Rabid Rightwing Republican Terrorism
Peter R Cook
>Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
> Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
> City.
Do you have any examples of this hate, spite, etc?
Of course not! Thanks for playing.
> I've seen little pieces of this in the Rush Heads I work with, the
> vengeful attitude of 'now it's my turn', the willingness to blame
> complex problems on simple two syllable answers, the blatant
> disregard of some moral crimes while over-reacting to other crimes.
> the enjoyment of another human's misery.
Speaking of over-reacting....
> Now we have this, an office building, a child care center,
> businesses, government destroyed because Rabid Republicans have no
> respect for moral or governmental laws. Will it stop here? What's
> next, a bridge, an airplane? Who knows. With the current wave of
> disrespect for humans pushed by Rush and Friends who can predict
> what evil will be cast upon us next.
Will this ever stop? Even the most idiotic liberals in government
and the media have abandon this extremist view. When will the
lunatic fringe stop pointing fingers?
--
Peter R. Cook "I feel vindicated." Software Engineer
p...@world.std.com -President Clinton on Drummer, Blue Steel
PRC Records McNamara's recent admission. evil Republican
Tom Cain WB8OUE
>
>Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
>
> Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
> City.
>
vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity" and I'll
consider YOUR vindictive ranting and raving credible. I knew you
could not.
Good Day,
Tom
--
Tom Cain =WB8OUE on KO-23,KO-25= tc...@bnr.ca
NRA Life Member
I will NOT eat green eggs and ham
>
>Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
> ... government destroyed because Rabid Republicans have no
> respect for moral or governmental laws.
As a libertarian, I repect the former but not the latter. But I digress...
I see we go from "Rabid Right-wing" to "Rabid Republican" with no
transition. Journalistic freedom to some, slander to others.
I am no supporter of Republicans or "right-wingers", but I don't
see why Republicans are being implicated in a bombing by alleged
militia members. Oh, I get it, all militia members are Republicans.
This whole is issue is further
occluded
by the widespread illusion militias
are directly linked to the allusion. The jury is still out on who
did what, and there is dispute whether the "who" in question really
was a member of the Michigan militia. Again, I'm no fan of militias
either, but one bombing does not condemn every single militia. Extending
bad logic just far enough, the last umpteen wars have all been caused by
governments. Better get rid of all those terrorist diplomats.
>Will it stop here? What's
> next, a bridge, an airplane? Who knows. With the current wave of
> disrespect for humans pushed by Rush and Friends who can predict
> what evil will be cast upon us next.
With equal disrepect to both the left and right, there have been plenty
of left-wing terrorist organizations in the past 30 years. How quickly
we forget...but none of this matters to the dead. The guilty parties
should be hunted down in all terrorist acts. Politics, if not totally
ignored, should at least wait until the facts come in.
*****************************************************************************
Cliff Notes for Physics
Things move. The rest is math.
*****************************************************************************
rick....@nt.com
>
>
> Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
>
Uh, well, since the Republicans have been in power for only
4 months, I assume you mean the class warfare pablum put out
by the Illiberal left.
> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
> City.
Was it Rush or Dole who put the 'computer chip' in McVeigh's
butt. Maybe it was an alien abduction. (try alt.paranet.ufo)
>
> I've seen little pieces of this in the Rush Heads I work with, the
> vengeful attitude of 'now it's my turn', the willingness to blame
> complex problems on simple two syllable answers, the blatant
> disregard of some moral crimes while over-reacting to other crimes.
> the enjoyment of another human's misery.
>
> Now we have this, an office building, a child care center,
> businesses, government destroyed because Rabid Republicans have no
> respect for moral or governmental laws. Will it stop here? What's
> next, a bridge, an airplane? Who knows. With the current wave of
> disrespect for humans pushed by Rush and Friends who can predict
> what evil will be cast upon us next.
>
> smog
>
>
>
Your signature says it all.
>
art...@ais.com
> sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes:
>
>
>>Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
>
> Of course not! Thanks for playing.
>
article on what a few others are saying on the air. I'm not fan
of the BATF either. Read and judge for yourself.
Choking
Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
City.
I've seen little pieces of this in the Rush Heads I work with, the
ROGER C SHOUSE
Does this guy sound like a prosecutor at the Salem Witch Trials or what?
Choking
In message <D7wLC...@world.std.com> - p...@world.std.com (Peter R Cook)
>sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes:
>
>
>
>> Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
>> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
>> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
>> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
>> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
>> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
>> City.
>
> Of course not! Thanks for playing.
From today's (Tuesday's) Rush broadcast at 12:20, Rush is talking
about the federal government and current laws, Rush said "You've got
to fight them, you've got to fight them."
Rush also said that property owners are falling 'victim' to Fish
and Game laws them follows with a some bullshit story about someone
who ran over a squirrel. Rush did not talk about all of the
property confiscated by the DEA and local police over the last 10
years without trail or due process. These policies, which resemble
those of other Banana Republics, were enacted by Rabid Republicans.
>
>> I've seen little pieces of this in the Rush Heads I work with, the
>> vengeful attitude of 'now it's my turn', the willingness to blame
>> complex problems on simple two syllable answers, the blatant
>> disregard of some moral crimes while over-reacting to other crimes.
>> the enjoyment of another human's misery.
>
> Speaking of over-reacting....
>
>
>> Now we have this, an office building, a child care center,
>> businesses, government destroyed because Rabid Republicans have no
>> respect for moral or governmental laws. Will it stop here? What's
>> next, a bridge, an airplane? Who knows. With the current wave of
>> disrespect for humans pushed by Rush and Friends who can predict
>> what evil will be cast upon us next.
>
> Will this ever stop? Even the most idiotic liberals in government
> and the media have abandon this extremist view. When will the
> lunatic fringe stop pointing fingers?
The media has not been run by liberals since the Nixon days when
Agnew started blaming the media and calling for suspension of
the constitutional right to free press, just for catching him
and publishing stories about him taking bribes. The Rabid Right now
controls the media and they spend their time publishing stories
about the 'liberal media'.
>Peter R. Cook "I feel vindicated." Software Engineer
>p...@world.std.com -President Clinton on Drummer, Blue Steel
>PRC Records McNamara's recent admission. evil Republican
smog
Choking
In message <3o39n2$q...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> - tc...@bnr.ca (Tom Cain WB8OUE)
writes:
>>
>> Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
>> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
>> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
>> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
>> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
>> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
>> City.
>>
>vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity" and I'll
>consider YOUR vindictive ranting and raving credible. I knew you
>could not.
>Good Day,
>Tom
At least four times today, Rush said the Democrat's pretend to want
to work with the Republicans but really don't want a balanced
budget. He offers as proof, a letter to Newt where Clinton ask
for a meeting to discuss the balanced budget! Rush implies that
this letter is part of a conspiracy to NOT balance the budget.
How many times have you heard Rush make fun of Carter for
the christian act of building houses for homeless?
That's two in this post, and one in another post.
>--
>Tom Cain =WB8OUE on KO-23,KO-25= tc...@bnr.ca
> NRA Life Member
---------------
so am I
smog
Choking
In message <1MAY1995...@mivax.mc.duke.edu> - se...@mivax.mc.duke.edu (I
will NOT eat green eggs and ham) writes:
>In article <3o2nv3$6...@ralph.vnet.net>, sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes...
>>
>>Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
>
>> respect for moral or governmental laws.
>
>
>I see we go from "Rabid Right-wing" to "Rabid Republican" with no
>transition. Journalistic freedom to some, slander to others.
>I am no supporter of Republicans or "right-wingers", but I don't
>see why Republicans are being implicated in a bombing by alleged
>militia members. Oh, I get it, all militia members are Republicans.
>
>This whole is issue is further
> occluded
> by the widespread illusion militias
>are directly linked to the allusion. The jury is still out on who
>did what, and there is dispute whether the "who" in question really
It sounds like you are buying into the 'Oklahoma was Blown Up by
the Federal Government to support stronger Federal Government'
conspiracy?
>was a member of the Michigan militia. Again, I'm no fan of militias
The Constitution of the US supports militia, not individuals,
owning guns.
>either, but one bombing does not condemn every single militia. Extending
>bad logic just far enough, the last umpteen wars have all been caused by
>governments. Better get rid of all those terrorist diplomats.
The faulty logic is yours. Governments fight wars. This does not
imply that governments cause wars. Wars are caused by narrow minded
fools feeding on adolescent get-tough hormones. The same kind of
rhetoric I hear from the Rabid Right.
>With equal disrepect to both the left and right, there have been plenty
>of left-wing terrorist organizations in the past 30 years. How quickly
There is no difference between the American left terrorist of 30
years ago, the American right terrorist of now, the Nazi movement
of the thirties, except for hair length. The propaganda machine
works the same way, the goals are the same, the methods are the
same.
>we forget...but none of this matters to the dead. The guilty parties
>should be hunted down in all terrorist acts. Politics, if not totally
Agreed
> Politics, if not totally
>ignored, should at least wait until the facts come in.
Politics will not wait.
>
>*****************************************************************************
> Cliff Notes for Physics
>
> Things move. The rest is math.
What about inert objects?
>*****************************************************************************
smog
Steven J. Crisp
: At least four times today, Rush said the Democrat's pretend to want
: to work with the Republicans but really don't want a balanced
: budget. He offers as proof, a letter to Newt where Clinton ask
: for a meeting to discuss the balanced budget! Rush implies that
: this letter is part of a conspiracy to NOT balance the budget.
If I may remind you, the Federal budget was substantially balanced as a
percentage of total expenditures throughout the history of this country
(except in times of declared war) until the Carter Administration.
Following that, both Reagan and Bush submitted 12 straight budgets to a
Democratic controlled Congress - all 12 of which were declared Dead On
Arrival.
It is Congress who appropriates money. It is Congress who has the
inability to balance a budget. And it is Congress that submits that
grossly inflated budget to the president for signature. Reagan and Bush
would have had a difficult time applying a veto since the budget passed
with a veto-busting majority.
The overwhelming reason that the Republicans can not immediately balance
the budget is because the interest on the accrued debt is astounding; it
is some 350 billion dollars per year. Oh, they could do it, but the
instant transition from fiscal irresponsibility to sound policy would
harm a lot of people. That is the reason why Republicans have taken the
seven-year tack - to allow for a seamless transition. If any individual
in this country can not adapt within seven years *after* advance warning,
they deserve to rot anyway.
: How many times have you heard Rush make fun of Carter for
: the christian act of building houses for homeless?
Uh, never. Actually, I once heard him questioning the rationality of
Carter going to Mexico to build houses when we have individuals and
families in our own country who need help, but I doubt you are referring
to that.
Steve Crisp
Steven J. Crisp
: The faulty logic is yours. Governments fight wars. This does not
: imply that governments cause wars. Wars are caused by narrow minded
: fools feeding on adolescent get-tough hormones. The same kind of
: rhetoric I hear from the Rabid Right.
Uh, excuse me you flatulant pus-head, government policies cause wars and
the individual citizens of a country fight them. Learn the difference and
you might be allowed to enter first grade.
Steve Crisp
Thomas Disque
In article <3o5ool$2...@ralph.vnet.net>, sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes:
|>
|> In message <3o39n2$q...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> - tc...@bnr.ca (Tom Cain WB8OUE)
|> >In article <3o2nv3$6...@ralph.vnet.net>, Choking <sm...@NewHorizon.com> wrote:
|> >>
|> >>Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
|> >>
|> >> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
|> >> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
|> >> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
|> >> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
|> >> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
|> >> City.
|> >>
|> >Please cite ONE example of "Rush and Dole supporting hatred, spite,
|> >vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity" and I'll
|> >consider YOUR vindictive ranting and raving credible. I knew you
|> >could not.
|> >Good Day,
|> >Tom
|>
|> to work with the Republicans but really don't want a balanced
|> budget. He offers as proof, a letter to Newt where Clinton ask
|> for a meeting to discuss the balanced budget! Rush implies that
|> this letter is part of a conspiracy to NOT balance the budget.
You should listen more closely. The letter was from Panetta(sp?)
and outlined why the Clinton Administration would NOT meet with
Congress to discuss the balanced budget.
|>
|> How many times have you heard Rush make fun of Carter for
|> the christian act of building houses for homeless?
Lots of times, but I think his point is that Carter should
stick to building houses. IMO, Carter is too honest to
be a politician or diplomat anyway.
|>
|> That's two in this post, and one in another post.
|>
|> >--
|> >Tom Cain =WB8OUE on KO-23,KO-25= tc...@bnr.ca
|> > NRA Life Member
|> ---------------
|> so am I
|>
|> smog
Tom Disque
"My opinions, not SAS Institute's"
Thomas Disque
In article <3o5ntk$2...@ralph.vnet.net>, sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes:
|>
|> In message <D7wLC...@world.std.com> - p...@world.std.com (Peter R Cook)
|> writes:
|> >sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >
|> >> Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
|> >> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
|> >> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
|> >> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
|> >> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
|> >> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
|> >> City.
|> >
|> > Of course not! Thanks for playing.
|>
|> From today's (Tuesday's) Rush broadcast at 12:20, Rush is talking
|> about the federal government and current laws, Rush said "You've got
|> to fight them, you've got to fight them."
|>
|> Rush also said that property owners are falling 'victim' to Fish
|> and Game laws them follows with a some bullshit story about someone
|> who ran over a squirrel. Rush did not talk about all of the
Are you saying it's not true? I saw a squirrel story (don't know if
it's the same one) a month or too ago in the N&O, a week after Rush
reported it. Do you mean the kangaroo rat story, maybe? Why do you
think it isn't true? It's been covered in other media.
|> property confiscated by the DEA and local police over the last 10
|> years without trail or due process. These policies, which resemble
|> those of other Banana Republics, were enacted by Rabid Republicans.
|>
|> >
|> >> I've seen little pieces of this in the Rush Heads I work with, the
|> >> vengeful attitude of 'now it's my turn', the willingness to blame
|> >> complex problems on simple two syllable answers, the blatant
|> >> disregard of some moral crimes while over-reacting to other crimes.
|> >> the enjoyment of another human's misery.
Both (all?) sides can be very selective in their vision.
|> >
|> > Speaking of over-reacting....
|> >
|> >
|> >> Now we have this, an office building, a child care center,
|> >> businesses, government destroyed because Rabid Republicans have no
|> >> respect for moral or governmental laws. Will it stop here? What's
|> >> next, a bridge, an airplane? Who knows. With the current wave of
|> >> disrespect for humans pushed by Rush and Friends who can predict
|> >> what evil will be cast upon us next.
|> >
|> > Will this ever stop? Even the most idiotic liberals in government
|> > and the media have abandon this extremist view. When will the
|> > lunatic fringe stop pointing fingers?
|>
|> The media has not been run by liberals since the Nixon days when
|> Agnew started blaming the media and calling for suspension of
|> the constitutional right to free press, just for catching him
|> and publishing stories about him taking bribes. The Rabid Right now
|> controls the media and they spend their time publishing stories
|> about the 'liberal media'.
|>
|> >Peter R. Cook "I feel vindicated." Software Engineer
|> >p...@world.std.com -President Clinton on Drummer, Blue Steel
|> >PRC Records McNamara's recent admission. evil Republican
|>
Andrew Hall
Steven> Choking (sm...@NewHorizon.com) wrote:
>> At least four times today, Rush said the Democrat's pretend to want
>> to work with the Republicans but really don't want a balanced
>> budget. He offers as proof, a letter to Newt where Clinton ask
>> for a meeting to discuss the balanced budget! Rush implies that
>> this letter is part of a conspiracy to NOT balance the budget.
Steven> If I may remind you, the Federal budget was substantially balanced as a
Steven> percentage of total expenditures throughout the history of this country
Steven> (except in times of declared war) until the Carter Administration.
Steven> Following that, both Reagan and Bush submitted 12 straight budgets to a
Steven> Democratic controlled Congress - all 12 of which were declared Dead On
Steven> Arrival.
Steven> It is Congress who appropriates money. It is Congress who has the
Steven> inability to balance a budget. And it is Congress that submits that
Steven> grossly inflated budget to the president for signature. Reagan and Bush
Steven> would have had a difficult time applying a veto since the budget passed
Steven> with a veto-busting majority.
Steven> The overwhelming reason that the Republicans can not immediately balance
Steven> the budget is because the interest on the accrued debt is astounding; it
Steven> is some 350 billion dollars per year. Oh, they could do it, but the
Steven> instant transition from fiscal irresponsibility to sound policy would
Steven> harm a lot of people. That is the reason why Republicans have taken the
Steven> seven-year tack - to allow for a seamless transition. If any individual
Steven> in this country can not adapt within seven years *after* advance warning,
Steven> they deserve to rot anyway.
