of history in a civil war.
>: >:
>: They were getting rich? Is that what's bothering you Buddy? Were they
in
>: the stock market too? Is that where you learned how? I thought maybe
>: Hillary had given you a few hot tips.
>
>I learned from Noot's wife who made about $10K in a few hours by flipping
>an IPO. I believe a prominent GOP Senator did this also - Al "Pothole"
>D'Amato as I recall. That beats the hell out of hot tips.
>
>If I really wanted to get rich, I would have followed the methods of Lamar
>Alexander and his wife, who invested $1 in a newspaper and came up with
>$620K. Or I would get elected Speaker and then not back down when Rupert
>Murdoch, who had business before Congress, offered me $4+ million for a
>hastily written book.
>
>That's what I would do.
>
You must be lacking something then or you would have. We are very sure it
wasn't your conscience that stopped you.
>: >
>: >: >: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by
their
>: >: new
>: >: >: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
>: >: >
>: >: >When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his
commanding
>: >: >officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
>: >: >Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
>: >: >nowhere to be seen.
>: >
>: >
>: >: Wrong. I was at my duty station every day and proudly wearing my
uniform
>: in
>: >: public. Anybody who gave me crap soon found out they had bitten off
more
>: >: than they could handle.
>: >
>: >A big mouth to go with that block of a head, no doubt.
>: >
>: Actually I'm known as a pretty mellow guy until you get me fired up.
Once I
>: do get fired up it takes a lot to get me stopped.
>
>Maybe a hammer and a nail for that blockhead.
>
>You and whose army buttly?
>: >: >--
>: >: >Buddy K
>: >: >
>: >: >"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the
>: murkier
>: >: >grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
>: >: >
>: >: >--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
>: >
>: >
>: >: Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his
flawed
>: >: Hero.
>: >
>: >Herr Zimmerman has one standard for those who throw government money at
>: >him and another for those who do not.
>: >
>: Where does this diversion come from? Buddy is jealous of my pension
after
>: he was chickenshit to serve himself?
>
>: Buddy's grant ran out? What? Please explain?
>
>Herr Zimmerman was whining and complaining about Clinton and the fact that
>he wouldn't throw the entire Treasury in his direction. That's why he has
>a double standard.
>
>The entire treasury? Nope. Only what was written in the law, what we
retired military people earned the hard way.
I suppose you would not complain if your check was cut for a few years?
Right. You better go help O.J. he hasn't found those killers yet.
>
Buddy K
>
>"When Gary Bauer says jump, we jump. When the NRA says no, we say no.
>When Mr. Dobson wants us to do something, we try to accommodate him ...
>even when it runs contrary to other long-held beliefs within the
>Republican Party."
>
>Chris Shays (R-CT)
>
Speaking as a Democrat masquerading as a Republican.
LZ
>
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: >
: >: >: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by their
: >: new
: >: >: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
: >: >
: >: >When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his commanding
: >: >officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
: >: >Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
: >: >nowhere to be seen.
: >
: >
: >: Wrong. I was at my duty station every day and proudly wearing my uniform
: in
: >: public. Anybody who gave me crap soon found out they had bitten off more
: >: than they could handle.
: >
: >A big mouth to go with that block of a head, no doubt.
: >
: Actually I'm known as a pretty mellow guy until you get me fired up. Once I
: do get fired up it takes a lot to get me stopped.
Maybe a hammer and a nail for that blockhead.
: >: >--
: >: >Buddy K
: >: >
: >: >"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the
: murkier
: >: >grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
: >: >
: >: >--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
: >
: >
: >: Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his flawed
: >: Hero.
: >
: >Herr Zimmerman has one standard for those who throw government money at
: >him and another for those who do not.
: >
: Where does this diversion come from? Buddy is jealous of my pension after
: he was chickenshit to serve himself?
: Buddy's grant ran out? What? Please explain?
Herr Zimmerman was whining and complaining about Clinton and the fact that
he wouldn't throw the entire Treasury in his direction. That's why he has
a double standard.
--
gdy52150
wrote:
>GdyDumbass sez:"Oh and while you are at it be sure to include the parts
>about that
>FBI agent that inflitrated the VVAW who was the only one guilty of
>violent acts when it came to court."
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... The closer Clinton gets to Impeachment,
>the sillier you commie-libs get. This is getting to be TOO damn funny.
>
too bad butt fuck that the truth really hurts you.
>hahahahahaqhahaahahahahahahahqhqhqhqaqhhaqqhaqqqqhahqqaqqqq....
>ROFLFAO...
>
>MIke.
>--
>"Yes, Lady Aster, I am drunk. And you are exceedingly ugly
>and in the morning I shall be quite sober."- Sir Winston Churchill
>
>
====================================================
Brad Macdonald
> On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:13:57 -0600, "Mike Jones" <mdj...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
> >GdyDumbass sez:"Oh and while you are at it be sure to include the parts
> >about that
> >FBI agent that inflitrated the VVAW who was the only one guilty of
> >violent acts when it came to court."
> >
> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... The closer Clinton gets to Impeachment,
> >the sillier you commie-libs get. This is getting to be TOO damn funny.
> >
>
> too bad butt fuck that the truth really hurts you.
Giddy, you really need to drop your quick resort to homophobic insult
towards the morons here with whom you disagree. Now is too late, I guess.
Brad
Mike Jones
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA... Like I said before, the closer Clinton gets to being
Impeached, the sillier you stupid commie-libs are getting.
GdyBoy, YOU are getting hilarious. Or is Hillaryarious? hahahahahahaaa..
