Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

USA terrorism

33 views
Skip to first unread message

Edward

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
I sure feel sorry for you poor people that did all this killing! Unless you
got here yesterday you are as much to blame as any of the rest of us. I have
never had a slave in my whole life(my wife may disagree).
And if I don't like the country I spent one year in Korea and two tours in
Vietnam for I can always leave it....which I suggest you think hard about.
........................

John Gibbs wrote in message <6o2b53$9nt$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>I have heard that the number is something like 365,000, but this is not
>certain, so I will have to look up a reference.
>
>wrote in message <6o0lv8$tgk$1...@news2.acs.oakland.edu>...
>> Although those who criticize my factual posts on this issue still
>>have yet to reply with a single reference providing any evidence
whatsoever
<snip>
>>TOTAL 17,500,000+ #2 of all time
>>(ahead of capitalist Hitler's killings of communists, Jews, gypsies, etc.,
>>but behind Spain's slaughter of Indians).
<snip>


John Gibbs

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
BTW, what were you fighting for in Vietnam? In Korea?

Edward wrote in message <6o2fom$6...@examiner.concentric.net>...

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
The Containment Policy, which advocated a policy of containing
communism, i.e, not allowing it to spread to say...ah, Vietnam, then
Laos, the Cambodia, etc. In other words, fighting for your national
interests, since it was a stated national interest to contain
communism.
Why did you vote?
Why did you pay your taxes?
Why did you buy a car tag?
Why did you register for selective service?
Why did you pay your property taxes?

Is there a common denominator here?

WmWallace!

John Gibbs wrote in message <6o2li3$67v$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...

John Gibbs

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
WmWallace! wrote in message ...

>The Containment Policy, which advocated a policy of containing
>communism, i.e, not allowing it to spread to say...ah, Vietnam, then
>Laos, the Cambodia, etc. In other words, fighting for your national
>interests, since it was a stated national interest to contain
>communism.

This is funny, as Ho Chih Minh wasn't even a communist until we turned our
back on him when he asked for our help. Ho Chih Minh's country had been
under the foreign control of three different nations during his lifetime,
and like any rational leader, he wasn't about to let it happen again. He
wanted an independant, unified Vietnam, and turned to those who would help
him achieve it: the communists, since the Americans had already ditched him.
Through intelligent diplomacy and thoughtful foreign policy, we could have
in time turned Vietnam into a capatalist republic without firing a single
shot, but unfortunately McCarthiests were the ones calling the shots.
Unwise leadership and barbaric "anti-red" sentiment caused us to lose 58,000
boys in Vietnam for nothing. And, a few short years after we left, Saigon
was taken by the NVA...that is just like spitting on the memories of those
who died. Officials who put us in Vietnam should have been criminally
indicted and held accountable.

>Why did you vote?


To make sure the kind of people that put us in Vietnam can never get into
office again.

>Why did you pay your taxes?

To support government expendatures which will benefit our nation.

>Why did you buy a car tag?

If you are trying to say liscense plate, it is because I am required to do
so.

>Why did you register for selective service?

So I could get financial aid for college.

>Why did you pay your property taxes?

I don't pay property taxes....I don't own any property.

>Is there a common denominator here?

I think so. It's that blind trust in the government doesn't lead anywhere.
We must have at least a small degree of skepticism in order to keep our
government in check, because people aren't perfect, including gov't
officials which you trust so dearly.

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
Your view is rather simplistic, as well as ignorant. Your history
behind the Containment Policy is misinformed. McCarthy didn't write
it, try again and we'll discuss that one further. Ho Chi's reactions
weren't governed by the motivations that you mentioned either, so try
again there and we'll discuss THAT further too. I don't have the
time, nor inclination to educate you, but come back after looking
things up on your own and we'll debate.

I asked you: >>Why did you vote? and you said, "To make sure the kind
of people that put us in Vietnam can never get into office again..."

What kind of people put us into Vietnam? Just how are you
discriminating between the choices? What is your criteria?

I asked you: >>Why did you pay your taxes? and you said, "To support


government expendatures which will benefit our nation."

In other words, in order to give them over to people to use for our
national interests, i.e., security interests also such as CIA
programs, NCA programs, etc.?

I also asked you: >>Why did you buy a car tag? and you said, "If you


are trying to say liscense plate, it is because I am required to do
so."

Actually, I said "CAR TAG" and I meant CAR TAG. Were I trying to say
license plate, I would have done so. You do it because you are told
to do so. I imagine the boys who traveled to Vietnam went for much
the same reason as you pay your car tag and pay your taxes. Because
they were told to do so.

Then I asked you: >>Why did you register for selective service? and
you said, "So I could get financial aid for college..."

Your life now is easy. You register for selective service to get free
money and college loans while your predecessors registered BECAUSE
THEY HAD TO knowing they faced war and possible death.

I asked you:>>Why did you pay your property taxes? and you said, "...I


don't pay property taxes....I don't own any property."

Why do you NOT own property? Do you have no money? Are you so young
that you haven't bought any? Renting and placing everything on credit
does no one any good in the economy. GO BUY SOMETHING AND CONTRIBUTE
SOMETHING OTHER THAN your uninformed opinions on something took place
before you were even born.

I then asked you:>>Is there a common denominator here? and you
answered, "I think so. It's that blind trust in the government


doesn't lead anywhere. We must have at least a small degree of
skepticism in order to keep our government in check, because people
aren't perfect, including gov't officials which you trust so dearly.

What is my real name? How old am I? What color is my hair? What
direction do I lean, politically, when I vote? What type of car do I
drive? How much property do I own?

You don't know these answers any more than you know the depth of my
trust in government officials. Think man! You are guilty of hubris.