To put a little perspective here, during Reagan's eight
years, Congress only outspent Reagan budget requests by a total
of 2.6%. If you adjust Reagan's requests to take out interest
on prior Congressional outspending, they out spent him by 3.8%.
Reagan deserves almost equal credit as Congress for the deficit runup
and subsequent debt burden.
Any attempts to portray Reagan as fiscally responsible are grossly
revisionist. (Of course, we all know that Congress is not fiscally
responsible).
Year Proposed Actual Diff %Diff Ten Year Accum Interest Adjusted Adjusted
Spending Spending Treasury Extra on Acc Ex Reagan Excess
Yield Debt Debt Requests Spending
1982 695.3 745.8 50.5 7.3% 13.87% 50.5 695.3 50.5
1983 773.3 808.4 35.1 4.5% 10.40% 92.6 7.0 766.3 42.1
1984 862.5 851.8 -10.7 -1.2% 12.63% 91.5 9.6 852.9 -1.1
1985 940.3 946.4 6.1 0.6% 11.43% 109.2 11.6 928.7 17.7
1986 973.7 990.3 16.6 1.7% 7.30% 138.3 12.5 961.2 29.1
1987 994.0 1,003.9 9.9 1.0% 8.02% 158.3 10.1 983.9 20.0
1988 1,024.3 1,064.1 39.8 3.9% 8.72% 210.8 12.7 1,011.6 52.5
1989 1,094.2 1,144.2 50.0 4.6% 9.18% 279.1 18.4 1,075.8 68.4
7,357.6 7,554.9 197.3 2.8% 279.1 81.8 7,275.8 279.1 3.8%
Bottom Line: 279.1/7275.8 = 3.84%
Notes:
This analysis properly accounts for the interest paid in
later years for the extra spending the Congress did. I
have used the 10-year Treasury rate as of April for the
annual accumulation figure. The ten year yield was taken
from the Fed Statistical Release H15 --- Constant Maturity
Treasury series. To illustrate: The cumulative extra
spending by the end of 1983 was 92.6 = (50.5 + 13.87%*50.5
+35.1).
ah
=======================================================================
Mars is essentially in the same orbit... somewhat the same distance
from the sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where
there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that
means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
-- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89
(reported in Esquire, 8/92)
Thomas Gauldin
>
> Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from the
> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting hatred,
> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity and
> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
> City.
DELETED
You are grasping at any straw to discredit an honest taxpayer revolt against
liberals by trying to say that there was ANY connection to the Oklahoma
bomb. I suspect that the liberal coddling/drooling that has taken place
over the past 40 years has done more to bifurcate the races than anything
Rush Limbaugh has ever said. Get a life.
--
Thomas A. Gauldin Here's to the land of the longleaf pine,
Raleigh, NC The summerland where the sun doth shine,
BSRB45A on Prodigy Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great,
FAX (919) 676-1404 Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.
Richard Hanson
Gauldin) writes:
>
>In article <3o2nv3$6...@ralph.vnet.net>, Choking <sm...@NewHorizon.com>
wrote:
>>
>>Subject: Rabid Right-wing Republican Terrorism
>>
>> Now we are seeing the natural outcome of several years of hate,
>> soulless abomination and reckless abandonment of Gods ways from
the
>> Rabid Republicans. We've had years of continuous radio and
>> television babel from the likes of Rush and Dole supporting
hatred,
>> spite, vindictiveness, disrespect and encouragement of stupidity
and
>> emotionalism. Now we see some of the the results in Oklahoma
>> City.
>
>DELETED
>You are grasping at any straw to discredit an honest taxpayer revolt
against
>liberals by trying to say that there was ANY connection to the
Oklahoma
>bomb. I suspect that the liberal coddling/drooling that has taken
place
>over the past 40 years has done more to bifurcate the races than
anything
>Rush Limbaugh has ever said. Get a life.
Get a clue. Your own populist party seems to disagree. They're
distancing themselves from their vote cow Liddy at the speed of light,
and assuming the fetal position on the Assault Weapons ban. If they
actually had the courage of their convictions, they'd be standing up
for what they said they believed in.
But they have no convictions, just hate rhetoric and it blew up on
them.
RH
--
___________________________________________________
What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections
on human nature? If men were angels no government would
be necessary. James Madison (1751 - 1836)
___________________________________________________
A reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945)
___________________________________________________
Choking
Government policies are started by individuals for personal reasons.
They are implemented by vultures like Rush, preying on emotions,
patriotism and adolescent get-tough hormones (much like your own).
Once implemented, wars and destruction breaks out. Then, unless
your daddy has enough money to transfer you in a safe place, it's
citizens like you and me that get maimed and killed.
>Steve Crisp
smog
Thomas Disque
Little Billy Clinton didn't have a rich daddy, and he got out of it!
He didn't even have to join the national guard like rich kid Danny
Quayle! Ain't America great?
|> >Steve Crisp
rick....@nt.com
>
> In message <3o6669$2...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> - py...@unity.ncsu.edu (Steven J.
> Crisp) writes:
> >Choking (sm...@NewHorizon.com) wrote:
> >: The faulty logic is yours. Governments fight wars. This does not
> >: imply that governments cause wars. Wars are caused by narrow minded
> >: fools feeding on adolescent get-tough hormones. The same kind of
> >: rhetoric I hear from the Rabid Right.
> >Uh, excuse me you flatulant pus-head, government policies cause wars and
> >the individual citizens of a country fight them. Learn the difference and
> >you might be allowed to enter first grade.
>
> Government policies are started by individuals for personal reasons.
> They are implemented by vultures like Rush, preying on emotions,
> patriotism and adolescent get-tough hormones (much like your own).
> Once implemented, wars and destruction breaks out. Then, unless
> your daddy has enough money to transfer you in a safe place, it's
> citizens like you and me that get maimed and killed.
>
>
> smog
>
>
>
Now let's get this stright. 'Vultures' like Rush IMPLEMENT
gov't policy. Which of these last WARS were caused by the
rabid right. WWII ? Korea ? 'Nam? . But as before, you are
correct, Johnson and Mcnamara are well known right-wingers
who probably are/were in militias too...:/)
Chris Telesca
In article <D82I5...@unx.sas.com>, dis...@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) writes:
|>
|> In article <3ob6ai$n...@ralph.vnet.net>, sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes:
|> |> Crisp) writes:
|> |> >Choking (sm...@NewHorizon.com) wrote:
|> |> >: The faulty logic is yours. Governments fight wars. This does not
|> |> >: imply that governments cause wars. Wars are caused by narrow minded
|> |> >: fools feeding on adolescent get-tough hormones. The same kind of
|> |> >: rhetoric I hear from the Rabid Right.
|> |> >Uh, excuse me you flatulant pus-head, government policies cause wars and
|> |> >the individual citizens of a country fight them. Learn the difference and
|> |> >you might be allowed to enter first grade.
|> |>
|> |> Government policies are started by individuals for personal reasons.
|> |> They are implemented by vultures like Rush, preying on emotions,
|> |> patriotism and adolescent get-tough hormones (much like your own).
|> |> Once implemented, wars and destruction breaks out. Then, unless
|> |> your daddy has enough money to transfer you in a safe place, it's
|> |> citizens like you and me that get maimed and killed.
|> |>
|>
|> He didn't even have to join the national guard like rich kid Danny
|> Quayle! Ain't America great?
|>
Rush, Newt and Pat Buchannan got out of Vietnam too! America is a great country,
especially if draft-dodgers can become war-mongering hawks when they grow up!
|> |> >Steve Crisp
|> |> smog
|> Tom Disque
|> "My opinions, not SAS Institute's"
--
Chris Telesca Associate Photographer (919)677-8001 x7489/3489
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / sas...@unx.sas.com
**************************************************************************
"A man who isn't a father to his children isn't much of a man!"
- Don Vito Corleone
**************************************************************************
Thomas Disque
In article <D82Mv...@unx.sas.com>, sas...@rainbow.unx.sas.com (Chris Telesca) writes:
|>
|> In article <D82I5...@unx.sas.com>, dis...@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) writes:
|> |>
|> |> In article <3ob6ai$n...@ralph.vnet.net>, sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) writes:
|> |> |> In message <3o6669$2...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> - py...@unity.ncsu.edu (Steven J.
|> |> |> Crisp) writes:
|> |> |> >Choking (sm...@NewHorizon.com) wrote:
|> |> |> >: The faulty logic is yours. Governments fight wars. This does not
|> |> |> >: imply that governments cause wars. Wars are caused by narrow minded
|> |> |> >: fools feeding on adolescent get-tough hormones. The same kind of
|> |> |> >: rhetoric I hear from the Rabid Right.
|> |> |> >Uh, excuse me you flatulant pus-head, government policies cause wars and
|> |> |> >the individual citizens of a country fight them. Learn the difference and
|> |> |> >you might be allowed to enter first grade.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Government policies are started by individuals for personal reasons.
|> |> |> They are implemented by vultures like Rush, preying on emotions,
|> |> |> patriotism and adolescent get-tough hormones (much like your own).
|> |> |> Once implemented, wars and destruction breaks out. Then, unless
|> |> |> your daddy has enough money to transfer you in a safe place, it's
|> |> |> citizens like you and me that get maimed and killed.
|> |> |>
|> |>
|> |> Little Billy Clinton didn't have a rich daddy, and he got out of it!
|> |> He didn't even have to join the national guard like rich kid Danny
|> |> Quayle! Ain't America great?
|> |>
|>
|> Rush, Newt and Pat Buchannan got out of Vietnam too! America is a great country,
|> especially if draft-dodgers can become war-mongering hawks when they grow up!
Were their daddies rich? Stick to the point!
Chris Telesca
I don't think that Newt and Pat had rich daddies. I thought I heard that Rush's
father owned some radio stations. They, like Billy Clinton, all got out of
fighting not by having rich daddies. That's what makes America great!
SNO...@mvs.sas.com
>|> He didn't even have to join the national guard like rich kid Danny
>|> Quayle! Ain't America great?
>|>
>
>Rush, Newt and Pat Buchannan got out of Vietnam too! America is a great country,
>especially if draft-dodgers can become war-mongering hawks when they grow up!
>
>SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / sas...@unx.sas.com
the Vietnam era. And while I don't know the history of Gingrich and
Buchannan, I do know that Rush didn't leave the country (e.g. Clinton)
to get out of being drafted... he simply wasn't chosen. Not to mention
the obvious fact that Rush is not an elected official.
And by the way... which of these three men is the war-mongering
draft-dodging hawk you speak of? I am not aware of any wars started
by the likes of them. It appears to me that this kind of hatred for
the government, free speach and capitolism is just the sort of thing
that was cited as reason for the Okla. bombing.
-Mike
(Choking)
>sm...@NewHorizon.com (Choking ) wrote:
>>
>> In message <3o6669$2...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> - py...@unity.ncsu.edu (Steven J.
>> Crisp) writes:
>> >Choking (sm...@NewHorizon.com) wrote:
>> >: The faulty logic is yours. Governments fight wars. This does not
>> >: imply that governments cause wars. Wars are caused by narrow minded
>> >: fools feeding on adolescent get-tough hormones. The same kind of
>> >: rhetoric I hear from the Rabid Right.
>> >Uh, excuse me you flatulant pus-head, government policies cause wars and
>> >the individual citizens of a country fight them. Learn the difference and
>> >you might be allowed to enter first grade.
>>
>> Government policies are started by individuals for personal reasons.
>> They are implemented by vultures like Rush, preying on emotions,
>> patriotism and adolescent get-tough hormones (much like your own).
>> Once implemented, wars and destruction breaks out. Then, unless
>> your daddy has enough money to transfer you in a safe place, it's
>> citizens like you and me that get maimed and killed.
>>
>>
>> smog
>>
>>
>>
> Now let's get this stright. 'Vultures' like Rush IMPLEMENT
> gov't policy. Which of these last WARS were caused by the
> rabid right. WWII ? Korea ? 'Nam? . But as before, you are
> correct, Johnson and Mcnamara are well known right-wingers
> who probably are/were in militias too...:/)
Korea happened during MaCarthyism where Rabid Right-wing Republicans
were ruining careers and lives while increasing their personal power.
Vietnam was started in the late 50's with a Republican Pres, but did
increase to full strength until Johnson's adminstration. If you were
out of diapers, you'll remember that the rioters in Chicago claimed
that the Dems were Right-wing Facist.
Most of the credit for WWII goes to the Nazi fascist, an ultra Right
group. Sparks from this historical incident have been fanned back to
life by Rabid Right talk shows venting venomous hate and encourging
disrespect for due process. This has lead to Oklahoma City.
smog
I will NOT eat green eggs and ham
> Most of the credit for WWII goes to the Nazi fascist, an ultra Right
> group. Sparks from this historical incident have been fanned back to
> life by Rabid Right talk shows venting venomous hate and encourging
> disrespect for due process. This has lead to Oklahoma City.
Ironic how many Right-wing-government groups you cite, and yet you don't
make the connection that the "rabid-right" in this case is in direct
opposition to any strong government.
However, this whole "rabid-right" idea is still just an idea; there is still
no confirmed link to a militia that would have the clown involved.
While we're at it, the #1 violator of due process is gov't, not private
citizens. Not that I approve of their methods or their membership, but
it is due process that these militias claim the feds have taken away.
For every far-right act of terrorism, there are as many far-left acts.
For every act of terrorism, there are umpteen acts of genocide committed
by established gov'ts.
Mr smog, if you apply your anti-Oklahoma-bombers sentiment consistently,
you'd totally reject every government that's been around long enough to
commit at least one atrocity. Not many exceptions, are there?
*****************************************************************************
Cliff Notes for Physics
Things move. The rest is math.
*****************************************************************************
rick....@nt.com
>
>> >>> >>
> >>
> > Now let's get this stright. 'Vultures' like Rush IMPLEMENT
> > gov't policy. Which of these last WARS were caused by the
> > rabid right. WWII ? Korea ? 'Nam? . But as before, you are
> > correct, Johnson and Mcnamara are well known right-wingers
> > who probably are/were in militias too...:/)
>
> Korea happened during MaCarthyism where Rabid Right-wing Republicans
> were ruining careers and lives while increasing their personal power.
> Vietnam was started in the late 50's with a Republican Pres, but did
> increase to full strength until Johnson's adminstration. If you were
> out of diapers, you'll remember that the rioters in Chicago claimed
> that the Dems were Right-wing Facist.
>
> group. Sparks from this historical incident have been fanned back to
> life by Rabid Right talk shows venting venomous hate and encourging
> disrespect for due process. This has lead to Oklahoma City.
>
>
Korea could/would not have happended if not for Roosey's
capitulation at Yalta. How can you say Eisenhower started
the Vietnam War? The Rioters in Chicago claimed alot of
things that were incorrect., Johnson was a Fascist ??
Nazi's stand for National Socialists', It was the Italians
who were the Fascist. If these are connected as your logic
suggests, then why was one of the first things Hitler did
was outlaw gun possession by the people. Hmmmmm.... National
Socialists, Gun control, Media Propaganda,.... Sounds more
like Bill and Hillary and the US left than this so-called
'right-wingers'. The right in this country is ffor LESS
central control, and more individual liberty. The exact
opposite of your logic.
(Choking)
>> group. Sparks from this historical incident have been fanned back to
>> life by Rabid Right talk shows venting venomous hate and encourging
>> disrespect for due process. This has lead to Oklahoma City.
>
>make the connection that the "rabid-right" in this case is in direct
>opposition to any strong government.
Just as the Nazi's used the 'socialist' idealism to gain power, without
any desire to be true socialist, the Rabid Right are using 'shrink
government' as one of their banners in their quest to gain power.
Their rhetoric has NOT much to do with their goals. They preceive
human emotions as tools used to maneuver people into desired positions,
just as advertisement agencies use emotions to sell products.
>However, this whole "rabid-right" idea is still just an idea; there is still
>no confirmed link to a militia that would have the clown involved.
The continuing barrage of hate oratory, closed mindedness and
encouragement of unintelligence from Rush and others of the Rabid
foaming mouth crowd helps average people feel good about their meanness
and justifies the distorted reality of the fringe crazies.
>While we're at it, the #1 violator of due process is gov't, not private
>citizens. Not that I approve of their methods or their membership, but
>it is due process that these militias claim the feds have taken away.
>For every far-right act of terrorism, there are as many far-left acts.
>For every act of terrorism, there are umpteen acts of genocide committed
>by established gov'ts.
The Rabid Right Republicans want state enforced religion in our
schools, a replacement of open minded scientific inquiry with higher
authority based creationism (remember Galileo), more laws for victimless
crimes so they can lock up more nonconformist, less controls on the
ruling class (so Rush can openly smoke illegal imported drugs like
Cuban Cigars) and a reduction of the political power of the middle
class.