Tell us GdyMoron, have you put any honest, hard-working family men out of
jobs lately in order to make yourself feel like a 'big man'? I bet you get
your rocks off just thinking of them children going hungry and cold. You're
such a good commie-lib, a REAL trooper. All full of compassion for those
trees. Nevermind children need to eat and be sheltered and clothed. I bet
you sleep real good at night knowing all those trees are safe. What a guy!!
Linus Zimmerman
Andrew Hall wrote in message ...
>>>>>> Tom Wootton writes:
>
> Tom> On 11 Dec 1998, Eric, da Red wrote:
>
> >> in another very good post>
> >>
> >> If one regarded the war as either immoral or just incredibly stupid,
> >> then protesting the war was one of the most moral actions possible.
> >> After all, most war protesters wanted to bring the troops home
> >> immediately, which is the ultimate way to show support for them.
> >>
> >> The so-called enemy may have drawn comfort from the actions of war
> >> protesters, just as the enemy drew comfort from the use of US
> >> stupidity by using it for propaganda purposes. Whether they drew
> >> comfort is not the primary criterion by which the actions of war
> >> protesters should be evaluated.
>
> Tom> The "so-called" enemy was a bona fide one. They had real bullets,
> Tom> real grenades, real mortars, real rockets, and real missiles, and
expended
> Tom> them liberally at U.S. forces. The legality or morality of the war
was a
>
>Yes, but if we had had out war, not one of those weapons would have
>threatened US forces, as they would not have been in range.
>
> Tom> question of overwhelming divisiveness at the time, and although the
> Tom> passage of time has permitted to to look with far more sanguinuity
at the
> Tom> sincerity of those protesting the war, it is still encumbant upon a
>
>No time was needed for those with their eyes open.
And a wide yellow stripe down their back.
> Tom> reasonable person to elavuate the "primary criterion" of war
> Tom> protestors by consequences of their actions, not by their intent.
>
> Tom> I stipulate, and agree, that the motives of Eric--and even Clinton,
I
> Tom> suppose--were entirely pure, and that what they wanted was good.
Leaving
> Tom> Clinton aside for a moment--whose disingenuousness about the
consequences
> Tom> of his protests was, in my opinion, eclipsed by the low regard with
which
> Tom> he stood by his principles when his political future was at
stake--the
> Tom> consistent flaw I beheld in the anti-war crowd--granted their best
> Tom> possible intentions--was their egregious failure to see, or admit,
what
> Tom> "ending the war" really meant. I witnessed protest after protest,
and
> Tom> heard slogan after slogan during my time as a college student, and
they
> Tom> uniformly resonated with an "end the war!" theme. No one, among
the
> Tom> "mainstream" anti war protesters anyway, cared to give voice to the
> Tom> obvious conclustion that ending the war on their terms would
necessarily
> Tom> entail a complete communist victory in Southeast Asia. The
conclusion may
>
>We lost, and that did not happen. Withdrawing a few years earlier
>would not have changed that, but it would have saved a lot of lives.
>
>History shows that we were right.
>
History shows you were a coward. You simply used the phony moral issue to
justify your fear of going. I debated with plenty of you cowards in the
late 60's and early 70's. When it came right down to the end of the
argument, they always had other "personal reasons" for protesting. The
moral issue was NOT their driving force.
> Tom> have been implied, but I never heard it admitted to. The New Left
crowd,
> Tom> and I saw a few of these too (but not as numerous) at least, was
more
> Tom> honest about their agenda: "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is gonna
win!"
>
>Some said that, they were right. For a lot of the Vietnamese people
>it was not a fight about a right-wing dictatorship versus a left wing
>dictatorship, it was a fight about Vietnamese leaders versus foreign
>leaders. This made it clear that the puppet right wing dictatorship
>did not have a chance in the long run.
Because the Communists immediately broke the 1954 accords the south never
had a chance to have a stable, democratic government.
Don't forget that the protesters also kept us out of Cambodia thus allowing
Pol Pot to wreak his murderous rampage on the innocents there. Two million,
mostly the educated and intellectuals. Doesn't your conscience give you a
twinge now and then? If not, why not?
LZ
>
>ah
>(Now reading Usenet in alt.rush-limbaugh...)
Tom Wootton
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
> much of it was channeled through South America. Business between
> American corporations and the Nazis continued right through the war.
Indeed? And were Karl Doenitz' U-Boat commanders instructed on which
vessels carrying American goods accross the Atlantic to let pass without
being torpedoed?
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751r8l$5...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >Linus Zimmerman (esco...@tabletoptelephone.com) wrote:
: >
: >: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <751fvf$f...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: So what is so different about it? The fact that they have a few loonies who
: shot some doctors? Don't forget your loony who bombed that lab at U of Wis
: and killed that Math researcher. Are you responsible for that act?
You were about to accuse me of supporting that and I cut you off at the
pass.
: Anti abortion protesters want to change government policy, same as you claim
: you were doing.
: I don't support their methods either. Let them do their thing at the ballot
: box and in grass roots organizing.
: I just read in the news where a math student shot his professor at Ann
: Arbor. Didn't like one of the questions I guess. Just because you are a
: student should we assume that you would do likewise? Well?
: That question makes as much sense as you dragging in the anti-abortionists.
: Just another one of your ploys to divert attention from the fact that you
: ARE and always were a sorry coward. Face it buttly.
You were about to try to accuse me of bombing buildings or supporting it &
I cut you off from that route in a hurry, sleazball.
: >: >
: You must be lacking something then or you would have. We are very sure it
: wasn't your conscience that stopped you.
