What was he opposed to in Vietnam?
Compaq User
Michael Olin <mo...@mich.com> wrote in message
news:3743A925...@mich.com...
> From DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 1999-05-19
>
> Question submitted by Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (Ret):
>
> "If President Clinton orders our forces to engage an
> entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the
> Russians, on their soil, in a civil war, with difficult
> terrain, limited military objectives, bombing restrictions,
> boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far
> across the ocean, with uncertain goals, no exit strategy,
> without consulting Congress, the potential for escalation,
> while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority
> of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the
> value of the action being worth American lives, just what
> was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?"
Having to serve there himself.
Now, he's no longer of draft age.
Michael Olin
Question submitted by Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (Ret):
"If President Clinton orders our forces to engage an
entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the
Russians, on their soil, in a civil war, with difficult
terrain, limited military objectives, bombing restrictions,
boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far
across the ocean, with uncertain goals, no exit strategy,
without consulting Congress, the potential for escalation,
while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority
of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the
value of the action being worth American lives, just what
was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?"
During Vietnam a famous quote that was roundly
decried by the media and the anti-war movement was, "We had
to destroy the village in order to save it." Richard
Holbrooke has coined a phrase just as contradictory, but
infused with all the wisdom and emotion of the liberal left,
"Bombing for Peace." When we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait we
weren't bombing for peace, but for war and if Mr. Holbrooke
thinks that there is a distinction between bombing for peace
or bombing for war, it's a distinction without a difference.
Have a good week. Don't bunch up.
Robert L. McMahon, Editor
Rlmc...@mindspring.com
You can now find copies of Hack's previous columns at:
http://www.hackworth.com. These are found in the Defending
America Section, under Archived Copies.
--
.______________. http://www.mich.com/~molin/ .______________.
|||
Keep up the fight ||| I love my country but
or lose the right / | \ I fear my government
It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone
collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is
someone being served. Make no mistake about it, the man who speaks to
you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters - and he intends to
be the master.
-- Ayn Rand
John McGough
A Clinton And China Timeline
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/irishboy/chinagate.html
aladdinsane
long
enough, didn't it? Mind you, the circumstances behind what started the Vietnam
War
and the Yugoslavia crisis are rather different and neither side really wears a
halo in this
conflict (which is why I'm kind of on the fence about the whole operation and
have been
outwardly exploring a range of positions on it), either. I think the main issue
in this
should be about what Milosevich's exploits do to the fabric of European security
and
stability (and American business, no doubt about it, wants a more stable eastern
Europe)
than the killing, as that has been going on for hundreds of years, a kind of
Jerry
Springer show (on a really sick level) fought with mortars and automatic
weapons.
It could be that the best we could do is fence the area off in a kind of death
cage match
and let them just kill each other off or are so exhausted they say "enough". And
yet, there
is a part of me that finds that little bit of realpolitik unbelievably callous.
Compaq User wrote:
> Michael Olin <mo...@mich.com> wrote in message
> news:3743A925...@mich.com...
> > From DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 1999-05-19
> >
> > Question submitted by Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (Ret):
> >
> > "If President Clinton orders our forces to engage an
> > entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the
> > Russians, on their soil, in a civil war, with difficult
> > terrain, limited military objectives, bombing restrictions,
> > boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far
> > across the ocean, with uncertain goals, no exit strategy,
> > without consulting Congress, the potential for escalation,
> > while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority
> > of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the
> > value of the action being worth American lives, just what
> > was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?"
>
lschn...@mindspring.com
On Wed, 19 May 1999 21:38:42 -1000, "Compaq User"
<rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Olin <mo...@mich.com> wrote in message
>news:3743A925...@mich.com...
>> From DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 1999-05-19
>>
>> Question submitted by Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (Ret):
>>
>> "If President Clinton orders our forces to engage an
>> entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the
>> Russians, on their soil, in a civil war, with difficult
>> terrain, limited military objectives, bombing restrictions,
>> boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far
>> across the ocean, with uncertain goals, no exit strategy,
>> without consulting Congress, the potential for escalation,
>> while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority
>> of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the
>> value of the action being worth American lives, just what
>> was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?"
>
>Having to serve there himself.
>
>Now, he's no longer of draft age.
>
>
Absolutely right. Getting drafted is personally inconvenient
and possibly dangerous.
Louis
> Michael Olin <mo...@mich.com> wrote in message
> news:3743A925...@mich.com...
> > From DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 1999-05-19
> > Question submitted by Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (Ret):
> > "If President Clinton orders our forces to engage an
> > entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the
> > Russians, on their soil, in a civil war, with difficult
> > terrain, limited military objectives, bombing restrictions,
> > boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far
> > across the ocean, with uncertain goals, no exit strategy,
> > without consulting Congress, the potential for escalation,
> > while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority
> > of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the
> > value of the action being worth American lives, just what
> > was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?"
> Having to serve there himself.
> Now, he's no longer of draft age.
>>>>
At least Hitler (yeah, yeah, the "evilist man in history") served
with honor (two Iron Crosses for bravery) in WWI and was
temporarily blinded in a gas attack...Klintoon is just a yuppy
dilettante playing at war who never had to crawl on his belly
in the mud (except when it comes to Chinese contributors).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Holden
wrote:
>From DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 1999-05-19
>Question submitted by Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (Ret):
>"If President Clinton orders our forces to engage an
>entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the
>Russians, on their soil, in a civil war, with difficult
>terrain, limited military objectives, bombing restrictions,
>boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far
>across the ocean, with uncertain goals, no exit strategy,
>without consulting Congress, the potential for escalation,
>while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority
>of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the
>value of the action being worth American lives, just what
>was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?"
Actually, there are several other ways of looking at the problem, none
of them terribly appealing for the NATO people. One would be the
problem of having to explain their actions either to a war-crimes
tribunal or, much worse, to Christ and St. Peter.
Another would be having this bullshit go on for another two or three
weeks, and then having South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia
fall on the same day after the US armed forces totally exhaust
themselves in this stupid moral crusade to make the world safe for
drug-dealing terrorists.
How does the real-world version of the saying go... something about
if the cat goes and gets himself totally fucked up to the point of the
staggers and DTs on booze and drugs and what not, then you can forget
about playing, the mice will line up and kick his ass.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
R. Wiley
>From DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 1999-05-19
>Question submitted by Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (Ret):
>"If President Clinton orders our forces to engage an
>entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the
>Russians, on their soil, in a civil war, with difficult
>terrain, limited military objectives, bombing restrictions,
>boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far
>across the ocean, with uncertain goals, no exit strategy,
>without consulting Congress, the potential for escalation,
>while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority
>of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the
>value of the action being worth American lives, just what
>was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?"
Easy. In Viet Nam there was a chance that Bill Clinton
could face discomfort, inconvenience, and possibly
personal danger. Serbia is completely different.
rw
Pa...@sgi.net
"OUR" Whitehouse and the SS.
Only in America can a Veteran live in a cardboard box while a Draft
Dodger lives in "OUR" Whitehouse..............