As you say, "the #1 violator of due process is gov't". I suspect the
Rabid Right won't libertarians survive a year once the RRR get full
control of the press and other forms of communications.
>Mr smog, if you apply your anti-Oklahoma-bombers sentiment consistently,
>you'd totally reject every government that's been around long enough to
>commit at least one atrocity. Not many exceptions, are there?
None. Power corrupts ...
Once there were three cavemen scared of the tiger eating them each
night. They got together and decided that one of them should stand
guard with the stick so the other two could sleep. When the two awoke,
they found the one standing over them with the stick.
>*****************************************************************************
> Cliff Notes for Physics
> Things move. The rest is math.
>*****************************************************************************
smog
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man. -- Thomas Jefferson, 18
93163
[ Lines deleted ]
>
> Ya know... it is a known fact that not EVERYONE was drafted during
>the Vietnam era. And while I don't know the history of Gingrich and
>Buchannan, I do know that Rush didn't leave the country (e.g. Clinton)
>to get out of being drafted... he simply wasn't chosen. Not to mention
[ Lines deleted ]
> -Mike
From FAIR:
- begin quote -
LIMBAUGH: On Bill Clinton: "Never trust a draft dodger." (Radio show,
quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Although a supporter of the Vietnam War, Limbaugh used a minor
physical impairment to avoid the draft (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/27/93).
- end quote -
In fact, the impairment was an ingrown hair on his rear end. His father
also had the same impairment but successfully served in WWII.
"Now folks, I'm not making this up." - Rush Limbaugh
Ernest Priestly
rick....@nt.com
Thomas Disque
Anyway, what's the point? So Limbaugh and Newt and the others didn't
go, so what? I posted a response to someone who complained that rich
kids didn't have to go to Vietnam. My response noted that Clinton
didn't go, and he was a po' boy. THAT was the point.
Tom Disque
"My opinion, not SAS Institute's"
BTW, I didn't go either, and my daddy wasn't rich.
(Choking)
>
>|> > "Now folks, I'm not making this up." - Rush Limbaugh
>|> He didn't use IT. He was declared 4F.
>
>Anyway, what's the point? So Limbaugh and Newt and the others didn't
>go, so what? I posted a response to someone who complained that rich
>kids didn't have to go to Vietnam. My response noted that Clinton
>didn't go, and he was a po' boy. THAT was the point.
>
>Tom Disque
>"My opinion, not SAS Institute's"
>
>BTW, I didn't go either, and my daddy wasn't rich.
The real point is that Rabid Right are cowards, Chicken-hawks, that
approve of war, death and destruction as long as they themselves don't
have to pay the price.
smog
That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.
Job, 34:30
Steven J. Crisp
: The real point is that Rabid Right are cowards, Chicken-hawks, that
: approve of war, death and destruction as long as they themselves don't
: have to pay the price.
No, the real point is that Clinton lied. If you were old enough to
remember the latter Vietnam era, you would realize that most individuals
tried very hard to get out of service. Clinton did nothing that most
others did not do themselves. I have no complaint with that...
But the putz lied rather than taking a stand on something in which he
believed and tried to make up this wacko story when running for
president.
The honorable process is called taking responsibility for one's actions.
Take a stand, make a decision, and act on it. Afterward, if it turns out
that the decision becomes a liability the best one can do is apologize.
However, one must never lie. That amounts to an abrogation of responsibility.
Of course, Clinton has no honor...
Steve Crisp
Thomas Disque
In article <3oq6o8$7...@ralph.vnet.net>, sm...@NewHorizon.com ((Choking)) writes:
|> In message <D8BE1...@unx.sas.com> - dis...@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas
|> Disque) writes:
|> >
|> >|> > "Now folks, I'm not making this up." - Rush Limbaugh
|> >|> He didn't use IT. He was declared 4F.
|> >
|> >Anyway, what's the point? So Limbaugh and Newt and the others didn't
|> >go, so what? I posted a response to someone who complained that rich
|> >kids didn't have to go to Vietnam. My response noted that Clinton
|> >didn't go, and he was a po' boy. THAT was the point.
|> >
|> >Tom Disque
|> >"My opinion, not SAS Institute's"
|> >
|> >BTW, I didn't go either, and my daddy wasn't rich.
|>
|>
|> approve of war, death and destruction as long as they themselves don't
|> have to pay the price.
Your point, but not the point of the thread before you took over it.
But as long as you'll include LBJ (who supposedly said that war was
good for business) in the Rabid Right, I'll not argue the point.
|>
|> smog
|>
|> That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.
|> Job, 34:30
smog;
Now you've really got me confused with that Bible verse. Are you
calling for Clinton's overthrow? Even liberals agree that he's a
hypocrite. the man can't take a firm stand on anything.
And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, a wealthy liberal
(i.e. Roosevelt, Kennedy, LBJ, Barbra Striesand) is by definition
a hypocrite.
And if you're really feeling holy, ask yourself why God himself asks
for a tithe of only 10%, while our marginal rate (incluing SS, Medicare,
and NC taxes) is 42%!
Walt Ramsey
> approve of war, death and destruction as long as they themselves don't
> have to pay the price.
>
I think you're full of shit!
Most here who have heard me spew my brand of economics and politics
would consider me ultra conservative. My father spent THREE YEARS
in Viet Nam, and I myself spent time in the service. Its not that
the rabid right are cowards, its just that the majority of ultra-liberals
don't understand the idea of nationalism.
Walt
Kraig Hotelling
In article <GREENEG.95...@bruckner.cs.unc.edu>, gre...@bruckner.cs.unc.edu (George Greene) writes:
|> In article <D8D70...@unx.sas.com> dis...@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) writes:
|> |> smog
|> |>
|> |> That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.
|> |> Job, 34:30
|>
|> : calling for Clinton's overthrow? Even liberals agree that he's a
|> : hypocrite.
|>
|>
|> : the man can't take a firm stand on anything.
|>
|> He has taken plenty of firm stands. He just hasn't ordered,
|> nominated, or vetoed in accordance with them. Standing is one
|> thing. Acting is another.
|>
|> : And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, a wealthy liberal
|> : (i.e. Roosevelt, Kennedy, LBJ, Barbra Striesand) is by definition
|> : a hypocrite.
|>
|> Liberalism does not require wealthy individuals to feed the
|> hungry; it requires the government to. It is Christianity, not
|> liberalism, that requires the rich to give up their wealth to
|> follow Jesus. Liberalism is about broad public policy. Christianity
|>
George, if you believe that, then you have no idea what is means
to be a Christian.
is about your personal private character. Liberalism is about
|> alleviating suffering in THIS life. Christianity is about the
|> afterlife first, and about this life only secondarily.
|>
Again George, you don't get it. You should do a thorough study
of the Bible so as to get your facts straight.
|> : And if you're really feeling holy, ask yourself why God himself asks
|> : for a tithe of only 10%, while our marginal rate (incluing SS, Medicare,
|> : and NC taxes) is 42%!
|>
|> Speak for yourself. MY marginal tax rate is 15%.
|> And ther vast majority of us in this economic position would
|> trade for yours IN A MINUTE. Besides, we GET stuff for
|> that 15-55%. Tangible stuff in THIS life. We can SEE what
|> it buys. The fact that so much of the return has to be taken
|> on faith is a main reason why God has so much trouble commanding
|> EVEN his 10%.
|>
--
Kraig Hotelling | "Surround yourself with the best people you can find,
Go Buckeyes !! | delegate authority, and don't interfere."--Ronald Reagan
Howard Willey
In article <3oqo2b$k...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, walt_...@ncsu.edu (Walt Ramsey) writes:
>> The real point is that Rabid Right are cowards, Chicken-hawks, that
>> approve of war, death and destruction as long as they themselves don't
>> have to pay the price.
>>
>>smog
>
>I think you're full of shit!
Is the above an example of how NCSU teaches you to make coherent debating points?
>Most here who have heard me spew my brand of economics and politics
>would consider me ultra conservative. My father spent THREE YEARS
>in Viet Nam, and I myself spent time in the service. Its not that
>the rabid right are cowards, its just that the majority of ultra-liberals
>don't understand the idea of nationalism.
>
>Walt
While I might not use the same terms that Mr. Greene used, I find it to be
hypocritical for those who avoided the Viet Nam war to criticize Clinton as
a draft dodger.
* Pat Buchanan apparently avoided the draft because of a trick knee.
* Dan Quayle took the National Guard route at a time when it was known
that virtually no one in the Guard was at risk of going to Viet Nam.
* Phil Graham's excuse for not serving was that after X years of student
deferments, he was "too smart to go overseas". He was of course more than
happy to get other young men to go to Viet Nam.
* Rush L, like Clinton was able to get a deferment and did not serve.
All these people now wish to present themselves as military hawks, willing to
march others to war at a moments notice. Where were they when the country needed
fighting men? Hiding.
In the words of Jesus, "Let him without sin throw the first stone"
Howard
"My opinions, and you can't have them"
--
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Howard Willey | SAS Institute Inc. |
| sas...@unx.sas.com | Quality Assurance - R3307 |
| 919-677-8000 x6067 | Cary, NC 27513 |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Invest in America. Buy a congressman. |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
SNO...@mvs.sas.com
sas...@crawdad.unx.sas.com (Howard Willey) writes:
>While I might not use the same terms that Mr. Greene used, I find it to be
>hypocritical for those who avoided the Viet Nam war to criticize Clinton as
>a draft dodger.
>
> * Pat Buchanan apparently avoided the draft because of a trick knee.
>
> * Dan Quayle took the National Guard route at a time when it was known
> that virtually no one in the Guard was at risk of going to Viet Nam.
>
> * Phil Graham's excuse for not serving was that after X years of student
> deferments, he was "too smart to go overseas". He was of course more than
> happy to get other young men to go to Viet Nam.
>
> * Rush L, like Clinton was able to get a deferment and did not serve.
>
>All these people now wish to present themselves as military hawks, willing to
>march others to war at a moments notice. Where were they when the country needed
>fighting men? Hiding.
>
>In the words of Jesus, "Let him without sin throw the first stone"
>
>Howard
Rush Limbaugh become a contender for ANY political office. He is
a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST for God's sake! He isn't going to march anyone
to war! He is an entertainer! Why do Democrats feel so threatened by
a TALK SHOW HOST!
And I don't want to hear that crap about how he changes peoples
peoples opinions. This is America- home of the 1st ammendment. If you
have the right to sway people's opinions, so does he.
-Mike
George Greene
: Most here who have heard me spew my brand of economics and politics
: would consider me ultra conservative. My father spent THREE YEARS
: in Viet Nam, and I myself spent time in the service. Its not that
: the rabid right are cowards, its just that the majority of ultra-liberals
: don't understand the idea of nationalism.
Grasshoppa:
If the likes of the knee-kerk anti-communists that hauled your
Dad into the heart of darkness had "understood nationalism", the
VietNam war would never have been fought. In their nationalist
struggle against French colonialism, the VietNamese DID originally
appeal to the US for assistance. They wound up in the communist
camp largely because YOUR side didn't "understand nationalism".
Do not presume yourself entitled to speak to us about nationalism.
Your "nationalism" is that of those who have tried to outlaw flag-
burning, who think they can save the nation by destroying the ideals
it stands for. Those of us who STILL aren't getting "equal protection of
the laws" even after 220 years are very much in a privileged position
when it comes to understanding what this nation is ACTUALLY about.
"Nationalism"? You're 99.44% clueless, if the nation is America.
George Greene
|> smog
|>
|> That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.
|> Job, 34:30
: Now you've really got me confused with that Bible verse. Are you
: calling for Clinton's overthrow? Even liberals agree that he's a
: hypocrite.
Bill Clinton is not a hypocrite. Bill Clinton is a coward.
: the man can't take a firm stand on anything.
He has taken plenty of firm stands. He just hasn't ordered,
nominated, or vetoed in accordance with them. Standing is one
thing. Acting is another.
: And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, a wealthy liberal
: (i.e. Roosevelt, Kennedy, LBJ, Barbra Striesand) is by definition
: a hypocrite.
This is a complete lie. A wealthy *CHRISTIAN* is a hypocrite.
Liberalism does not require wealthy individuals to feed the
hungry; it requires the government to. It is Christianity, not
liberalism, that requires the rich to give up their wealth to
follow Jesus. Liberalism is about broad public policy. Christianity
is about your personal private character. Liberalism is about
alleviating suffering in THIS life. Christianity is about the
afterlife first, and about this life only secondarily.
: And if you're really feeling holy, ask yourself why God himself asks
Thomas Disque
|>
|> : Now you've really got me confused with that Bible verse. Are you
|> : calling for Clinton's overthrow? Even liberals agree that he's a
|> : hypocrite.
|>
|> Bill Clinton is not a hypocrite. Bill Clinton is a coward.
Bill Clinton is a hypocrite. He has, in the past, said that Medicare
must be cut and is now attacking Republicans for supposedly doing so.
|>
|> : the man can't take a firm stand on anything.
|>
|> He has taken plenty of firm stands. He just hasn't ordered,
|> nominated, or vetoed in accordance with them. Standing is one
|> thing. Acting is another.
I guess a good example of that is gays in the military, right?
|>
|> : And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, a wealthy liberal
|> : (i.e. Roosevelt, Kennedy, LBJ, Barbra Striesand) is by definition
|> : a hypocrite.
|>
|> This is a complete lie. A wealthy *CHRISTIAN* is a hypocrite.
|> Liberalism does not require wealthy individuals to feed the
|> hungry; it requires the government to. It is Christianity, not
Where does the government get its money, George? If rich liberals
were treated to their own policies, they would never BECOME rich,
because their tax rates would increase with their salaries to the
point that the government would take 100% of any increase! And
liberals don't even have the good graces to thank conservatives
for keeping that from happening!
93163
>mcl...@aurh31.aur.alcatel.com (93163) wrote:
[ More irrelevant lines deleted ]
>>
>> REALITY: Although a supporter of the Vietnam War, Limbaugh used a minor
>> physical impairment to avoid the draft (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/27/93).
>>
>>
>> also had the same impairment but successfully served in WWII.
>>
He was declared 4F at his own request based on an examination
from his family doctor. He was never examined by an Army doctor.
Having been through an Army induction physical myself, I can
state categorically that Army doctors spend zero time looking
at or for pimples on inductee's rear ends. Sounds like he
"used" it to me - to avoid the draft.
Walt Ramsey
>
>Grasshoppa:
> If the likes of the knee-kerk anti-communists that hauled your
> Dad into the heart of darkness had "understood nationalism", the
> VietNam war would never have been fought. In their nationalist
> struggle against French colonialism, the VietNamese DID originally
> appeal to the US for assistance. They wound up in the communist
> camp largely because YOUR side didn't "understand nationalism".
Ah my hated adversary, so kind to speak to you. (BOW) Begin!
My side huh! Does that include the four cables to JFK. How about
6 visits to LBJ's great society before wholesale escalation.
The deer path team was not my side's doing, but yours.
Ho Chi Min was nationalist, but Chiang wasn't. What was Nixon to
do when offered the choice of the Red River Dikes? Fight China in a
conventional war? Not hardly! The blame for failure in Vietnam rests
with the American public, not the warriors. If 'you' hadn't been
burning flags, and protesting at kent, then the media wouldn't have
up-played the surrounding events. Nicaragua all over again, painless,
noticeless, and efficient. But to appease the masses, the war was fought
with kid gloves, not for a knock-out. 8 years could have been 8 months,
and no one would have been wiser.
>Do not presume yourself entitled to speak to us about nationalism.
>Your "nationalism" is that of those who have tried to outlaw flag-
>burning, who think they can save the nation by destroying the ideals
>it stands for. Those of us who STILL aren't getting "equal protection of
>the laws" even after 220 years are very much in a privileged position
>when it comes to understanding what this nation is ACTUALLY about.
>"Nationalism"? You're 99.44% clueless, if the nation is America.
Ah it is your doom that you so quickly forget. I don't care about your
inequality, or 'my' inequality. I don't care what's happened over
the last 2 or 3 hundred years. If you're not willing to sacrifice
something like your life to defend what freedom is all about, then get
out of my face. If you've been on the ship, in the mud, on watch,
2 hours sleep, 16 weeks of basic, or seeing your buddy have his hand
ripped off by an aircraft engine, then I'll sympathize with you. If
all you can complain about is what happened 300 years ago, then I
REALLY don't care what happens to you. Take responsibility for
YOUR actions not mine. Did you do time in NAM, or did you applaud
Hanoi Jane? Did you volunteer for duty, or did you dodge it?
Do you have one ounce of honor left in your liberal body?
Walt
USN
1984-1986
Steven J. Crisp
: * Pat Buchanan apparently avoided the draft because of a trick knee.