I'm not a Republican. In the GOP world, it's ethical to get money any way
you can, but you can't even think about sex (unless you're an adulterer
like Hyde, Noot, Burton or Chenoweth, who were all re-elected).
: >: >: >: When the "boat people" started arriving to avoid being killed by
: their
: >: >: new
: >: >: >: masters, people like Buddy and Hanoi Jane were nowhere to be seen.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >When Lt. Calley was murdering civilians at the behest of his
: commanding
: >: >: >officers and napalm was being dropped on children, people like Herr
: >: >: >Zimmerman and the cowardly, fat, lying demagogue, Rush Limbaugh, were
: >: >: >nowhere to be seen.
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: Wrong. I was at my duty station every day and proudly wearing my
: uniform
: >: in
: >: >: public. Anybody who gave me crap soon found out they had bitten off
: more
: >: >: than they could handle.
: >: >
: >: >A big mouth to go with that block of a head, no doubt.
: >: >
: >: Actually I'm known as a pretty mellow guy until you get me fired up.
: Once I
: >: do get fired up it takes a lot to get me stopped.
: >
: >Maybe a hammer and a nail for that blockhead.
: >
: >You and whose army buttly?
You're too old and out of shape to be talking like that, Herr Zimmerman.
Go take your blood pressure medicine.
: >: >: >--
: >: >: >Buddy K
: >: >: >
: >: >: >"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the
: >: murkier
: >: >: >grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
: >: >: >
: >: >: >--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his
: flawed
: >: >: Hero.
: >: >
: >: >Herr Zimmerman has one standard for those who throw government money at
: >: >him and another for those who do not.
: >: >
: >: Where does this diversion come from? Buddy is jealous of my pension
: after
: >: he was chickenshit to serve himself?
: >
: >: Buddy's grant ran out? What? Please explain?
: >
: >Herr Zimmerman was whining and complaining about Clinton and the fact that
: >he wouldn't throw the entire Treasury in his direction. That's why he has
: >a double standard.
: >
: >The entire treasury? Nope. Only what was written in the law, what we
: retired military people earned the hard way.
Picking up butts?
: I suppose you would not complain if your check was cut for a few years?
: Right. You better go help O.J. he hasn't found those killers yet.
I have no problem with you voting your economic interests, Herr Zimmerman.
When all is said and done, most of us do. But you sure look silly arguing
that Clinton is the most corrupt guy who ever walked the planet simply
because of your ulterior motives.
Why don't you just be honest as all my vet friends are, and simply say you
don't like him because he is not a friend of the economic interests of
vets? But instead, you rant and rave like he did something that Reagan
and Bush didn't do in spades (while voting for your economic interests).
: >
: Buddy K
: >
: >"When Gary Bauer says jump, we jump. When the NRA says no, we say no.
: >When Mr. Dobson wants us to do something, we try to accommodate him ...
: >even when it runs contrary to other long-held beliefs within the
: >Republican Party."
: >
: >Chris Shays (R-CT)
: >
: Speaking as a Democrat masquerading as a Republican.
You're not going to alter my quote this time now that you've been caught?
Are you the official keeper of the GOP oath?
Tom Wootton
On 13 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
> What if the armed "enemy" is neither my enemy nor the Constitutionally
> declared enemy of the United States? I am obligated to go along with any
> policy the US government pursues as long as it provides someone to shoot
> at some "enemy" due to an argument about dominoes that I do not adhere to
> or some other esoteric argument?
Fair point. The war prosecuted in the absence of a lawful declaration or
clearly ennunciated strategic aims, hobbled the entire process and
virtually doomed the enterprise to failure. I still maintain that
protesting policy while troops are engaged in combat operations bear the
unintended consequences of bolstering the enemy's agenda.
>
> No, I am not going to subjugate my moral standards to that line of
> reasoning. If you wish to, be my guest.
>
No, thanks. Henry has clearly and adequately stated his position.
>
> I had no enemies at the time and there was no war declared by Congress.
Again, fair enough. This does not mean that actions, no matter how well
intentioned, did not have bad outcomes. American legacy must still come
to terms with having helped flare up a war...and then abandoning
it...which resulted in a Communist victory throughout all of the former
French colony of Indochina.
Tom Wootton
On 13 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
> As opposed to the tyranny of the South Vietnamese governments that seemed
> to come and go and the drop of a coup or the self-immolation of a monk?
The "tyranny" such as it was, was postively Jeffersonian when compared
with the Soviet style dictatorship of the North. The crucial difference
between the two regimes, is not that one was less brutal than the other,
but that the marxists seemed to do a better job of articulating
nationalism to more Vietnamese who cared, than the south did. I argue
that the best bet for the U.S. would have been to cultivate a close
relationship with the marxists in 1945, and keep them weaned off of
relations with Stalin, and later, Mao. By 1965, however, the dynamic had
entirely changed, and the only choice was to give into a communist
unification of Vietnam at bayonet point, or resist it. The Communists got
their way, of course, much to the discredit of those who--without
necessarily having intended it--supported them.
> Are you getting Cambodia mixed up with Vietnam to jack up the numbers?
> You better check your history a bit closer.
I do not understand the question.
>
> Note that the US lost quite a few men in order to prevent the South from
> seceding. Was Lincoln running a collectivist oligarchy?
No, he was an American politician who emerged from the Whig tradition of
1836. And I also do not agree that Lincoln fought the Civil War to
prevent the secession of the South. Secession is a lawful and peaceful
process which the South voided when they openened fire on Fort Sumter.
Lincoln, as he said at the time, was fighting and armed rebellion, not a
secession.
Ho Chi Minh, I must point out, was marxist-leninist, and not an American
whig.
Linus Zimmerman
Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>
>> declared enemy of the United States? I am obligated to go along with any
>> policy the US government pursues as long as it provides someone to shoot
>> at some "enemy" due to an argument about dominoes that I do not adhere to
>> or some other esoteric argument?
>
>Fair point. The war prosecuted in the absence of a lawful declaration or
>clearly ennunciated strategic aims, hobbled the entire process and
>virtually doomed the enterprise to failure. I still maintain that
>protesting policy while troops are engaged in combat operations bear the
>unintended consequences of bolstering the enemy's agenda.
>
>
>>
>> No, I am not going to subjugate my moral standards to that line of
>> reasoning. If you wish to, be my guest.
>>
>
>No, thanks. Henry has clearly and adequately stated his position.
>
>>
>> I had no enemies at the time and there was no war declared by Congress.
>
>Again, fair enough. This does not mean that actions, no matter how well
>intentioned, did not have bad outcomes. American legacy must still come
>to terms with having helped flare up a war...and then abandoning
>it...which resulted in a Communist victory throughout all of the former
>French colony of Indochina.
>
Linus Zimmerman
Tom Wootton wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>On 13 Dec 1998, HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>
>> What if the armed "enemy" is neither my enemy nor the Constitutionally
>> declared enemy of the United States? I am obligated to go along with any
>> policy the US government pursues as long as it provides someone to shoot
>> at some "enemy" due to an argument about dominoes that I do not adhere to
>> or some other esoteric argument?
>
>Fair point. The war prosecuted in the absence of a lawful declaration or
>clearly ennunciated strategic aims, hobbled the entire process and
>virtually doomed the enterprise to failure. I still maintain that
>protesting policy while troops are engaged in combat operations bear the
>unintended consequences of bolstering the enemy's agenda.
>
>
>>
>> No, I am not going to subjugate my moral standards to that line of
>> reasoning. If you wish to, be my guest.
>>
>
at the time hold those "moral standards".
One would be inclined to give such persons the benefit of doubt except for
some inconsistencies which negate that doubt.
Henry stated that he had no wish to join the "war machine" so he turned down
the opportunity to join the National Guard yet he had belonged to the ROTC
for 2 years. Isn't that part of the war machine? How much of his education
was paid for by his ROTC participation?????????
These questions lie in the background of his "moral standards" He also
stated that he confessed to using certain substances which would insure that
he was not drafted. Is this tactic consistent with his "moral standards"?
Not to this observer. It seems more consistent with the weasel game that
President Clinton played and now wishes to deny.
Linus Zimmerman
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote in message <753o34$v...@portal.gmu.edu>...
into the thread. Typical diversion ploy buttly.
you will, it won't change what YOUR hero did.
Don't bet the farm on it buttly.
-
>: >: >: >Buddy K
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >"It just seems to me too simplistic to condemn all lying. In the
>: >: murkier
>: >: >: >grayness of the real world, choices must be made."
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >--Henry Hyde, 1987 (in reference to Iran-Contra)
>: >: >
>: >: >
>: >: >: Buddy's idea of "him too" in order to distract attention from his
>: flawed
>: >: >: Hero.
>: >: >
>: >: >Herr Zimmerman has one standard for those who throw government money
at
>: >: >him and another for those who do not.
>: >: >
>: >: Where does this diversion come from? Buddy is jealous of my pension
>: after
>: >: he was chickenshit to serve himself?
>: >
>: >: Buddy's grant ran out? What? Please explain?
>: >
>: >Herr Zimmerman was whining and complaining about Clinton and the fact
that
>: >he wouldn't throw the entire Treasury in his direction. That's why he
has
>: >a double standard.
>: >
Buddy dragged this in from a completely different thread, poor buttly is
like a cornered rat, getting desperate to justify his cowardice. Isn't he
cute?
>: >The entire treasury? Nope. Only what was written in the law, what we
>: retired military people earned the hard way.
>
>Picking up butts?
I picked up butts maybe 90 minutes in 21 years. I still do it whereever I
go on a volunteer basis. Hate that littering up a natural world.
>
>: I suppose you would not complain if your check was cut for a few years?
>: Right. You better go help O.J. he hasn't found those killers yet.
>
>I have no problem with you voting your economic interests, Herr Zimmerman.
>When all is said and done, most of us do. But you sure look silly arguing
>that Clinton is the most corrupt guy who ever walked the planet simply
>because of your ulterior motives.
>
>Why don't you just be honest as all my vet friends are, and simply say you
>don't like him because he is not a friend of the economic interests of
>vets? But instead, you rant and rave like he did something that Reagan
>and Bush didn't do in spades (while voting for your economic interests).
Because it wouldn't be the truth buttly. All I knew of Clinton before he
ran for office was a small amount of criminal activity at Mena arpt which I
learned about in Mar of 89. I didn't even recall his name, didn't have a
clue what he looked like. The very first speech he gave on TV I had him
pegged and I've never had a single occasion to change my opinion. In fact
the longer he's around the lower my opinion goes. I didn't put the Mena
info together with Clinton until he had been in office several years. No
that theory doesn't fly buttly. Under Reagan and Bush the vets took hits
too and continue to. I wrote Senator Boschwitz way back in 1983 and told
him I would give up all VA benefits if other sectors in the budget such as
farm, corporate and individual welfare was also cut. Maybe he's started a
library you can look it up in.