: * Dan Quayle took the National Guard route at a time when it was known
: that virtually no one in the Guard was at risk of going to Viet Nam.
: * Phil Graham's excuse for not serving was that after X years of student
: deferments, he was "too smart to go overseas". He was of course more than
: happy to get other young men to go to Viet Nam.
: * Rush L, like Clinton was able to get a deferment and did not serve.
Like Clinton, these folks you have cited took advantage of legal steps to
avoid military service. Unlike Clinton, the others have not lied about
their actions to the American people.
Steve Crisp
David Burton
> No, the real point is that Clinton lied.
True, he lied. But...
> remember the latter Vietnam era, you would realize that most individuals
> tried very hard to get out of service. Clinton did nothing that most
> others did not do themselves. I have no complaint with that...
No, Steven. It was *much* worse than that.
To the best of my knowledge, there *were* no other cases similar to
Slick Willie's record, in its entirety. He pulled so *many* sleazy
and illegal stunts! I've never heard of another case with such an
amazingly long list.
However, there were cases with circumstances similar to some of his
misdeeds, where people were prosecuted and convicted. For example,
in the 1972 case of United States v. Bruckman, a young man obtained
a bogus 1-D deferment from what he had apparently believed was an
Illinois National Guard unit. I think what happened was that he
kept mum, and did not contact his draft board, when he discovered
that the National Guard unit was fake. He was convicted, and his
conviction was upheld on appeal, for the crime of failing "to give
notice to his Local Board of a change in his military status (i.e.,
that he was not a member of the Illinois National Guard)."
I've never heard of a case comparable to Clinton's, where someone
committed such a long list of illegal and unethical tricks and
schemes while dodging the draft. There were undoubtedly cases in
which someone with "pull" managed to get into an already-full ROTC
or Naval Reserve program. However, Clinton managed that stunt
*twice*, and, yet, incredibly, he didn't even actually enter
*either* program! He just used the *prospect* of his pending
admission into the programs to fraudulently prevent his induction
by deceiving the members of his draft board.
Most young men disliked the prospect of being drafted, but most
broke no laws. Not true of Clinton. He got illegal deferments,
and committed other felonies, in avoiding the draft.
First, he took all the college deferments to which he was entitled
under the law, as did many others. That was fine, and I've never
heard him criticized for that.
However, he used up his college deferments, and so normally would
have (because of his age) been first in line to be drafted, in 1968.
But he pulled political strings, and got a slot made for him in the
Naval Reserves, even though all the positions for Hot Springs were
already full. (That may not have been a crime, but it was highly
unethical.)
But Bill Clinton didn't show up. Instead, he went to graduate
school in England. The Naval Reserves deal was just a ruse to keep
from being drafted. (Note: deferments were not allowed for graduate
school at that time.)
Note that Clinton was required by law to promptly ("within 10 days
after it occurs") inform his draft board of any change of
occupational or military status [32 C.F.R. 1641.7(a)(1969)], or any
change of address, or "any fact that might result in the registrant
being placed in a different classification, marital, military, or
dependency status, or in his physical condition" [32 C.F.R.
1625.1(b)(1969)]. He did not do so. (That's one crime, at least.)
He managed to delay being drafted for nearly a year, but in April,
1969 he received his induction notice. He did not report. (That's
two crimes.)
Eventually, he contacted his draft board, and told them that he'd
gotten his induction notice, but he claimed that for some unknown
reason it had arrived after the required reporting date. They
apparently believed him. The sent him another induction notice with
a later reporting date. He did not report for that one, either.
(That's another count.)
Instead, he worked frantically to find a way to avoid service, and
simultaneously also avoid criminal prosecution. Due to his former
employment by Senator Fulbright (D-Ark.), and his Oxford
connections, Clinton had considerable political clout, even then.
It was after the 2nd reporting date had come and gone, in the summer
of 1969, but he eventually managed to arrange for lenient (and
illegal) special treatment: the deal was that he would be forgiven
for his illegal refusal to report for induction, and a special slot
would be created for him in the already-full Army ROTC program
at the University of Arkansas, where he would enroll in the fall
of 1969.
Now, it was illegal to grant a 1-D deferment (which is what Clinton
got) to anyone who had *already* been sent an induction notice.
Clinton had already been sent *two* of them, and the reporting dates
for *both* of them had already passed.
It was also illegal to grant a deferment in *advance* of enrollment
in the ROTC program for which the deferment was to be granted. But
this, too, was done for Clinton. He couldn't enroll in the program
yet, because the semester didn't start until that fall (in fact, he
never enrolled in the program), but Clinton's 1-D was issued anyhow,
in *anticipation* of his enrollment. (That's complicity by Clinton
in a 4th crime: issuing a 1-D deferment for a status which he *never*
had, ROTC membership.)
The man who did the very illegal favor of granting Clinton that 1-D
was Col. Eugene Holmes. To Holmes, Clinton promised to enroll in
the ROTC in the fall, and he put it in writing. It was too early to
actually enroll, but Clinton signed a letter of intent promising to
do so, and so Holmes was persuaded to cut Clinton a couple of months
of (illegal) slack to carry him through the rest of the summer, and
so on August 7, 1969, Holmes sent the 1-D deferment for Clinton to
the Hot Springs draft board.
But Clinton did *not* enroll. Instead, he moved back to England.
Again, he did not inform his draft board of his change in status,
his ineligibility for the deferment, nor his change of address.
Under the law, he had to inform his draft board, in writing, by
September 23, 1969. He did not do so. (That's a 5th criminal
count, plus the ethical breach of not honoring his promise.)
In October, 1969, President Nixon announced the creation of the
lottery system, and suspended the draft until the first lottery,
which was scheduled for December 1st, 1969. In late October, the
Hot Springs draft board apparently discovered that Clinton was not
in the ROTC program, and on October 31, they again reclassified him,
as 1-A. (Clinton apparently was unaware of this at the time.)
But the draft had been suspended, so the draft board could not
draft him.
On December 1st, the first draft lottery was held. Clinton's
birthday drew number 311, a "safe" number. Knowing that he could
no longer be drafted, on December 3rd Clinton wrote to Col. Holmes
and announced that he had not enrolled in the U. Ark. or its ROTC
program, and that he did not intend to do so.
In that letter, Clinton also mentioned that he had *not* informed
his draft board that he was not enrolled in the ROTC (thereby
admitting to a felony). Clinton's letter indicates that his
conscience was bothering him (a problem he seems to have eventually
overcome):
"after we made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D deferment
to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and
self-respect really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept
going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion
brought sleep. Finally, on September 12, I stayed up all night
writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying
basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for
trying to help in a case where he really couldn't and stating
that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft
me as soon as possible.
I never mailed the letter... because I didn't see, in the
end, how my going in the army and maybe going to Vietnam would
achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself
and gotten what I deserved."
> But the putz lied rather than taking a stand on something in which he
> believed and tried to make up this wacko story when running for president.
Yeah, the Clinton campaign's official line (for *months*) was that
Bill Clinton couldn't remember whether he'd ever actually gotten an
induction notice. Yeah, sure! That is *one* letter that it was
*impossible* for any young man to forget. (And Clinton got *two* of
them.) Some of Clinton's lies aren't even *plausible*.
-Dave Burton <dbu...@burtonsys.com> or <dbu...@salzo.cary.nc.us>
alternate: <dbu...@ios.com> or <dbu...@cybernetics.net>
Howard Willey
In article <1995051218...@MVS.sas.com> SNO...@MVS.sas.com writes:
MDR>
MDR> In article <D8HEH...@unx.sas.com>,
MDR> sas...@crawdad.unx.sas.com (Howard Willey) writes:
MDR>
>> * Rush L, like Clinton was able to get a deferment and did not serve.
>>
>> All these people now wish to present themselves as military hawks, willing to
>> march others to war at a moments notice. Where were they when the country needed
>> fighting men? Hiding.
>>
>> In the words of Jesus, "Let him without sin throw the first stone"
>>
>> Howard
MDR>
MDR> Wait a minute! Have I missed something here? When exactly did
MDR> Rush Limbaugh become a contender for ANY political office.
I was unaware that the discussion was limited to "contenders of
political office". I was addressing the question of whether it is
hypocrytical for those who avoided serving during the Viet Nam
conflict to now accuse Clinton of being a draft dodger. Perhaps
rather than changing the subject, you could address the issue of my
post, and tell why these gentlemen have such an aversion to actual
danger.
Hopefully, Rush will have a better excuse than an hair that has
ingrown too close to his brain :)
MDR> a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST for God's sake! He isn't going to march anyone
MDR> to war! He is an entertainer!
History is full of examples of rabble-rousers who want others to go
kick some tail. I think that I recall that President Lincoln called
the author of _Uncle_Tom's_Cabin_ "The Little lady who started the
big war". Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" contains another example.
MDR> Why do Democrats feel so threatened by a TALK SHOW HOST!
This implicitly assumes facts that are not in evidence.
Later
hew
My opinions.
Howard Willey
"Steve" == Steven J Crisp <py...@unity.ncsu.edu> writes:
In article <3p0spk$k...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> py...@unity.ncsu.edu (Steven J. Crisp) writes:
Steve> Howard Willey (sas...@crawdad.unx.sas.com) wrote:
Steve>
Steve> : * Pat Buchanan apparently avoided the draft because of a trick knee.
Steve> : * Dan Quayle took the National Guard route at a time when it was known
Steve> : that virtually no one in the Guard was at risk of going to Viet Nam.
Steve> : * Phil Graham's excuse for not serving was that after X years of student
Steve> : deferments, he was "too smart to go overseas". He was of course more than
Steve> : happy to get other young men to go to Viet Nam.
Steve> : * Rush L, like Clinton was able to get a deferment and did not serve.
Steve>
Steve> Like Clinton, these folks you have cited took advantage of legal steps to
Steve> avoid military service. Unlike Clinton, the others have not lied about
Steve> their actions to the American people.
I one aspect, I agree with you. Newt was proably truthful when he
said that he would have had to have been crazy to give up a school
deferment so that he could become a target in Viet Nam (Besides, if
you believe the rumors, the pot at Tulane was too good to leave
behind).
In essence, this seems to be exactly what Clinton did, but he was
stupid enough to try to finese the truth, just as with his famous
"didn't inhale" statement.
The main issue, as I see it, is that many if the "chicken hawks" on
the right are quick to advocate increased military spending, and
increased use of military force, but when it was their turn to serve,
they were nowhere to be found.
Note that I have said nothing of Sen Doyle or even Rep Dorman in
regards to this matter, because they have earned the right to bitch..
Hew
Howard Willey
> Personally, I have
>state that Clinton is a man without honor. Similarly Hanoi Jane, and
>Vanessa Redgrave have no honor.
Personally, I'm not very thrilled with Clint-bum, or with any other leaders
of the major parties.
>> * Pat Buchanan apparently avoided the draft because of a trick knee.
>>
>> * Dan Quayle took the National Guard route at a time when it was known
>> that virtually no one in the Guard was at risk of going to Viet Nam.
>>
>> * Phil Graham's excuse for not serving was that after X years of student
>> deferments, he was "too smart to go overseas". He was of course more than
>> happy to get other young men to go to Viet Nam.
>>
>> * Rush L, like Clinton was able to get a deferment and did not serve.
>I have never stated that I support Buchanan, Quayle, or Graham, and I damn
>sure don't support that windbag Rush.
Sounds like we are in agreement here. I may have to reconsider my
opinions :)
>I do respect, and sometimes supportall those who made the ultimate
>sacrifice to this nation, including Bush.
You will notice that I said nothing bad about Bush, Doyle or even
Doorman
>>All these people now wish to present themselves as military hawks, willing to
>>march others to war at a moments notice. Where were they when the country needed
>>fighting men? Hiding.
>I was there, my father was there, my grandfather was there, George Bush
>has been there, where the hell was Clinton.
Clinton was the same place as Newt and Phil Graham, in school. My personal
feeling is that from the beginning of Viet Nam, the reserves should have been
called up, and the Draft should have been implemented using a lottery, with AN
absolute minimum of deferments.
>How about you Howard, do you live in a glass house?
I used to, but kept getting sun-burned :)
Seriously:
I volunteered for service in 1968, and spent my time stringing secure
communications across South East Asia. I could tell you more, but then
would have to kill you (at least that's what the nice debriefing officer
told me :)
In addition, my father served in WWII, and was shot down on a bombing
mission.
My mother was blown out of her bed at the age of 14 by the bombing of
Cologne. The pictures show that the whole city looked like the federal
building in OK City. (No offense about OK, I don't mean to trivialize it).
Before the war was over, both my mother and Grandmother were hunted by
the SS for my grandmother's mouthing off to an SS officer, and my mother
for not telling where grandma went.
Can I close the blinds of my glass house now? Thanks.
>Walt Ramsey
>You can bury me in a damn red white and blue flag when I die
>because I sure as hell earned it.
If its all the same, please bury me in a coffin. :)
hew
Walt Ramsey
>Is the above an example of how NCSU teaches you to make coherent debating points?
No, that's generally the attitude that I feel when people make
stereotypical statements that concern me. This institution could
care less about my political persuasion, and I could really care less
about what you consider polite.
>
>>Most here who have heard me spew my brand of economics and politics
>>would consider me ultra conservative. My father spent THREE YEARS
>>in Viet Nam, and I myself spent time in the service. Its not that
>>the rabid right are cowards, its just that the majority of ultra-liberals
>>don't understand the idea of nationalism.
>While I might not use the same terms that Mr. Greene used, I find it to be
>hypocritical for those who avoided the Viet Nam war to criticize Clinton as
>a draft dodger.
I, nor anyone in my family dodged the draft. I do no particularly
care if you find ME hypocritical, as my statement was that the majority
of bleeding heart liberals don't understand nationalism. I will further
state that Clinton is a man without honor. Similarly Hanoi Jane, and
Vanessa Redgrave have no honor.
> * Pat Buchanan apparently avoided the draft because of a trick knee.
>
> * Dan Quayle took the National Guard route at a time when it was known
> that virtually no one in the Guard was at risk of going to Viet Nam.
>
> * Phil Graham's excuse for not serving was that after X years of student
> deferments, he was "too smart to go overseas". He was of course more than
> happy to get other young men to go to Viet Nam.
>
> * Rush L, like Clinton was able to get a deferment and did not serve.
I have never stated that I support Buchanan, Quayle, or Graham, and I damn
sure don't support that windbag Rush.
I do respect, and sometimes supportall those who made the ultimate
sacrifice to this nation, including Bush. I served time in the USN
knowing that doing so defended the lives of flag burning, protesting,
ingrates, and I respect their decision for being true to their beliefs.
But I find it DISGUSTING that our 'president' can even consider his
actions in the 1960-70's just, and at the same time be respected for
a VE day speech. He has the right to be considered commander and chief,
but he sure as hell hasn't earned it!
>All these people now wish to present themselves as military hawks, willing to
>march others to war at a moments notice. Where were they when the country needed
>fighting men? Hiding.
I was there, my father was there, my grandfather was there, George Bush
has been there, where the hell was Clinton.
How about you Howard, do you live in a glass house?
Walt Ramsey
Walt Ramsey
>opinions :)
Upon reading the entirety of your post, I may just have to do the same.:-)
>I used to, but kept getting sun-burned :)
Point well taken.
> I volunteered for service in 1968, and spent my time stringing secure
> communications across South East Asia. I could tell you more, but then
> would have to kill you (at least that's what the nice debriefing officer
> told me :)
I can agree with that, the members of the black hand commend you!
> In addition, my father served in WWII, and was shot down on a bombing
> mission.
>
> My mother was blown out of her bed at the age of 14 by the bombing of
> Cologne. The pictures show that the whole city looked like the federal
> building in OK City. (No offense about OK, I don't mean to trivialize it).
> Before the war was over, both my mother and Grandmother were hunted by
> the SS for my grandmother's mouthing off to an SS officer, and my mother
> for not telling where grandma went.
>
>Can I close the blinds of my glass house now? Thanks.
I think my windows are broken. :-)
Walt
Peter Young
> In article <3onote$3...@nrtphba6.bnr.ca>, <rick....@nt.com> wrote:
> >mcl...@aurh31.aur.alcatel.com (93163) wrote:
> [ More irrelevant lines deleted ]
>
> >He didn't use IT. He was declared 4F.
>
> He was declared 4F at his own request based on an examination
> from his family doctor. He was never examined by an Army doctor.
> Having been through an Army induction physical myself, I can
> state categorically that Army doctors spend zero time looking
> at or for pimples on inductee's rear ends. Sounds like he
> "used" it to me - to avoid the draft.
I'm not sure if your sample of 1 should serve. When I went to my
pre-induction physical, one of the examining doctors told me what to
have my physician write in the letter to be declared 4-F. This was
'71, and by then, even draft-board MDs were beginning to show sympathy
with unwilling potential draftees.
Of course, asking your family doctor to write such a letter to ward
off being called might be going a little far. Ah! I know! Even way
back when Rush was doing his best to shave some savings from the
rapidly bloating budget. If he didn't go down to take a slot for a
pre-induction physical, some other, much more worthy candidate would
be able to take his place. He did it out of his patriotism and innate
love for Flag and Country. I understand.
--
Peter Young
yo...@erim.org
(Choking)
py...@unity.ncsu.edu (Steven J. Crisp) writes:
>
>> No, the real point is that Clinton lied.
>
>True, he lied. But...
>
>> remember the latter Vietnam era, you would realize that most individuals
>> tried very hard to get out of service. Clinton did nothing that most
>> others did not do themselves. I have no complaint with that...
>
>No, Steven. It was *much* worse than that.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, there *were* no other cases similar to
>Slick Willie's record, in its entirety. He pulled so *many* sleazy
>and illegal stunts! I've never heard of another case with such an
>amazingly long list.
Try some of these:
Rush Limbaugh - deferment for ingrown hair follicle on his ass.
Dick Cheney - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Phil Gramm - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Bill Bennett - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Newt Gingrinch - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Pat Buchanan - Sought deferment for bad knee.
Elliott Abrams - Sought deferment for bad back.
Vin Weber - Sought deferment for asthma.
Trent Lott - Didn't want to muss his hair.
Dan Quayle - Family got him into the Reserves.
George Will - Too much of a wussy.
Pat Robertson - Father pulled him out of Korea as soon as the
shooting started.
Robert K Dornan - Life in active reserves without ever seeing combat.
While most of these are probably legal evasions of the draft, most of
these men are hypocritical and immoral. This is a clear example of the
moral deprivation of the Rabid Right. You want others to die for you
but you are not willing to die yourself. You will condemn others for not
fighting for you but you weasel out of having to get your hands dirty
yourself.
>-Dave Burton <dbu...@burtonsys.com> or <dbu...@salzo.cary.nc.us>
>alternate: <dbu...@ios.com> or <dbu...@cybernetics.net>
smog
(Choking)
py...@unity.ncsu.edu (Steven J. Crisp) writes:
>
>> No, the
real point is that Clinton lied.
>
>True, he lied. But...
>
>> remember the latter Vietnam era, you would realize that most individuals
>> tried very hard to get out of service. Clinton did nothing that most
>> others did not do themselves. I have no complaint with that...
>
>No, Steven. It was *much* worse than that.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, there *were* no other cases similar to
>Slick Willie's record, in its entirety. He pulled so *many* sleazy
>and illegal stunts! I've never heard of another case with such an
>amazingly long list.
Try some of these:
Rush Limbaugh - deferment for ingrown hair follicle on his ass.
Dick Cheney - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Phil Gramm - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Bill Bennett - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Newt Gingrinch - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
Pat Buchanan - Sought deferment for bad knee.
Elliott Abrams - Sought deferment for bad back.
Vin Weber - Sought deferment for asthma.
Trent Lott - Didn't want to muss his hair.
Dan Quayle - Family got him into the Reserves.
George Will - Too much of a wussy.
Pat Robertson - Father pulled him out of Korea as soon as the
shooting started.
Robert K Dornan - Life in active reserves without ever seeing combat.
While most of these are probably legal evasions of the war, most of
these men are hypocritical and immoral. This is a clear example of the
moral deprivation of the Rabid Right. You want others to die for you
but you are not willing to die yourself. You will condemn others for not
fighting for you but you weasel out of having to get your hands dirty
yourself.
>-Dave Burton <dbu...@burtonsys.com> or <dbu...@salzo.cary.nc.us>
>alternate: <dbu...@ios.com> or <dbu...@cybernetics.net>
smog
Thomas Disque
In article <3pff2q$q...@ralph.vnet.net>, sm...@NewHorizon.com ((Choking)) writes:
|>
|> While most of these are probably legal evasions of the war, most of
|> these men are hypocritical and immoral. This is a clear example of the
|> moral deprivation of the Rabid Right. You want others to die for you
|> but you are not willing to die yourself. You will condemn others for not
|> fighting for you but you weasel out of having to get your hands dirty
|> yourself.
Jeez, it's good thing that all the liberals were such good boys and
answered a third world country's call to duty. We wouldn't have had
anybody to fight the war! I guess all those pot smoking hippies were
conservatives, eh?
Tom Disque
"My opinions, not SAS Institute's"
Rick Lanier
>
>
> >
> >
>
> Try some of these:
>
> Rush Limbaugh - deferment for ingrown hair follicle on his ass.
> Dick Cheney - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
> Phil Gramm - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
> Bill Bennett - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
> Newt Gingrinch - Graduate school deferment, too smart to die.
> Pat Buchanan - Sought deferment for bad knee.
> Elliott Abrams - Sought deferment for bad back.
> Vin Weber - Sought deferment for asthma.
> Trent Lott - Didn't want to muss his hair.
> Dan Quayle - Family got him into the Reserves.
> George Will - Too much of a wussy.
> Pat Robertson - Father pulled him out of Korea as soon as the
> shooting started.
> Robert K Dornan - Life in active reserves without ever seeing combat.
>
>
>
> >alternate: <dbu...@ios.com> or <dbu...@cybernetics.net>
>
>
>
Of your list, how many Actively "condemned" their country
from foreign soil ? How many visited the USSR during the
War ? How many wrote that they "loathed" the military ?
Like Slick Willy.
How many 'spit' on returning GI's ?
Vietnam was a war we did not want to win, a waste of
American lives. But, that is no excuse for the actions
of Slick Willy and Hanoi Jane.
Tom Wilson
>sm...@NewHorizon.com ((Choking)) wrote:
>>
>>> >>> >>
[chomp]
> capitulation at Yalta. How can you say Eisenhower started
> the Vietnam War?
Because during his administration, Vietnam was trying to escape
French colonialism--we tried to help the French keep it, or,
should I say, ignored Vietnam's pleas for help...can't remember.
Look what it got us. It may not be the primary cause of the war,
but it sure helped get things started. As a collegue of mine
pointed out, it was an issue of nationalism as much as communism
in Vietnam's case. Communism just happended to be the handiest
alternative at the time.
[chomp]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tom Wilson | "Wesistance is usewess, huhuhuhuhuh." |
| SAS Institute Inc. | |
| sas...@unx.sas.com | -Fudd of Borg |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| All opinions are mine. I don't speak for SAS. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Lanier
Kennedy and Johnson sure didn't learn much from the French
experience did they ?
Tom Wilson
Tom McClive
>> Try some of these: (list of republicans who evaded military service)
>
> Of your list, how many Actively "condemned" their country
> from foreign soil ? How many visited the USSR during the
> War ? How many wrote that they "loathed" the military ?
> How many 'spit' on returning GI's ?
> Vietnam was a war we did not want to win, a waste of
> American lives. But, that is no excuse for the actions
> of Slick Willy and Hanoi Jane.
Several things I have never understood:
- Why is it so much worse to be against the vietnam war when a person is
in england than when a person is in the US ?
- Why was it so bad to visit the USSR? I've been to England, doesn't make me
a royalist. I've been to France, doesn't make me a socialist (especially
now). If I visited Morocco when we were at war with Iraq (another Islamic
country) does that make me guilty by association?
- Did Clinton ever 'spit' on returning GIs? (and why is that word
in 'single quotes'?)
- I'm quite tired of people who claim that we didn't want to win Vietnam, or
that we wouldn't let the military win. Even McNamara (MacNamara?) says it was
wrong. Considering his thoughts at the time, and the fact that many other
now-prominent republicans sought to avoid vietnam, it's hard to blame clinton
for what he thought. the difference is that he admits it, and is not a
pro-military president, while the republicans are just the opposite. with the
political stigma of vietnam service still around, it's not hard to see why
clinton feels uncomfortable with it.
Rick Lanier
>
>
>
>
> Several things I have never understood:
>
> - Why is it so much worse to be against the vietnam war when a person is
> in england than when a person is in the US ?
both from foreign soil during war time is wrong ?
What if someone were in Ireland protesting the US
involvment in WWII was imperialist? Protest all you want,
but don;t condemn your country from abroad during time
of war.
>
> - Why was it so bad to visit the USSR? I've been to England, doesn't make me
> a royalist. I've been to France, doesn't make me a socialist (especially
> now). If I visited Morocco when we were at war with Iraq (another Islamic
> country) does that make me guilty by association?
See above. Also the USSR was supplying the Cong and the
NVA during the war. Also, some American POWs were given to the
Soviets, and never seen again. Maybe he was on a "piece"
mission.
>
> - Did Clinton ever 'spit' on returning GIs? (and why is that word
> in 'single quotes'?)
>
> - I'm quite tired of people who claim that we didn't want to win Vietnam, or
> that we wouldn't let the military win. Even McNamara (MacNamara?) says it was
> wrong. Considering his thoughts at the time, and the fact that many other
> now-prominent republicans sought to avoid vietnam, it's hard to blame clinton
> for what he thought. the difference is that he admits it, and is not a
> pro-military president, while the republicans are just the opposite. with the
> political stigma of vietnam service still around, it's not hard to see why
> clinton feels uncomfortable with it.
>
McNamara's opinion carries no weight with me. Did we want
to do what it took to when that war? Hell no. We could
have : 1) Invaded North Vietnam 2) Dropped the Bomb
The US never lost a major battle, yet got into a war
of attrition with an enemy prepared to fight one (Learn
from the French). Why waste American lives when you are not
prepared to do what it takes to when the war.
Oh yeah, what does McNamara know about military strategy
anyway :.)
Walt Ramsey
>that we wouldn't let the military win. Even McNamara (MacNamara?) says it was
>wrong. Considering his thoughts at the time, and the fact that many other
>now-prominent republicans sought to avoid vietnam, it's hard to blame clinton
>for what he thought. the difference is that he admits it, and is not a
>pro-military president, while the republicans are just the opposite. with the
>political stigma of vietnam service still around, it's not hard to see why
>clinton feels uncomfortable with it.
>
So NOW, Mac is an expert on warfare, and the political process that
surrounds war. Take this from someone whose parent was involved, and
because of that became interested in the history surrounding the war,
US politicians didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. The US public
didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. Johnson and Nixon didn't
have the balls to face China to win Vietnam. Three words,
RED RIVER DYKES.
nuff said
Walt
Tom Wilson
Rick Lanier <rick....@nt.com> wrote:
>RTM....@mhs.unc.edu (Tom McClive) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Several things I have never understood:
>>
>> - Why is it so much worse to be against the vietnam war when a person is
>> in england than when a person is in the US ?
> Do you not feel that protesting/condemning and leading
> both from foreign soil during war time is wrong ?
> What if someone were in Ireland protesting the US
> involvment in WWII was imperialist? Protest all you want,
> but don;t condemn your country from abroad during time
> of war.
>
>>
>> - Why was it so bad to visit the USSR? I've been to England, doesn't make me
>> a royalist. I've been to France, doesn't make me a socialist (especially
>> now). If I visited Morocco when we were at war with Iraq (another Islamic
>> country) does that make me guilty by association?
>
> See above. Also the USSR was supplying the Cong and the
> NVA during the war. Also, some American POWs were given to the
> Soviets, and never seen again. Maybe he was on a "piece"
> mission.
Guess that makes George Will a 'commonist' too...he readily admits
making basically the same trip to the USSR...he also when through Belgrade
like Clinton...
>>
>> - Did Clinton ever 'spit' on returning GIs? (and why is that word
>> in 'single quotes'?)
>>
>> - I'm quite tired of people who claim that we didn't want to win Vietnam, or
>> that we wouldn't let the military win. Even McNamara (MacNamara?) says it was
>> wrong. Considering his thoughts at the time, and the fact that many other
>> now-prominent republicans sought to avoid vietnam, it's hard to blame clinton
>> for what he thought. the difference is that he admits it, and is not a
>> pro-military president, while the republicans are just the opposite. with the
>> political stigma of vietnam service still around, it's not hard to see why
>> clinton feels uncomfortable with it.
>>
>
> McNamara's opinion carries no weight with me. Did we want
> to do what it took to when that war? Hell no. We could
> have : 1) Invaded North Vietnam
> 2) Dropped the Bomb
What a marvelously suicidal escalation this could've been. Vietnam's
bomb-possessing allies would've loved that one.
> The US never lost a major battle, yet got into a war
> of attrition with an enemy prepared to fight one (Learn
> from the French). Why waste American lives when you are not
> prepared to do what it takes to when the war.
Makes you wonder why it survived (counting the days of 'observers')
four Presidential administrations.
>
> Oh yeah, what does McNamara know about military strategy
> anyway :.)
Apparently enough to have been on the scene for quite a few years ;-)
Tom Wilson
Walt Ramsey <walt_...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>> - I'm quite tired of people who claim that we didn't want to win Vietnam, or
>>that we wouldn't let the military win. Even McNamara (MacNamara?) says it was
>>wrong. Considering his thoughts at the time, and the fact that many other
>>now-prominent republicans sought to avoid vietnam, it's hard to blame clinton
>>for what he thought. the difference is that he admits it, and is not a
>>pro-military president, while the republicans are just the opposite. with the
>>political stigma of vietnam service still around, it's not hard to see why
>>clinton feels uncomfortable with it.
>>
>
>surrounds war. Take this from someone whose parent was involved, and
>because of that became interested in the history surrounding the war,
>US politicians didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. The US public
>didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. Johnson and Nixon didn't
>have the balls to face China to win Vietnam. Three words,
>RED RIVER DYKES.
Take it from someone who was draftable, (lucky enough to not get called),
and had *many* friends who *did* go (most returned): your three little
words are little more than mildly entertaining hyperbole.
>
>nuff said
now there is...
Rick Lanier
Look, Vietnam was a war of containment, the worst kind.
Like Korea, we were supposedly there to stop the 'domino'
of S. Vietnam from falling. Whether or not you agree with
that policy is irrelevant, once war is instigated. Then,
how you fight the war becomes the relevant issue. We
DID NOT fight the Vietnam war to win it. The Persian
Gulf Military Campaign was the perfect example of a lesson
learned in Vietnam. If you aren't willing to do what it takes
to win the war (no matter how bloody or devastating) , why
send young men to die.
The decision to go to war, and how to fight the war,
are two distinct and different debates. But, Once
the decision to go to War is reached. Debate/Protest
should END. Thus, my problem with Slick Willie and
his "loathing".
Al Cohen
In article <D91K4...@unx.sas.com>, sas...@duckhead.unx.sas.com (Tom Wilson) writes:
>Walt Ramsey <walt_...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>US politicians didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. The US public
>>didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. Johnson and Nixon didn't
>>have the balls to face China to win Vietnam. Three words,
>>RED RIVER DYKES.
>
>
Why? For better than 6 years we did little more that harass North Vietnam with
our air power. If we'd have hit the dykes (or any other significant target),
we could have brought them to the bargaining table on any number of occassions.
But as Walt points out, the leaders of the day were afraid of using decisive
force and drawing China (and maybe Russia) into the conflict.
So here we are, 30 years later, and we did the same thing in Somalia. And the
UN is doing it again in Bosnia. YOU DON'T USE COMBAT TROOPS AS A POLICE FORCE!
If you send troops to war, you use maximum force to end it as quick as possible,
with as little blood shed as possible. I thought we'd finally learned something
with the Gulf war.... guess not, huh Tom?
--
Al Cohen "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
QA Analyst security of a free State, the right of the people
SAS Institute Inc. to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(919)677-8001 x7117 -- Amendment II, Bill of Rights
"I think Gun Control is a good thing ..." -- Charles Manson
Walt Ramsey
>words are little more than mildly entertaining hyperbole.
>
Take it from someone whose father spent three years of active duty serving
in that theatre. If Nixon, or Johnson would have had the balls to bomb
the Red River, and its support structures that N Vietnam would have starved
to death, and the war of attrition could have been won. Nixon was easily
swayed by China's threats, and so was unwilling to confront China's
resolve. In addition, only a fraction of US defense attention was focused
on Vietnam, ie Germany etc...; the results would have been far different
if Curtis Lemay ran the war, or for that matter Barry Goldwater.
I don't think you can comprehend the war through the eyes of unrelated
highschool chums.
Walt
Walt Ramsey
>>
>
>our air power. If we'd have hit the dykes (or any other significant target),
>we could have brought them to the bargaining table on any number of occassions.
>But as Walt points out, the leaders of the day were afraid of using decisive
>force and drawing China (and maybe Russia) into the conflict.