LZ
gdy52150
wrote:
>
>
>
>On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
>
>>
>> much of it was channeled through South America. Business between
>> American corporations and the Nazis continued right through the war.
>
>
>Indeed? And were Karl Doenitz' U-Boat commanders instructed on which
>vessels carrying American goods accross the Atlantic to let pass without
>being torpedoed?
>
poor fellow you got caught. Now i suppose you are going to claim that
hese corporations didn't have any foreign branches to carry on the
trade with?
Oh care to tell us how many ships flying the Argentina falg were
sunk by the U-boats?
>Tom Wootton
>
>"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
>take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
>and kill him."
>
> ----Mark Twain
>
====================================================
Tom Wootton
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, gdy52150 wrote:
I suppose I'll have to admit to a basic lack of data on this score. I
hope gdy doesn't mind to a healthy dose of skepticism when I posed these
questions.
I do not know how many, or even if, Argentinian vessels were torpedoed by
German U-boats during World War II. I do not know if Argentina even had
a sizeable merchant fleet. I do know that most U-boat attacks
were made at night and on the surface, when it was entirely impossible for
U-boat commanders to distinguish the nationality of their targets.
My main question remains: why would American corporations--assuming a
total lack of patriotic impulse--continue trading with the enemy when
there was far more money to be made pursuing and delivering on U.S.
contracts? I am not being lawerly here, for I do not know the answer, but
the plausibility factor here is still deeply uncertain.
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
and kill him."
---Mark Twain
Tom Wootton
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Linus Zimmerman wrote:
> Well, one has to ASSUME here that Buddy is telling the truth and that he did
> at the time hold those "moral standards".
This is a fair assumption, and a crucial one in debate. It is always best
to assume that one's opponent is dealing in good faith
<snip Linus' questions about Henry's background>
All of which might be true, but would also be irrelevant. My criticism is
not against Henry, who has not run for and won the Presidency (although if
he had, I would have been just as critical) but against Clinton, who,
despite his record as a war protestor and waffly draft dodger, DID win the
Presidency. My point that Clinton's record renders him permanently unfit
to act as Commander in Chief stands. It does not apply to Henry, because
he is not President.
Tom Wootton
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Andrew Hall wrote:
> >> Some said that, they were right. For a lot of the Vietnamese people
> >> it was not a fight about a right-wing dictatorship versus a left wing
> >> dictatorship, it was a fight about Vietnamese leaders versus foreign
> >> leaders. This made it clear that the puppet right wing dictatorship
> >> did not have a chance in the long run.
They were right in predicting the future. They were not right if
they supposed that the NLF represented any sort of a democratic faction
in Southeast Asia. Actually, Andrew's case is pretty strong here. The
NLF and its North Vietnamese sponsor probably did have a better handle on
the nationalist aspirations of more Vietnamese who cared, but it does not
disguise the fact that Vietnamese communists trumped the brutality of the
ROV and ARVN time and again. The New Left was not interested in democracy
for Southeast Asia but for the establishment of a marxist-leninist
dictatorship.
>
> It was the south, with Eisenhower's urging, that refused to
> hold the agreed to election, because, in Eisenhower's words,
> the North would have gotten 80% of the vote.
>
This is true. Ho Chi Minh, after the 1954 Paris Peace Accords, directed
all southern communists to avoid violent confrontation with the southern
regime, in expectation that the communists would easily win the planned
national elecion in 1960. The record, however (and this goes back to V.I.
Lenin in 1919) shows that Marxist Leninists support democratic elections
only if they can be trusted to go their way. Marxists, otherwise, tend to
consider democracy quite expendible.
>
> NO, we tried, but Nixon lied and broke the law and went anyway.
Yes, which goes to show that Presidential violations of the law can
sometimes be justified in the pursuit of national interest.
>
> I believe in personal responsibility, had we withdrawn
> when we wanted to, there would be a lot more people alive
> today.
Probable. Democracy was probably a forlorn aspiration in that part of the
world at that time in any case. A lot more people could have been saved
if the U.S. State Department had rid itself of its Cold War blinders from
1946-50 and proactively solicited the support of Ho Chi Minh. He was a
Marxist dictator, but he was very western minded and would have welcomed
the support and help of the United States. As I argued before, however,
the Ho Chi Minh of the 1940s was far different from the one in the 1960s,
and one could not oppose U.S. policy in Southeast Asia without
also (even if unintentionally) supporting Ho's policy. The difference
between Andrew's attitude, and--say--Abbie Hoffman's or Jane Fonda's, is
that Hoffman and Fonda not only acknowledged, but embraced the
consequences.
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand, lead him to a secluded place,
Tom Wootton
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Mark Gibson wrote:
> I can't name names offhand, but I tend to suspect you are wrong about
> more than a few cases. Anyone who openly suggested that the U.S.
> should not have been at war with the Axis powers after Pearl Harbor
> was almost certainly risking being detained against his/her will.
> I'd be very surprised if anti-war protesters weren't "dealt with"
> harshly. Since WWII was a very popular war, once we did get involved,
> I don't think the public would have expressed much concern for civil
> rights violations against war protestors.
>
Ill see what I can find out. It may take me a day or so to do some
research. I do know that high profile "COs" (Conscientious Objectors)
such as Hollywood actor Lew Ayres, were ostracised.
Mike Jones
the Constitutionally
declared enemy of the United States? I am obligated to go along with any
policy the US government pursues as long as it provides someone to shoot
or some other esoteric argument? No, I am not going to subjugate my moral
standards to that line of
reasoning. If you wish to, be my guest."
What Ole ButtBuddyKKK really means to say here is:" If my government wants
me to shoot at our enemies, that's OK, but if they start shooting back, I'm
outta there."
Tom Wootton
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> Tom> Ill see what I can find out. It may take me a day or so to do some
> Tom> research. I do know that high profile "COs" (Conscientious Objectors)
> Tom> such as Hollywood actor Lew Ayres, were ostracised.
>
> Yes, ostracized, not jailed.
It turns out that many were. Please see my post under the Anti War
Protestors in WWII thread I started today
>
> I think that such public scorn, in a case of real national
> need, is an adequate replacement for the draft. I see no
> place for compulsory service in a free society.
History is unclear on the argument. Great Britain entered into World War
I with an all volunteer army, and yet under a democratic and
Liberal/Conservative/Labour coalition finally had to accept conscription
by 1916. I know of no other industrialized nation, democratic or not,
engaging in a major war in modern times, which did not employ conscription
at one time or another.
>
> Were Quakers scorned during WWII? I do know they were allowed
> to avoid service.
>
Some were. Some earned legal CO status and served in non combat roles in
the military or in Civilian service projects. Some went to jail. Many
others accepted conscription or volunteered for the military (Richard
Nixon was one). Many times the scorn and opprobium was directed by hard
core religionists against their bretheren who entered the military either
as volunteers or as conscripts.
Tom Wootton
Tom Wootton
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Andrew Hall wrote:
> I am not sure just what you mean by the "New Left", but in
> my experience the vast majority of the war protesters, of which
> I was an organizing member in my teens, and for which Nixon
> had my father harassed five years in a row by the IRS, were
> against the war because it was hopeless, the South was also
> brutal and killing in a cause that had no direct, and only
> tenuous indirect effect on national security was wrong.
The "New Left", historians generally agree, included organizations such as
the Students for a Democratic Society and marginal fringe terrorist groups
such as the Weather Underground. Andrew's experience does not appear to
fall into these categories, nor--I am certain--did those of most Americans
who protested the war. I am sorry thatr Andrew's father was the object of
unfair government harrasment for exercising his right to free speech.
This was not an American way to do things.
We disagree that the war was hopeless, and I reject the myopia which
detects brutality only in the southern regime. The deleterious effects
of the Vietnam war on national security are arguable, as are the
diplomatic consequences of American disengagement from European affairs
during this time. It is worthwhile noting that German Social Democratic
Chancellor Willy Brandt took advantage of the relative American disintrest
in Europe to open up a policy of engagement or "Ostpolitik" with the
communist east, resulting in a pronounced decreasing of cold war tensions.
> Yes, as it was perceived as being a nationalist issue.
No argument. There might have been an opportunity for the U.S. to embark
on an engagement policy with Ho even as late as 1960.
>
> Eisenhower seems to have been a fellow traveler in this case. :)
I smile too, because I recognized the weakness in my argument--insofar as
Eisenhower's policy was concerned--as I was setting it down. Well done
for Andrew, but I believe my point was made.
>
> >> NO, we tried, but Nixon lied and broke the law and went anyway.
>
> Tom> Yes, which goes to show that Presidential violations of the law can
> Tom> sometimes be justified in the pursuit of national interest.
>
> Or non-national interest, as in this case.
We still disagree, but there is nothing further to add.
>
> Called his bluff. Yes, that would have been great. Imagine how history
> might be different had we answered Kerensky's (sp) call for help in the
> summer of 1917! Alas, we get no second tries in history.
Amen! If the U.S. policy with Tito in Yugoslavia was any guide, Ho could
have been easily suborned away from the Soviet sphere (Stalin didn't care
about southeast Asia) and the Chinese Communists (whom Ho distrusted
intensely). But U.S. policy, unfortunately, was geared to operate under
Cold War assumptions: which held that all communists were enemies. Bad
Deal. We were dumb.
Kerensky got no help, but I doubt it would have mattered. By
November 1917, Kerensky's policy of prosecuting the war against
Germany lost whatever credibility his democratic regime had. There
was a reason Lenin and the Bolsheviks succeeded in their coup that
month. They were talking peace, and that is all the industrial
urban workers and soldiers in Petrograd and Moscow wanted to hear.
Later, there was a significant Allied intervention against the Bolshevik
regime, including American, British, and French troops in Archangel and
Murmansk during the Russian Civil War, but Kerensky was long gone by that
time.
> You may be being a bit easy on Ho and hard on Hoffman and Fonda.
Ho, in my opinion, was a legendary figure in his own time. Educated in
the west, and deeply imbued with the values of the Enlightenment, I
believe he embraced marxist leninism because it was the only political
organization in the last half of the ninteenth century to bear an explicit
and consistent anti-imperialist policy. Ho could have been a Jeffersonian
democrat had mainstream liberals in the west been more welcoming to his
entreaties. Unfortunately, Liberals in the 19th century were often the
most rigorous supporters of Imperialism. Unfortunately too,
embracing marxist leninism comes with an awful lot of baggage. I
do not believe that Ho was a cruel or brual man by nature (for
that matter, neither was Ngo Dinh Diem of the South) but he gave
himself over to cruel policies too frequently in the pursuit of
nationalist objectives (as did Diem). One of the ironies of history is
that both Ho and Diem were equally fervent Vietnamese nationalists. The
latter lost power, and his life--arguably--because he was too
unwilling to be a conform to U.S. policy. Hoffmann was a joke and
Fonda a traitor.
Andrew writes consitently thoughtful and well-reasoned posts. I encourage
him to keep it up.