>
>So here we are, 30 years later, and we did the same thing in Somalia. And the
>UN is doing it again in Bosnia. YOU DON'T USE COMBAT TROOPS AS A POLICE FORCE!
>If you send troops to war, you use maximum force to end it as quick as possible,
>with as little blood shed as possible. I thought we'd finally learned something
>with the Gulf war.... guess not, huh Tom?
>
I finally agree with someone on triangle.politics!
In Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam, Korea, et al the solutions were/are
everpresent, don't fight fair, fight to win. Envision 1.5-2.0 million
US GI's in Vietnam with 1000 B-52's flying bombing support. Not very
unrealistic, it happened 25-30 years earlier.
>--
>Al Cohen "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
>QA Analyst security of a free State, the right of the people
>SAS Institute Inc. to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>(919)677-8001 x7117 -- Amendment II, Bill of Rights
>
>"I think Gun Control is a good thing ..." -- Charles Manson
Money is not the root of all evil, rather
lack of money is the root of all evil.
Walt
Walt Ramsey
>> to do what it took to when that war? Hell no. We could
>> have : 1) Invaded North Vietnam
>
>> 2) Dropped the Bomb
>
>What a marvelously suicidal escalation this could've been. Vietnam's
>bomb-possessing allies would've loved that one.
You are truly inept at the facets of war!
China in 1966-69 had no means to deliver a hydrogen weapon with the exception
of a boat or short range aircraft or a truck.
Russia wouldn't have engaged its nuclear arsenal over a country that
existed within China's Sphere of Influence. Its highly unlikely that
Russia would have chosen to intervene on any appreciable level because
of its economic woes in the early 1970's, so that leaves China, without
the ability to deliver a big punch to the US.
>Apparently enough to have been on the scene for quite a few years ;-)
MacNamara, like many other political/military appointees, was put into
a position for which he had no qualifications(a lot like Halfbright, and
Les Aspin.) The fact that he was enpowered didn't make him qualified.
History has continuously defeated political leaders who 2nd guess their
military strategists. Mac biggest fault was that he micromanaged, and
his 2nd biggest fault was allowing the media to interact with the war
effort. Oh yea, he should have pushed sedition penalties.
walt
Fred Welden
In article <3ptc1u$g...@nrtphba6.bnr.ca>, Rick Lanier <rick....@nt.com> writes:
| The decision to go to war, and how to fight the war,
| are two distinct and different debates. But, Once
| the decision to go to War is reached. Debate/Protest
| should END. Thus, my problem with Slick Willie and
| his "loathing".
I'm curious about this. Let's say it worked the way you describe.
There's some situation in the world that looks like a good reason for
the US to go to war. There's legitimate public debate, including
protest, concerning whether the country should go to war. The country's
elected officials decide to go to war.
Now the US is at war. Its armed forces should fight to win, and the
decisions as to how to do that belong to military experts. The war goes
on for a time and many lives are lost. Perhaps it is not possible to
win this war. (Can we assume the possibility of a war that the US
cannot win?) The military, naturally, is going to go on fighting until
the civilian government of the US calls it off--that's its job. Isn't
public debate, including protest, the legitimate way for the citizens to
tell their elected officials it's time to say the US can't win the war
and call off the military? Or is it necessary for the military to fight
on until the US decisively LOSES the war and surrenders to its enemies?
I'm no military historian, but it seems to me that wars usually end
either in surrender of one combatant or in the citizenry of one
combatant rebelling against continuation of the war (by massive
desertions from the ranks, collapse of home support of the troops, or
both). Is there some other mechanism for ending a war without winning
it?
Notice I don't say anything about Clinton or Vietnam. I'm interested
in the future.
--Fred | sas...@dobo.unx.sas.com
Andrew Hall
Rick> RTM....@mhs.unc.edu (Tom McClive) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Several things I have never understood:
>>
>> - Why is it so much worse to be against the vietnam war when a
>> person is in england than when a person is in the US ?
Rick> Do you not feel that protesting/condemning and leading
Rick> both from foreign soil during war time is wrong ? What if
No, of course not. Why should the first amendment only
apply at home?
Rick> someone were in Ireland protesting the US involvment in WWII
Rick> was imperialist? Protest all you want, but don;t condemn your
Rick> country from abroad during time of war.
Your last sentence contradicts itself.
ah
=======================================================================
I do- I do- I do- I do- what any normal person would do at that age.
You call home. You call home to mother and father and say, "I'd like
to get into the National Guard."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/19/88
(reported in Esquire, 8/92)
Rick Lanier
Wars usually end with military capitulation of one of the forces.
But, true, sometimes that downfall is 'enhanced' by civil unrest
or political upheavel. The legitimate way for the US citizen to
tell their government that the war should be ended is by voting
them out of office. BUT don't protest the war while our men
are dying on foreign soil. Hold the politicians accountable,
but the soldiers should be supported while they are in harms
way. Constantly portraying the war in the media or by protest
as unjust, gives our enemy great courage and resolve. This causes
many more American casualities than would otherwise occur.
Remember, the winning of a war, is eliminating your enemies will
to fight. IMCO.
Tom McClive
> . . . The legitimate way for the US citizen to
> tell their government that the war should be ended is by voting
> them out of office. BUT don't protest the war while our men
> are dying on foreign soil. Hold the politicians accountable,
> but the soldiers should be supported while they are in harms
> way. Constantly portraying the war in the media or by protest
> as unjust, gives our enemy great courage and resolve. This causes
> many more American casualities than would otherwise occur.
> Remember, the winning of a war, is eliminating your enemies will
> to fight. IMCO.
This subject has gone into many different threads, but since it started with a
discussion of Bill Clinton protesting, or evading, Vietnam, let's consider:
- I would certainly believe that anyone has the right to criticize the
actions of their government. I don't believe this right should stop at the
border, or stop during specific times.
- Therefore, what is wrong with protesting a war, during the war. I
certainly don't believe that we should silence all criticism of it because the
enemy might hear wind of it; that's a poor excuse for silencing public debate.
I wouldn't deny that criticism from home might reach enemy lines, but unless
we want to live in a police state that will tell us to just sit back and wait
for the end of the war we must be able to debate.
- Therefore, I don't think that Clinton was wrong for saying something
against the war while in England.
I've said before that I did not claim that McNamara was a military guru. I
certainly don't think that everyone contributing to this thread is either; I'm
most certainly not. Mac, however, was in a position to know a great deal
about the situation, and when the person who ran the war states that it was a
mistake, it means something, even if you don't respect that person.
I wouldn't hold the soldier responsible for a war, and I wouldn't spit on
them when they came home. But protesting a war is not being against the
soldiers, it's being against a government action. I'll be glad to support the
troops - by getting rid of a situation that is wrong.
Tom Wilson
Walt Ramsey <walt_...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>> McNamara's opinion carries no weight with me. Did we want
>>> to do what it took to when that war? Hell no. We could
>>> have : 1) Invaded North Vietnam
>>
>>> 2) Dropped the Bomb
>>
>>What a marvelously suicidal escalation this could've been. Vietnam's
>>bomb-possessing allies would've loved that one.
>
>You are truly inept at the facets of war!
>China in 1966-69 had no means to deliver a hydrogen weapon with the exception
>of a boat or short range aircraft or a truck.
>Russia wouldn't have engaged its nuclear arsenal over a country that
>existed within China's Sphere of Influence. Its highly unlikely that
>Russia would have chosen to intervene on any appreciable level because
>of its economic woes in the early 1970's, so that leaves China, without
>the ability to deliver a big punch to the US.
The USSR certainly wouldn't have minded one-upping China, since they
were getting along *so* well (my, but you're such a student of history).
Besides, what about China in the early '70s? You fail to mention
delivery capabilities from 70-72 (remember when we called it off?)
Not to say that they would have, but I'm glad heads cooler than yours
were around to not risk nuclear escalation into one of those 'winnable'
wars.
Walt Ramsey
>were getting along *so* well (my, but you're such a student of history).
>Besides, what about China in the early '70s? You fail to mention
>delivery capabilities from 70-72 (remember when we called it off?)
No, I was/am a student of warfare, not history. It just sort of happens
when you/your family have military obligations. The threat in 1970-72
to the US from China was in terms of 10 mil. troops, never nuclear
proliferation in Vietnam. The risk of fallout from a low yield 5 megaton
H-bomb was too large because of locale. I've never said I would have
used nuclear weapons in Vietnam, all I've said is that option should
remain viable. If I would have been running the show in the late 1960's,
I would have been around 5 years old, but knowing what I NOW know about
military strategy, nuclear weapons were never necessary. If the Vietnam
war had been run by competent MILITARY personnel, then escalation would
have never been a problem.
option 1: Members of the black hand assassinate Ho in 1965-66, escalation
never occurs, and US probably implements a puppet.
option 2: Invade in 1966 with 1 million troops 5 or 6 aircraft carrier
groups, and at least 400 B-52's flying daily maintenance bombing including
food supplies, medical centers, and military targets.
option 3: Give Ho 10 billion dollars in aid for considerations.
( neither Kennedy, nor Johnson ever saw fit to do this in their
infinite wisdom, and Nixon never had the opportunity)
option 4: Aid the French at Dien Ben Phu, (if self rule is not an issue)
Any option would have been preferable to slow escalation where public
opinion can rapidly erode.
I would have blacked out the media for 90-120 days and wiped the shit out
of N Vietnam. (Refer to a MUCH bigger, better equipped Iran in the
Gulf 'War' )
>Not to say that they would have, but I'm glad heads cooler than yours
>were around to not risk nuclear escalation into one of those 'winnable'
>wars.
>
Tom, again I say you have only one set of the possible many perspectives.
Go take a college class in Vietnamese history, and see what else
really happened. Not what the media SAYS happened, what REALLY happened.
Walt Ramsey
Rick Lanier
> Rick> Do you not feel that protesting/condemning and leading
> Rick> both from foreign soil during war time is wrong ? What if
>
> No, of course not. Why should the first amendment only
> apply at home?
I did not say it was illegal, only immoral to protest
from foreign soil while your country is at war. The 1st
amendment is not relevant to this point.
>
> Rick> someone were in Ireland protesting the US involvment in WWII
> Rick> was imperialist? Protest all you want, but don;t condemn your
> Rick> country from abroad during time of war.
>
> Your last sentence contradicts itself.
No. Charles Lindbergh (a Nazi sympathizer) protested and
lobbied to keep the US out of WWII. After war was declared,
he raised manoey for the war effort. After the War, he went
back to saying we should not have been involved in the war.
George Greene
Path: ashe.cs.unc.edu!concert!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!news
From: walt_...@ncsu.edu (Walt Ramsey)
Newsgroups: triangle.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 23 May 1995 20:51:57 GMT
Organization: NCSU
Lines: 31
References: <68X15c...@salzo.Cary.NC.US> <3pfolc$8...@nrtphba6.bnr.ca> <RTM.ADMIN....@mhs.unc.edu> <3pqqp0$h...@nrtphba6.bnr.ca> <D91Jx...@unx.sas.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cuacs9.mck.ncsu.edu
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6
Xref: ashe.cs.unc.edu triangle.politics:5602 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:224229
>> McNamara's opinion carries no weight with me. Did we want
>> to do what it took to when that war? Hell no. We could
>> have : 1) Invaded North Vietnam
>
>> 2) Dropped the Bomb
>
>What a marvelously suicidal escalation this could've been. Vietnam's
>bomb-possessing allies would've loved that one.
You are truly inept at the facets of war!
China in 1966-69 had no means to deliver a hydrogen weapon with the exception
of a boat or short range aircraft or a truck.
Russia wouldn't have engaged its nuclear arsenal over a country that
existed within China's Sphere of Influence. Its highly unlikely that
Russia would have chosen to intervene on any appreciable level because
of its economic woes in the early 1970's, so that leaves China, without
the ability to deliver a big punch to the US.
>Apparently enough to have been on the scene for quite a few years ;-)
Rob Strom
|> to win the war (no matter how bloody or devastating) , why
|> send young men to die.
|>
|> are two distinct and different debates. But, Once
|> the decision to go to War is reached. Debate/Protest
|> should END. Thus, my problem with Slick Willie and
|> his "loathing".
The above is contrary to reason, to American principles, and
to history.
Bad wars should be opposed as vigorously as any other
bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
Throwing away even more lives to try to win a bad war
at all costs just because "we're already
committed" is self-destructive. If both sides nurtured
this principle, we'd be all dead. What if the Argentianians
had applied this principle in the Falkland war and sent
suicide missions against Britain instead of surrendering?
And of course none of Clinton's opponents applied Mr. Lanier's
principles by holding back criticism when Mr. Clinton decided
to fight in Haiti and Somalia. That's because these are
not true principles, but special pleadings.
--
Rob Strom, st...@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
George Greene
: his 2nd biggest fault was allowing the media to interact with the war
: effort. Oh yea, he should have pushed sedition penalties.
Walt Ramsey's biggest fault is that the thinks it is possible for
sedition to exist in the US. This is a nation where your right to
criticize government policy cannot be abridged. The first amendment
is FIRST for a reason. It even protects the rights of ingrate citizens like
Walt Ramsey who think they can legitimately advocate denying American
citizens their constitutional rights.
Tom Wilson
Walt Ramsey <walt_...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>The USSR certainly wouldn't have minded one-upping China, since they
>>were getting along *so* well (my, but you're such a student of history).
>>Besides, what about China in the early '70s? You fail to mention
>>delivery capabilities from 70-72 (remember when we called it off?)
>
>No, I was/am a student of warfare, not history. It just sort of happens
>when you/your family have military obligations. The threat in 1970-72
>to the US from China was in terms of 10 mil. troops, never nuclear
>proliferation in Vietnam. The risk of fallout from a low yield 5 megaton
>H-bomb was too large because of locale. I've never said I would have
>used nuclear weapons in Vietnam, all I've said is that option should
>remain viable. If I would have been running the show in the late 1960's,
Which is a point of disagreement for us...
>I would have been around 5 years old, but knowing what I NOW know about
>military strategy, nuclear weapons were never necessary. If the Vietnam
>war had been run by competent MILITARY personnel, then escalation would
>have never been a problem.
>option 1: Members of the black hand assassinate Ho in 1965-66, escalation
>never occurs, and US probably implements a puppet.
>option 2: Invade in 1966 with 1 million troops 5 or 6 aircraft carrier
>groups, and at least 400 B-52's flying daily maintenance bombing including
>food supplies, medical centers, and military targets.
>option 3: Give Ho 10 billion dollars in aid for considerations.
> ( neither Kennedy, nor Johnson ever saw fit to do this in their
Kennedy may never have had the chance...Oswald saw to that...you can't
*really* know about that.
> infinite wisdom, and Nixon never had the opportunity)
>option 4: Aid the French at Dien Ben Phu, (if self rule is not an issue)
>
>Any option would have been preferable to slow escalation where public
>opinion can rapidly erode.
Not *much* argument here, anyway...
>I would have blacked out the media for 90-120 days and wiped the shit out
>of N Vietnam. (Refer to a MUCH bigger, better equipped Iran in the
>Gulf 'War' )
Much more advanced technologically, too.
>>Not to say that they would have, but I'm glad heads cooler than yours
>>were around to not risk nuclear escalation into one of those 'winnable'
>>wars.
>>
>
>Tom, again I say you have only one set of the possible many perspectives.
Your admitted lack of historical perspective makes me say the same about
you.
>Go take a college class in Vietnamese history, and see what else
>really happened. Not what the media SAYS happened, what REALLY happened.
A most interesting assertion, given your own weakness there. Besides,
you *presume* (as you presume a lot about me) that the media is my
primary source.
Tom Wilson
Al Cohen <sas...@maggot.unx.sas.com> wrote:
>
>In article <D91K4...@unx.sas.com>, sas...@duckhead.unx.sas.com (Tom Wilson) writes:
>>Walt Ramsey <walt_...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>US politicians didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. The US public
>>>didn't have the stomach to win Vietnam. Johnson and Nixon didn't
>>>have the balls to face China to win Vietnam. Three words,
>>>RED RIVER DYKES.
>>
>>
>
>Why? For better than 6 years we did little more that harass North Vietnam with
>our air power. If we'd have hit the dykes (or any other significant target),
>we could have brought them to the bargaining table on any number of occassions.
>But as Walt points out, the leaders of the day were afraid of using decisive
>force and drawing China (and maybe Russia) into the conflict.
I was mostly referring to the invective, since it's mostly for show. As
for former administrations avoiding potential conflict, Sino/Soviet
involvement could have been very bad indeed. It's so wonderful to
apply hindsight, isn't it?
>So here we are, 30 years later, and we did the same thing in Somalia. And the
>UN is doing it again in Bosnia. YOU DON'T USE COMBAT TROOPS AS A POLICE FORCE!