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
and kill him."
----Mark Twain
Tom Wootton
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Andrew Hall wrote:
> The early SDS was fine. My father was a founding member, being
> one of Tom Hayden's professors at UM. I was with my father, in
> 1967 or 1968 when he burned his SDS card in protest of the small
> fringe that got violent. Most of the original SDS folks started
> New Mobilization to End the War in Viet Nam (New Mobe for short).
> I was a member of New Mobe, and suffered the pain to get a chapter
> into my High School.
>
> The Weather Underground was a later ultra violent splinter of
> the SDS after the original split between the founders of the SDS
> and the violence prone jonnycomelaters.
>
Andrew is a splendid source of information. Much of this stuff I did not
know, and I thank him for posting this.
>
> Who has that myopia? I think that we should not support
> any totalitarian government, that in exchange for support
> we should require (enforceable) guarantees of improvements.
> I see Bush's refusal to get any concessions from Kuwait to
> be one of the sadder things about the Gulf war. (The slaughter
> of Saddam's slave-cannon fodder and Saddam's survival being
> other tragedies).
>
Arguable, but entirely plausible. There are some inherent risks in
comparing the Persian Gulf in 1990 and Vietnam 1970-75.
>
> I believe we also needed the French to go along with post
> war European plans (Marshall, NATO...) and we dumped the
> nationalists in VN in favor of the French. A bad idea,
> given my principles.
Agree entirely. The Roosevelt and Truman State Departments were entirely
ignorant of the peculiarities of Southeast Asia, but neither were they
interested in perpetuating French Imperialism. One of the worst blunders
of the Eisenhower State Department was in shoring up the French instead of
encouraging decolonization. We should have been helping Ho out,
diplomatically at least.
>
> Hmmm, I had thought that Kerensky's refusal top press the war against
> Germany was why the west cut off aid. Was I confused about the time
> line here?
No, Kerensky launched an offensive against the German line in summer 1917
in response to Allied pressure. The offensive was a complete disaster and
doubtless accelerated his rapid loss of credibility.
>
> I read a bunch of books last summer on Central Asia and the Great Game.
> Some of them extended into the WWI era, where things were very interesting
> in those areas.
Andrew has this right. It was an extremely complex time.
>
> Yes, that is what I believe too, but do not assert as fact due to
> the lack of real data. [Ho] seems to me to have been a genuine
> nationalist and a Marxist of convienence.
There is every evidence to believe this, at least until 1960, when he
began to harden his line.
>
> No, but his brother and sister-in-law were. And Diem did not
> have a clue. He withdrew while corrupt and/or evil minions
> killed and stole at will. The bozo's that followed were at
> best just as bad, and arguably worse.
>
Worse, in my opinion. There is no argument about Diem's brother in law
and Madame Nhu. They were not good people. Diem, on the other hand, was
personally incorruptable.
Diem's chief flaw was not that he was authoritarian, but his
background as an elite member of the Catholic, French-trained
arisocracy put him in a bad position to tap onto the mainstream
Buddhist/village culture, which is where his long term power base would
lie, if he had any hope at all. His "strategic hamlet" program, while
infinitely superior to the U.S. "hunt and destroy" tactics of the late
sixties, achieved little but disrupting traditional village life.
>
> Hoffa was funny, Fonda certainly pushed the envelope.
OK *L*, I concede the point.
Linus Zimmerman
Andrew Hall wrote in message ...
|>>>>> Tom Wootton writes:
|
|
| >> I am not sure just what you mean by the "New Left", but in
| >> my experience the vast majority of the war protesters, of which
| >> I was an organizing member in my teens, and for which Nixon
| >> had my father harassed five years in a row by the IRS, were
| >> against the war because it was hopeless, the South was also
| >> brutal and killing in a cause that had no direct, and only
| >> tenuous indirect effect on national security was wrong.
|
organizations such as
| Tom> the Students for a Democratic Society and marginal fringe
terrorist groups
|
|The early SDS was fine. My father was a founding member, being
|one of Tom Hayden's professors at UM. I was with my father, in
|1967 or 1968 when he burned his SDS card in protest of the small
|fringe that got violent. Most of the original SDS folks started
|New Mobilization to End the War in Viet Nam (New Mobe for short).
|I was a member of New Mobe, and suffered the pain to get a chapter
|into my High School.
|
not appear to
|
|The Weather Underground was a later ultra violent splinter of
|the SDS after the original split between the founders of the SDS
|and the violence prone jonnycomelaters.
|
most Americans
|
|No, I personally knew no one that supported the fringe.
|
|Equating those fringe types to the core of the anti-war movement
|is equivalent to saying Paul Hill is representative of the pro-life
|movement.
|
| Tom> who protested the war. I am sorry thatr Andrew's father was
the object of
| Tom> unfair government harrasment for exercising his right to free
speech.
| Tom> This was not an American way to do things.
|
|No, Nixon was not a good American.
|
| Tom> We disagree that the war was hopeless, and I reject the
myopia which
| Tom> detects brutality only in the southern regime. The
deleterious effects
|
|Who has that myopia? I think that we should not support
|any totalitarian government, that in exchange for support
|we should require (enforceable) guarantees of improvements.
|I see Bush's refusal to get any concessions from Kuwait to
|be one of the sadder things about the Gulf war. (The slaughter
|of Saddam's slave-cannon fodder and Saddam's survival being
|other tragedies).
|
the
| Tom> diplomatic consequences of American disengagement from
European affairs
| Tom> during this time. It is worthwhile noting that German Social
Democratic
| Tom> Chancellor Willy Brandt took advantage of the relative
American disintrest
| Tom> in Europe to open up a policy of engagement or "Ostpolitik"
with the
| Tom> communist east, resulting in a pronounced decreasing of cold
war tensions.
|
| >> Yes, as it was perceived as being a nationalist issue.
|
U.S. to embark
| Tom> on an engagement policy with Ho even as late as 1960.
|
| >> Eisenhower seems to have been a fellow traveler in this case.
:)
|
argument--insofar as
| Tom> Eisenhower's policy was concerned--as I was setting it down.
Well done
| Tom> for Andrew, but I believe my point was made.
|
| >> >> NO, we tried, but Nixon lied and broke the law and went
anyway.
|
| Tom> Yes, which goes to show that Presidential violations of the
law can
| Tom> sometimes be justified in the pursuit of national interest.
|
| >> Or non-national interest, as in this case.
|
|
| >> Called his bluff. Yes, that would have been great. Imagine
how history
| >> might be different had we answered Kerensky's (sp) call for
help in the
| >> summer of 1917! Alas, we get no second tries in history.
|
guide, Ho could
| Tom> have been easily suborned away from the Soviet sphere (Stalin
didn't care
| Tom> about southeast Asia) and the Chinese Communists (whom Ho
distrusted
| Tom> intensely). But U.S. policy, unfortunately, was geared to
operate under
| Tom> Cold War assumptions: which held that all communists were
enemies. Bad
| Tom> Deal. We were dumb.
|
|I believe we also needed the French to go along with post
|war European plans (Marshall, NATO...) and we dumped the
|nationalists in VN in favor of the French. A bad idea,
|given my principles.
|
| Tom> November 1917, Kerensky's policy of prosecuting the war
against
| Tom> Germany lost whatever credibility his democratic regime had.
There
|
|Hmmm, I had thought that Kerensky's refusal top press the war against
|Germany was why the west cut off aid. Was I confused about the time
|line here?
|
that
| Tom> month. They were talking peace, and that is all the
industrial
| Tom> urban workers and soldiers in Petrograd and Moscow wanted to
hear.
| Tom> Later, there was a significant Allied intervention against
the Bolshevik
| Tom> regime, including American, British, and French troops in
Archangel and
| Tom> Murmansk during the Russian Civil War, but Kerensky was long
gone by that
| Tom> time.
|
|I read a bunch of books last summer on Central Asia and the Great
Game.
|Some of them extended into the WWI era, where things were very
interesting
|in those areas.
|
Fonda.
|
Educated in
| Tom> the west, and deeply imbued with the values of the
Enlightenment, I
| Tom> believe he embraced marxist leninism because it was the only
political
| Tom> organization in the last half of the ninteenth century to
bear an explicit
| Tom> and consistent anti-imperialist policy. Ho could have been a
Jeffersonian
|
|Yes, that is what I believe too, but do not assert as fact due to
|nationalist and a Marxist of convienence.
|
welcoming to his
| Tom> entreaties. Unfortunately, Liberals in the 19th century were
often the
| Tom> most rigorous supporters of Imperialism. Unfortunately too,
| Tom> embracing marxist leninism comes with an awful lot of
baggage. I
| Tom> do not believe that Ho was a cruel or brual man by nature
(for
| Tom> that matter, neither was Ngo Dinh Diem of the South) but he
gave
|
|No, but his brother and sister-in-law were. And Diem did not
|have a clue. He withdrew while corrupt and/or evil minions
|killed and stole at will. The bozo's that followed were at
|best just as bad, and arguably worse.
|
of
| Tom> nationalist objectives (as did Diem). One of the ironies of
history is
| Tom> that both Ho and Diem were equally fervent Vietnamese
nationalists. The
| Tom> latter lost power, and his life--arguably--because he was too
| Tom> unwilling to be a conform to U.S. policy. Hoffmann was a
joke and
| Tom> Fonda a traitor.
|
|Hoffa was funny, Fonda certainly pushed the envelope.
|
I encourage
| Tom> him to keep it up.
|
Please post or e-mail me some of the titles of the books mentioned on
Central Asia and the "Great Game".
Always on the search for good, historical reading material.
Tom Wootton
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> Well, it was a long time ago, and while I believe my
> recollections to be accurate, before citing them I would
> check up on me. :)
I sometimes feel the same thing when expounding to my students on stuff I
learned 25 years ago. Sometimes I gotta go back and check it out.
>
> I did not mean to directly compare the two, but rather
> to give examples of my principles against giving aid
> and comfort to totalitarians in general.
Worthy impulse. Sometimes, however, it can't be avoided. U.S. aid to
Stalin while Nazi armies were invading Russia was entirely in American
interests and
justified.
>
> Kuwait is much less despotic than Iraq, and we chose the
> right side if a side had to be picked, but I think we
> squandered a good chance to improve Kuwait (and Iraq :)).
>
No disagreement.
>
> Tom> There is every evidence to believe this, at least until 1960, when he
> Tom> began to harden his line.
>
> Even then it could have been a condition set by the USSR.
I dunno. Ho seems to have been pretty independent from Soviet influence.
Even after his death, the DRV gave in--and only very reluctantly--to
Soviet pressure to come to terms in 1973 at the Paris Peace Conference.
>
> [Diem] He was disengaged.
Yes, and he lost his life for it. U.S. complicity in his overthrow--if
not his actual assassination--is unarguable. Not a shining moment for the
Kennedy administration.
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand, lead him to a secluded place
and then kill him."
---Mark Twain.