A mistake vitually everybody seems to make...crosses political lines, too.
>If you send troops to war, you use maximum force to end it as quick as possible,
>with as little blood shed as possible. I thought we'd finally learned something
>with the Gulf war.... guess not, huh Tom?
What we learned in the Gulf war is to take on an enemy, first by calling
them a threat to democracy (in Kuwait!), then, admit that yes, it's
*really* about the difference between buying oil from allies rather than
from enemies, making sure they're as isolated as possible politically and
economically, then trying to bomb them back to the stone age (militarily),
which we didn't do, trying to kill Saddam, which we didn't do, trying to
destroy his powerbase, which we didn't do (but did damage severely), and
successfully causing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and from positions
threatening other US Middle East allies. From that perspective, I guess
we *did* learn something, Al. Of course, there's controversy about
how soon we stopped (if my memory serves me, Bush got criticized for
what was perceived [by military personnel?] for premature withdrawal).
Walt Ramsey
>>military strategy, nuclear weapons were never necessary. If the Vietnam
>>war had been run by competent MILITARY personnel, then escalation would
>>have never been a problem.
>>option 1: Members of the black hand assassinate Ho in 1965-66, escalation
>>never occurs, and US probably implements a puppet.
>>option 2: Invade in 1966 with 1 million troops 5 or 6 aircraft carrier
>>groups, and at least 400 B-52's flying daily maintenance bombing including
>>food supplies, medical centers, and military targets.
>>option 3: Give Ho 10 billion dollars in aid for considerations.
>> ( neither Kennedy, nor Johnson ever saw fit to do this in their
>
>Kennedy may never have had the chance...Oswald saw to that...you can't
>*really* know about that.
Far from true.
Ho approached the combined administrations of Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson
in excess of 30 times asking for economic aid. Because of the political
backlash from China, none were able to take the heat, and bail out Ho.
So instead Kennedy sends the Deer Path Team, a group of 'advisors' to
help equip Ho in his search for national self-realization. The first
troops on Vietnamese soil were indeed sent by kennedy.
>> infinite wisdom, and Nixon never had the opportunity)
>>option 4: Aid the French at Dien Ben Phu, (if self rule is not an issue)
>>
>>Any option would have been preferable to slow escalation where public
>>opinion can rapidly erode.
>
>Not *much* argument here, anyway...
>
>>I would have blacked out the media for 90-120 days and wiped the shit out
>>of N Vietnam. (Refer to a MUCH bigger, better equipped Iran in the
>>Gulf 'War' )
>
>Much more advanced technologically, too.
The lessons learned in 'modern' conflicts like 'the gulf' were understood
by military strategists when escalation began, but as democracy dictates,
public opinion, therefore political processes, make wartime decisions.
>>Tom, again I say you have only one set of the possible many perspectives.
>
>Your admitted lack of historical perspective makes me say the same about
>you.
But you attempt to lecture in a topic you possibly have NO experience
in which to deal, I have at least attempted to learn the history that
surrounds the economic, or wartime events.
>>Go take a college class in Vietnamese history, and see what else
>>really happened. Not what the media SAYS happened, what REALLY happened.
>A most interesting assertion, given your own weakness there. Besides,
>you *presume* (as you presume a lot about me) that the media is my
>primary source.
>
The line you choose to spew happens to be the same that I've heard for
the last 20 or so years from the media. If your 'sources' aren't the
media, then be they Col John Sommers, a pinkie at heart?
Walt
Walt Ramsey
>sedition to exist in the US. This is a nation where your right to
>criticize government policy cannot be abridged. The first amendment
>is FIRST for a reason. It even protects the rights of ingrate citizens like
>Walt Ramsey who think they can legitimately advocate denying American
>citizens their constitutional rights.
George Green's biggest fault is his undying attempt to condemn any that
don't believe as he does. The first amendment often conflicts others
during 'special events'. You are not permitted to cry fire in a crowded
theatre, is that abolishment of the 1st ?
Lesser of two evils my dreaded opponent, lesser of two evils.
Abridge the 1st for a little bit so that the other 10 12 14, who cares,
exist for a lengthier period. Sounds like the government job to me,
to sustain optimal social order over the longest period of time.
Walt
Seth J. Fehrs
> Russia wouldn't have engaged its nuclear arsenal over a country that
> existed within China's Sphere of Influence. Its highly unlikely that
> Russia would have chosen to intervene on any appreciable level because
> of its economic woes in the early 1970's, so that leaves China, without
> the ability to deliver a big punch to the US.
Never underestimate the French...
:^)
*****************************************************************************
Cliff Notes for Physics
Things move. The rest is math.
*****************************************************************************
Rick Lanier
>
> In article <3ptc1u$g...@nrtphba6.bnr.ca>, Rick Lanier <rick....@nt.com> writes:
> |>
> |> ... If you aren't willing to do what it takes
> |> to win the war (no matter how bloody or devastating) , why
> |> send young men to die.
> |>
> |> The decision to go to war, and how to fight the war,
> |> are two distinct and different debates. But, Once
> |> the decision to go to War is reached. Debate/Protest
> |> should END. Thus, my problem with Slick Willie and
> |> his "loathing".
>
> The above is contrary to reason, to American principles, and
> to history.
It is contrary to none of the above. And in fact affirmed
by American history (remember the 'America First' campaign).
>
> Bad wars should be opposed as vigorously as any other
> bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
Then VOTE them out of office. Don't whine to the media,
spit on GI's, burn campuses, vandalize etc... Or is that
what you mean by 'government of the people'?
>
> Throwing away even more lives to try to win a bad war
> at all costs just because "we're already
> committed" is self-destructive. If both sides nurtured
> this principle, we'd be all dead. What if the Argentianians
> had applied this principle in the Falkland war and sent
> suicide missions against Britain instead of surrendering?
>
> And of course none of Clinton's opponents applied Mr. Lanier's
> principles by holding back criticism when Mr. Clinton decided
> to fight in Haiti and Somalia. That's because these are
> not true principles, but special pleadings.
What fighting ???? So you are equating Criticism with
the protests that went on during Vietnam ? How many
yellow American fled to Canada for fear of Haiti ?
Al Cohen
In article <D959p...@unx.sas.com>, sas...@duckhead.unx.sas.com (Tom Wilson) writes:
>In article <D91pC...@unx.sas.com>, Al Cohen <sas...@maggot.unx.sas.com> wrote:
>
>>So here we are, 30 years later, and we did the same thing in Somalia. And the
>>UN is doing it again in Bosnia. YOU DON'T USE COMBAT TROOPS AS A POLICE FORCE!
>
>A mistake vitually everybody seems to make...crosses political lines, too.
In the US, I'd say generally the Democrates seem to be worse. But you're
right, bad military decisions are being made by politicans throughout the
world.
>>If you send troops to war, you use maximum force to end it as quick as possible,
>>with as little blood shed as possible. I thought we'd finally learned something
>>with the Gulf war.... guess not, huh Tom?
>
>What we learned in the Gulf war is to take on an enemy, first by calling
>them a threat to democracy (in Kuwait!), then, admit that yes, it's
>*really* about the difference between buying oil from allies rather than
>from enemies, making sure they're as isolated as possible politically and
>economically,
You're talking politics here. If you don't like the decisions made by
your leaders, work to vote them out of office. The above statements have
*nothing* to do with the military lessons I was refering to.
> then trying to bomb them back to the stone age (militarily),
>which we didn't do, trying to kill Saddam, which we didn't do, trying to
>destroy his powerbase, which we didn't do (but did damage severely), and
>successfully causing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and from positions
>threatening other US Middle East allies.
Incorrect, incorrect, incorrect, correct. Our goal was not to obliterate
Iraq from the planet. Our goal was to remove them from Kuwait. Desert
Sheild/Storm wouldn't have happenned if Iraq had immediately withrew from
Kuwait. You criticize bombing the hell out of them. If you send the
bombers in, that's the only way they should be used. Iraq continued to
hold out, so we continued with a strong ground assualt. Compared to the
way the Vietnam war was fought, our leaders did learn a big lesson.
> From that perspective, I guess
>we *did* learn something, Al. Of course, there's controversy about
>how soon we stopped (if my memory serves me, Bush got criticized for
>what was perceived [by military personnel?] for premature withdrawal).
Remember that we had a multi-national coalition united against Sadam's
actions in Kuwait. I'm sure the American public (myself included) would
have loved to see Sadam ousted (or worse :-), but it's not always that
easy when you're dealing with a UN force. Again, our main goal was to
remove Iraq from Kuwait and help stabilize the region.
Andrew Hall
Rick> st...@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) wrote:
>>
>> In article <3ptc1u$g...@nrtphba6.bnr.ca>, Rick Lanier <rick....@nt.com> writes:
>> |>
>> |> ... If you aren't willing to do what it takes
>> |> to win the war (no matter how bloody or devastating) , why
>> |> send young men to die.
>> |>
>> |> The decision to go to war, and how to fight the war,
>> |> are two distinct and different debates. But, Once
>> |> the decision to go to War is reached. Debate/Protest
>> |> should END. Thus, my problem with Slick Willie and
>> |> his "loathing".
>>
>> The above is contrary to reason, to American principles, and
>> to history.
Rick> It is contrary to none of the above. And in fact affirmed
Rick> by American history (remember the 'America First' campaign).
Sorry, but claiming that one should not complain and oppose
actions that your government is taking that you do not
approve of is very american, and trying to limit such
freedom is very unamerican.
>> Bad wars should be opposed as vigorously as any other
>> bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
Rick> Then VOTE them out of office. Don't whine to the media,
Rick> spit on GI's, burn campuses, vandalize etc... Or is that
Rick> what you mean by 'government of the people'?
The vast majority of the protesters were peaceful and did not
spit, burn or vandalize. Protest is the american way.
>> Throwing away even more lives to try to win a bad war
>> at all costs just because "we're already
>> committed" is self-destructive. If both sides nurtured
>> this principle, we'd be all dead. What if the Argentianians
>> had applied this principle in the Falkland war and sent
>> suicide missions against Britain instead of surrendering?
>>
>> And of course none of Clinton's opponents applied Mr. Lanier's
>> principles by holding back criticism when Mr. Clinton decided
>> to fight in Haiti and Somalia. That's because these are
>> not true principles, but special pleadings.
Rick> What fighting ???? So you are equating Criticism with
Rick> the protests that went on during Vietnam ? How many
Rick> yellow American fled to Canada for fear of Haiti ?
We got rid of the unamerican draft.
ah
(Posted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh)
Tom Wilson
Walt Ramsey <walt_...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>Take it from someone who was draftable, (lucky enough to not get called),
>>words are little more than mildly entertaining hyperbole.
>>
>
>in that theatre. If Nixon, or Johnson would have had the balls to bomb
>the Red River, and its support structures that N Vietnam would have starved
>to death, and the war of attrition could have been won. Nixon was easily
>swayed by China's threats, and so was unwilling to confront China's
>resolve. In addition, only a fraction of US defense attention was focused
>on Vietnam, ie Germany etc...; the results would have been far different
>if Curtis Lemay ran the war, or for that matter Barry Goldwater.
>I don't think you can comprehend the war through the eyes of unrelated
>highschool chums.
I can comprehend it *every bit as well*. You don't need to be a relative
to provide an accurate perspective. Just to demonstrate your *lack*
thereof, you automatically assume that they were all *high school chums*.
I have made many friends of veterans since that war. A nitpicky point?
You bet, but no more so than your point above.
>Walt
Tom Wilson
Walt Ramsey <walt_...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>>I would have been around 5 years old, but knowing what I NOW know about
>>>military strategy, nuclear weapons were never necessary. If the Vietnam
>>>war had been run by competent MILITARY personnel, then escalation would
>>>have never been a problem.
>>>option 1: Members of the black hand assassinate Ho in 1965-66, escalation
>>>never occurs, and US probably implements a puppet.
>>>option 2: Invade in 1966 with 1 million troops 5 or 6 aircraft carrier
>>>groups, and at least 400 B-52's flying daily maintenance bombing including
>>>food supplies, medical centers, and military targets.
>>>option 3: Give Ho 10 billion dollars in aid for considerations.
>>> ( neither Kennedy, nor Johnson ever saw fit to do this in their
>>
>>Kennedy may never have had the chance...Oswald saw to that...you can't
>>*really* know about that.
>
>Far from true.
>Ho approached the combined administrations of Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson
>in excess of 30 times asking for economic aid. Because of the political
>backlash from China, none were able to take the heat, and bail out Ho.
>So instead Kennedy sends the Deer Path Team, a group of 'advisors' to
>help equip Ho in his search for national self-realization. The first
>troops on Vietnamese soil were indeed sent by kennedy.
How many times did he approach Kennedy?
>
>>> infinite wisdom, and Nixon never had the opportunity)
>>>option 4: Aid the French at Dien Ben Phu, (if self rule is not an issue)
>>>
>>>Any option would have been preferable to slow escalation where public
>>>opinion can rapidly erode.
>>
>>Not *much* argument here, anyway...
>>
>>>I would have blacked out the media for 90-120 days and wiped the shit out
>>>of N Vietnam. (Refer to a MUCH bigger, better equipped Iran in the
>>>Gulf 'War' )
>>
>>Much more advanced technologically, too.
>
>The lessons learned in 'modern' conflicts like 'the gulf' were understood
>by military strategists when escalation began, but as democracy dictates,
>public opinion, therefore political processes, make wartime decisions.
>
>>>Tom, again I say you have only one set of the possible many perspectives.
>>
>>Your admitted lack of historical perspective makes me say the same about
>>you.
>
>But you attempt to lecture in a topic you possibly have NO experience
>in which to deal, I have at least attempted to learn the history that
>surrounds the economic, or wartime events.
You have no experience here, either.
>>>Go take a college class in Vietnamese history, and see what else
>>>really happened. Not what the media SAYS happened, what REALLY happened.
>
>
>>A most interesting assertion, given your own weakness there. Besides,
>>you *presume* (as you presume a lot about me) that the media is my
>>primary source.
>>
>
>The line you choose to spew happens to be the same that I've heard for
>the last 20 or so years from the media. If your 'sources' aren't the
>media, then be they Col John Sommers, a pinkie at heart?
Nice little piece of McCarthyism...I'll bet it warmed your loins almost
as your inference that my not liking war equates to cowardice.
Tom Wilson
Al Cohen <sas...@maggot.unx.sas.com> wrote:
>
>In article <D959p...@unx.sas.com>, sas...@duckhead.unx.sas.com (Tom Wilson) writes:
>>In article <D91pC...@unx.sas.com>, Al Cohen <sas...@maggot.unx.sas.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So here we are, 30 years later, and we did the same thing in Somalia. And the
>>>UN is doing it again in Bosnia. YOU DON'T USE COMBAT TROOPS AS A POLICE FORCE!
>>
>>A mistake vitually everybody seems to make...crosses political lines, too.
>
>In the US, I'd say generally the Democrates seem to be worse. But you're
>right, bad military decisions are being made by politicans throughout the
>world.
>
>>>If you send troops to war, you use maximum force to end it as quick as possible,
>>>with as little blood shed as possible. I thought we'd finally learned something
>>>with the Gulf war.... guess not, huh Tom?
>>
>>What we learned in the Gulf war is to take on an enemy, first by calling
>>them a threat to democracy (in Kuwait!), then, admit that yes, it's
>>*really* about the difference between buying oil from allies rather than
>>from enemies, making sure they're as isolated as possible politically and
>>economically,
>
>You're talking politics here. If you don't like the decisions made by
>your leaders, work to vote them out of office. The above statements have
>*nothing* to do with the military lessons I was refering to.
SO? I don't see anyone criticizing the military for what happened in
'Nam, they blame the politicians. *Just like Vietnam*, the ultimate
decisions about what the military does are subject to approval by
people in the same positions--politicians. You agreed just prior to
this section of the post that politicians make mistakes about the use
of the miltiary. The military was *allowed* to do more--*that's* the
lesson here. BTW, I *did* help vote them out of office.
>> then trying to bomb them back to the stone age (militarily),
>>which we didn't do, trying to kill Saddam, which we didn't do, trying to
>>destroy his powerbase, which we didn't do (but did damage severely), and
>>successfully causing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and from positions
>>threatening other US Middle East allies.
>
>Incorrect, incorrect, incorrect, correct. Our goal was not to obliterate
>Iraq from the planet. Our goal was to remove them from Kuwait. Desert
I was referring to MILITARILY blowing them off. Reread the sentence.
Perhaps I shouldn't stated it like this, at least not with parenthetic
reference how.
>Sheild/Storm wouldn't have happenned if Iraq had immediately withrew from
>Kuwait. You criticize bombing the hell out of them. If you send the
You're right...if they had withdrawn, we wouldn't have needed to do
anything...and, *WHERE* in that paragraph do I criticize the bombing?
I stated my observations of what happened, nothing more. Quit trying to
add to what I said to suit your argument.
>bombers in, that's the only way they should be used. Iraq continued to
>hold out, so we continued with a strong ground assualt. Compared to the
>way the Vietnam war was fought, our leaders did learn a big lesson.
Our political leaders. The Commander in Chief is a civilian, remember?
While the military formulated the strategy, they were given the leeway
by their civilian boss. Politicians are blamed for not giving the
military enough rope, so recognize when they do.
>> From that perspective, I guess
>>we *did* learn something, Al. Of course, there's controversy about
>>how soon we stopped (if my memory serves me, Bush got criticized for
>>what was perceived [by military personnel?] for premature withdrawal).
>
>Remember that we had a multi-national coalition united against Sadam's
>actions in Kuwait. I'm sure the American public (myself included) would
>have loved to see Sadam ousted (or worse :-), but it's not always that
And, as I said, they tried repeatedly to locate Saddam's hiding place(s),
unless, of course, you dispute the military-censored news reports.
>easy when you're dealing with a UN force. Again, our main goal was to
>remove Iraq from Kuwait and help stabilize the region.
Yes, it's not easy to work within the bounds of a multinational force
like every other one we work with, as in Bosnia-Herzgovina, Somalia, etc.
Evil Engineer Doin' It The Cowboy Way
David> st...@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> The above is contrary to reason, to American principles, and
> to history.
>
> Bad wars should be opposed as vigorously as any other
> bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
>
> Throwing away even more lives to try to win a bad war
> at all costs just because "we're already
> committed" is self-destructive. If both sides nurtured
> this principle, we'd be all dead. What if the Argentianians
> had applied this principle in the Falkland war and sent
> suicide missions against Britain instead of surrendering?
David> But what you are talking about is *not* what Clinton did,
David> Bob. He was not engaging in domestic debate about U.S.
David> policy. He went overseas and tried to turn one of
David> America's most important allies against us, in time of war.
David> That is not debate, that is treason.
No, what it is is a moronic statement on your part, David. What do you
think a college student can do to "turn one of America's most important
allies against us, in time of war"? You can't be serious, why say
something so incredibly stupid?
You might not appreciate that Americans are allowed to express dissent
against their government. And expressing dissent is not an act of treason.
Where did you get this "domestic" adjective you feel so compelled to apply
to the word "debate"?
Americans on foreign soil are subject to the foreign laws. But there is
not a special set of American laws which kick in for an American while he
is on foreign soil, which is what you seem to be alluding to.
David> Adding insult to injury, he did so while he was supposed to
David> have been *serving* in the U.S. Army, having failed to
David> report for duty after being sent sent two induction
David> notices.
Adding insult to injury, you project your previous stupidity a little
further. How do you know that? You know he didn't report for induction
notices, do you know all the details involved? Can you say with any
certainty that he would have absolutely been *serving*? What an asanine
statement.
> And of course none of Clinton's opponents applied Mr. Lanier's
> principles by holding back criticism when Mr. Clinton decided
> to fight in Haiti and Somalia. That's because these are
> not true principles, but special pleadings.
David> If American citizens had gone to the countries that were
David> allied with the US during the conflicts in Somalia or Haiti
David> or Grenada or whereever, and if, while there, they'd taken
David> steps to try to turn our allies against us, then they would
David> also have been guilty of treason, as Clinton was during the
David> Vietnam war. To the best of my knowledge, no American did
David> that during these later conflicts.
To the best of *your* knowledge, huh, David? Well, if that's what we must
depend on - your knowledge, we seem to be in a hurt. It's amazing how you
are keeping track of all 260+ million of us Americans and what we are
doing recently and have done back up to 30 years ago.. Quite a feat.
Unless you were "there" in the 60s and 70s, you need to find out what
really happened and what it was all about before you start issuing these
great logical arguments about what [you think] Clinton did.
I submit that you are a complete ignoramus on this subject. If I am
mistaken and you are a Vietnam vet, I'll gladly withdraw that opinion.
Why not just come out and say you hate Clinton's guts, instead of trying
to make up such incredible "arguments" against him? That would be honesty.
But what you apparently need is a truly *heroic* figure you can look up
to. Someone who served his country in the military and is a great
American. Like Rush Limbaugh (no, wait..). Like Newt Gingrich (no, wait..)
Like Phil Gramm (no, wait..) Like Dan Quayle.. yeh, that's it! Dan Quayle.
I've seen enough.
L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
Seth J. Fehrs
>st...@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>> Throwing away even more lives to try to win a bad war
>> at all costs just because "we're already
>> committed" is self-destructive. If both sides nurtured
>> this principle, we'd be all dead. What if the Argentianians
>> had applied this principle in the Falkland war and sent
>> suicide missions against Britain instead of surrendering?
>
>But what you are talking about is *not* what Clinton did, Bob. He
>was not engaging in domestic debate about U.S. policy. He went
>overseas and tried to turn one of America's most important allies
>against us, in time of war. That is not debate, that is treason.
This is one of those situations where you both can be right.
Clearly Benjamin Franklin was comitting treason when he tried
to turn France (even more) against England. In this case,
treason was the right thing to do.
The $64,000 question: Was Clinton's treason* justifiable?
* There is that little nit-pick about Congress never declaring
war...
David Burton
> The above is contrary to reason, to American principles, and
> to history.
>
> Bad wars should be opposed as vigorously as any other
> bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
>
> Throwing away even more lives to try to win a bad war
> at all costs just because "we're already
> committed" is self-destructive. If both sides nurtured
> this principle, we'd be all dead. What if the Argentianians
> had applied this principle in the Falkland war and sent
> suicide missions against Britain instead of surrendering?
But what you are talking about is *not* what Clinton did, Bob. He
was not engaging in domestic debate about U.S. policy. He went
overseas and tried to turn one of America's most important allies
against us, in time of war. That is not debate, that is treason.
Adding insult to injury, he did so while he was supposed to have
been *serving* in the U.S. Army, having failed to report for duty
after being sent sent two induction notices.
> And of course none of Clinton's opponents applied Mr. Lanier's
> principles by holding back criticism when Mr. Clinton decided
> to fight in Haiti and Somalia. That's because these are
> not true principles, but special pleadings.
If American citizens had gone to the countries that were allied
with the US during the conflicts in Somalia or Haiti or Grenada or
whereever, and if, while there, they'd taken steps to try to turn
our allies against us, then they would also have been guilty of
treason, as Clinton was during the Vietnam war. To the best of
my knowledge, no American did that during these later conflicts.
-Dave Burton primary email address: <dbu...@burtonsys.com>
also: <dbu...@ios.com>, <dbu...@salzo.cary.nc.us>, <dbu...@cybernetics.net>
Rick Lanier
>
>
>
[CHOMPED for clarity]
>
> Sorry, but claiming that one should not complain and oppose
> actions that your government is taking that you do not
> approve of is very american, and trying to limit such
> freedom is very unamerican.
No one is saying limiting protest. I am just saying that
protesting and not supporting your troops while in harms
way, is immoral and cowardly.
>
> >> Bad wars should be opposed as vigorously as any other
> >> bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
>
> Rick> Then VOTE them out of office. Don't whine to the media,
> Rick> spit on GI's, burn campuses, vandalize etc... Or is that
> Rick> what you mean by 'government of the people'?
>
> The vast majority of the protesters were peaceful and did not
> spit, burn or vandalize. Protest is the american way.
Please explain how these drugged up love-ins were supportive
of our American troops ? Do you not think you gave the
enemy more resolve ? Once in the war we should support our
troops.
>
> [CHOMPED]
> Rick> What fighting ???? So you are equating Criticism with
> Rick> the protests that went on during Vietnam ? How many
> Rick> yellow American fled to Canada for fear of Haiti ?
>
> We got rid of the unamerican draft.
You and Nixon were buddies, huh?
>
> ah
>
> (Posted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh)
Al Cohen
>SO? I don't see anyone criticizing the military for what happened in
>'Nam, they blame the politicians. *Just like Vietnam*, the ultimate
>decisions about what the military does are subject to approval by
>people in the same positions--politicians. You agreed just prior to
>this section of the post that politicians make mistakes about the use
>of the miltiary. The military was *allowed* to do more--*that's* the
>lesson here. BTW, I *did* help vote them out of office.
>
The military was *allowed* to do more (in Desert Storm)--*that's* the
lesson? NO SHIT!!!! What have I been saying since this thread started?!
In Vietnam, the military was kept from running at full throttle. In the
Gulf War, once the politicians decided to use military force, they were
allowed to do their job at full capacity. Unlike other parts in this
thread, I'm not debating if Vietnam was right or wrong. I'm not debating
Bush's actions that got our military involved. I'm simply stating that
you don't put a Doberman in your front yard and tie him to a tree and
put a muzzle on him! This policy costs lives, and it also loses wars.
>>Sheild/Storm wouldn't have happenned if Iraq had immediately withrew from
>>Kuwait. You criticize bombing the hell out of them. If you send the
>
>You're right...if they had withdrawn, we wouldn't have needed to do
>anything...and, *WHERE* in that paragraph do I criticize the bombing?
>I stated my observations of what happened, nothing more. Quit trying to
>add to what I said to suit your argument.
I'm sorry I interpreted your comment "trying to bomb them back to the stone
age, which we didn't do" as a negative view of our policy. Just how did you
mean it? When you're at war with a country, trying to bomb them back to the
stone age *and hitting strategic targets* is a pretty good strategy for
getting then to surrender. Which leads to....
>>Compared to the way the Vietnam war was fought, our leaders did learn a
>>big lesson.
>
>Our political leaders. The Commander in Chief is a civilian, remember?
>While the military formulated the strategy, they were given the leeway
>by their civilian boss. Politicians are blamed for not giving the
>military enough rope, so recognize when they do.
Again, NO SHIT!!! I said, "our leaders did learn a big lesson." But you
didn't agree with them, right? You helped to vote them out of office :-)
>Yes, it's not easy to work within the bounds of a multinational force
>like every other one we work with, as in Bosnia-Herzgovina, Somalia, etc.
True, and there has to be some give and take between the allies involved.
But not on basic strategy, like using combat troops as a police force.
The muzzled and tied-up Doberman doesn't pose much of a threat, and neither
have the UN forces working in Bosnia.
Rob Strom
|> st...@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
|>
|> > The above is contrary to reason, to American principles, and
|> > to history.
|> >
|> > bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
|> >
|> > at all costs just because "we're already
|> > committed" is self-destructive. If both sides nurtured
|> > this principle, we'd be all dead. What if the Argentianians
|> > had applied this principle in the Falkland war and sent
|> > suicide missions against Britain instead of surrendering?
|>
|> But what you are talking about is *not* what Clinton did, Bob. He
|> was not engaging in domestic debate about U.S. policy. He went
|> overseas and tried to turn one of America's most important allies
|> against us, in time of war. That is not debate, that is treason.
|>
No. Trying to change a war policy by democratic means is
not treason. Giving aid to the enemy is.
You also imply that Clinton was meeting with the British
government rather than expressing opinions on British soil.
|> Adding insult to injury, he did so while he was supposed to have
|> been *serving* in the U.S. Army, having failed to report for duty
|> after being sent sent two induction notices.
|>
This is factually incorrect. Clinton was legally in England
at the time. He was never declared delinquent nor prosecuted.
|>
|> > And of course none of Clinton's opponents applied Mr. Lanier's
|> > principles by holding back criticism when Mr. Clinton decided
|> > to fight in Haiti and Somalia. That's because these are
|> > not true principles, but special pleadings.
|>
|> If American citizens had gone to the countries that were allied
|> with the US during the conflicts in Somalia or Haiti or Grenada or
|> whereever, and if, while there, they'd taken steps to try to turn
|> our allies against us, then they would also have been guilty of
|> treason, as Clinton was during the Vietnam war. To the best of
|> my knowledge, no American did that during these later conflicts.
|>
Mr. Lanier's principle was that once the hostilities begin,
debate must stop. This is what he posted:
|>
|> The decision to go to war, and how to fight the war,
|> are two distinct and different debates. But, Once
|> the decision to go to War is reached. Debate/Protest
|> should END.
Many of Clinton's opponents were debating/protesting our
involvement in Haiti and Somalia after Mr. Clinton had
reached the decision. They thus violated Mr. Lanier's
principle. I stand by my assertion that this "principle"
is not taken seriously by Clinton opponents, but
is a mere pretext to malign Clinton.
Walt Ramsey
>>in which to deal, I have at least attempted to learn the history that
>>surrounds the economic, or wartime events.
>
>You have no experience here, either.
In what are you referencing? I have indeed taken two classes in
Vietnamese history. You are welcome to call my alma and see for
yourself if you doubt that I know some of the history, and more than
welcome to read something realtive to the topic. I am assuredly
well versed in the wartime events, as necessary for various reasons,
which you can e-mail me, and we'll discuss.
>>>
>Nice little piece of McCarthyism...I'll bet it warmed your loins almost
>as your inference that my not liking war equates to cowardice.
>
I didn't say you not liking war equates to cowardice, you've done well
enough on your own regard.
Walt
Walt Ramsey
>to provide an accurate perspective. Just to demonstrate your *lack*
>thereof, you automatically assume that they were all *high school chums*.
>I have made many friends of veterans since that war. A nitpicky point?
>You bet, but no more so than your point above.
>
Tom,
which point is that?
(That you saw through the eyes of a few friends. That you are meeting
people with their perspective behind them.)
To be a little nitpicky, you need the perspective of having been in
the service at some point in your life to really understand the
implications of pulling a trigger. It would probably help if you under-
stood the dynamics of warfare, not politics, but warfare. The academic
bubble, and the civilian workfarce have nothing comparable.
Walt
David Burton
> Rick> Then VOTE them out of office. Don't whine to the media,
> Rick> spit on GI's, burn campuses, vandalize etc... Or is that
> Rick> what you mean by 'government of the people'?
>
> The vast majority of the protesters were peaceful and did not
> spit, burn or vandalize. Protest is the american way.
You are quite right that it is unfair to lump the peaceful,
patriotic people who opposed our role in the Vietnam war, along
those radicals who were burning ROTC buildings, going overseas to
propagandize for the enemy, and spitting on American GIs. There
is all the difference in the world between the two. It is the
difference between legitimate (even if wrong-headed) participation
in political debate, and treason.
> Protest is the american way.
But you should tell that to the liberal backers of F.A.C.E. and
other measures intended to prevent peaceful protest at abortuaries.
When it is the Left's ox being gored, they are far more ruthless at
suppressing their opponents than was anyone who opposed the Vietnam
war protesters. They're tossing peaceful anti-abortion protesters
in jail for weeks and months. In the 60s, rock-throwing rioters
rarely spent more than a few hours in jail.
> Rick> What fighting ???? So you are equating Criticism with
> Rick> the protests that went on during Vietnam ? How many
> Rick> yellow American fled to Canada for fear of Haiti ?
>
> We got rid of the unamerican draft.
"We?" Actually, it was Nixon who got rid of the draft.
Andrew Hall
Rick> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
Rick> [CHOMPED for clarity]
>>
>> Sorry, but claiming that one should not complain and oppose
>> actions that your government is taking that you do not
>> approve of is very american, and trying to limit such
>> freedom is very unamerican.
Rick> No one is saying limiting protest. I am just saying that
Rick> protesting and not supporting your troops while in harms
Rick> way, is immoral and cowardly.
Trying to get them brought home from a war you consider
immoral is supporting them. Lying and supporting a war
you consider immoral is wrong and unamerican.
`
>> >> Bad wars should be opposed as vigorously as any other
>> >> bad decisions. This is still a government of the people.
>>
Rick> Then VOTE them out of office. Don't whine to the media,
Rick> spit on GI's, burn campuses, vandalize etc... Or is that
Rick> what you mean by 'government of the people'?
>> The vast majority of the protesters were peaceful and did not
>> spit, burn or vandalize. Protest is the american way.
Rick> Please explain how these drugged up love-ins were supportive
Rick> of our American troops ? Do you not think you gave the
Rick> enemy more resolve ? Once in the war we should support our
Rick> troops.
They wer supporting brings the troops home. Under
the circumstances, that was clearly the best thing for
the troops.
>> [CHOMPED]
Rick> What fighting ???? So you are equating Criticism with
Rick> the protests that went on during Vietnam ? How many
Rick> yellow American fled to Canada for fear of Haiti ?
>>
>> We got rid of the unamerican draft.
Rick> You and Nixon were buddies, huh?
Nope, but I was an american.
ah