By the way you misspelled "Expenditures"

WmWallace!
>
>

John Gibbs wrote in message <6o2ti4$q5o$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...

John Gibbs

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to

WmWallace! wrote in message ...
>Your view is rather simplistic, as well as ignorant. Your history
>behind the Containment Policy is misinformed. McCarthy didn't write
>it, try again and we'll discuss that one further. Ho Chi's reactions
>weren't governed by the motivations that you mentioned either, so try
>again there and we'll discuss THAT further too. I don't have the
>time, nor inclination to educate you, but come back after looking
>things up on your own and we'll debate.


Actually, my view is pretty accurate. Those are the things that really
happened.

>I asked you: >>Why did you vote? and you said, "To make sure the kind
>of people that put us in Vietnam can never get into office again..."
>
>What kind of people put us into Vietnam? Just how are you
>discriminating between the choices? What is your criteria?


The kind of people that will use thousands of young men as pawns to show the
world how big their balls are, rather than implementing intelligent policy
and striving for a level-headed solution.

>I asked you: >>Why did you pay your taxes? and you said, "To support
>government expendatures which will benefit our nation."
>
>In other words, in order to give them over to people to use for our
>national interests, i.e., security interests also such as CIA
>programs, NCA programs, etc.?


No, I said expenditures which will BENEFIT our nation, not those which will
torment other nations or hurt our own. (i.e., CIA)

>I also asked you: >>Why did you buy a car tag? and you said, "If you
>are trying to say liscense plate, it is because I am required to do
>so."
>
>Actually, I said "CAR TAG" and I meant CAR TAG. Were I trying to say
>license plate, I would have done so. You do it because you are told
>to do so. I imagine the boys who traveled to Vietnam went for much
>the same reason as you pay your car tag and pay your taxes. Because
>they were told to do so.


If someone told me to go to jump off the Empire State Building, I don't
think I would do it. Doing something simply because Uncle Sam says so does
not mean that thing is right, and does not mean that one was justified in
doing that thing.

>Then I asked you: >>Why did you register for selective service? and
>you said, "So I could get financial aid for college..."
>
>Your life now is easy. You register for selective service to get free
>money and college loans while your predecessors registered BECAUSE
>THEY HAD TO knowing they faced war and possible death.


I doubt it. Those "predecessors" were probably thinking the same thing as
me...I'm sure if you had asked any of them, they would have rather taken
some money and gone to college than be sent off to fight, and possibly die,
without purpose in a place they couldn't point out on a map. I think anyone
in their right mind would make that choice. But that choice wasn't available
to them like it is to me, so they weren't able to make it.

>I asked you:>>Why did you pay your property taxes? and you said, "...I
>don't pay property taxes....I don't own any property."
>
>Why do you NOT own property? Do you have no money? Are you so young
>that you haven't bought any? Renting and placing everything on credit
>does no one any good in the economy. GO BUY SOMETHING AND CONTRIBUTE
>SOMETHING OTHER THAN your uninformed opinions on something took place
>before you were even born.

Sorry I do not own property yet. If you'll send me a check to cover all of
the costs, I'll be glad to buy a nice piece of property in the mountains.
Furthermore, go ahead and send some extra so I can buy some more stuff and
contribute to the economy. If not, don't bug me, I'll have my own property
soon enough.

>I then asked you:>>Is there a common denominator here? and you
>answered, "I think so. It's that blind trust in the government
>doesn't lead anywhere. We must have at least a small degree of
>skepticism in order to keep our government in check, because people
>aren't perfect, including gov't officials which you trust so dearly.
>
>What is my real name? How old am I? What color is my hair? What
>direction do I lean, politically, when I vote? What type of car do I
>drive? How much property do I own?

You are probably a staunch conservative republican, drive an army tank, and
keep your gun with you at all times in case the communists invade. You're
bald, in your twenties, and you think you work for the CIA.

>You don't know these answers any more than you know the depth of my
>trust in government officials. Think man! You are guilty of hubris.

hubris? I don't see any evidence of excessive pride in anything I have said.

>By the way you misspelled "Expenditures"

So sue me.

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to
Johnny,

Your view is NOT accurate. McCarthy did NOT write the containment
policy. Do you know who did? That was the impetus for our involvement
in Vietnam, since that was the overall national strategy adopted to
combat communism. By the way, it worked.

>The kind of people that will use thousands of young men as pawns to
show the
>world how big their balls are, rather than implementing intelligent
policy
>and striving for a level-headed solution.

Okay smart guy, what would you have done in Vietnam? Let us in on what
Gibbs would have done had he been the NCA at the time. I'm sure your
knowledge and wisdom would have been far superior to those who worked
on this daily, at that time.

>>I asked you: >>Why did you pay your taxes? and you said, "To support
>>government expendatures which will benefit our nation."
>>
>>In other words, in order to give them over to people to use for our
>>national interests, i.e., security interests also such as CIA
>>programs, NCA programs, etc.?
>
>

>No, I said expenditures which will BENEFIT our nation, not those
which will
>torment other nations or hurt our own. (i.e., CIA)

But Johnny, my point is that you have NO control over what is spent of
what. You can have your ideals of YOUR money benefiting our country,
but in fact you do NOT have control. You do it because you are scared
not to do it.

>If someone told me to go to jump off the Empire State Building, I
don't
>think I would do it. Doing something simply because Uncle Sam says
so does
>not mean that thing is right, and does not mean that one was
justified in
>doing that thing.

You had to "think" about that one? I don't--I wouldn't jump, that's
foolish and serves no purpose. However, serving my country in uniform
is an honor and I would do it again. Doing something your government
orders you to do is an obligation that you owe. The only time you can
buck that order is if the government orders you to do something that
contradicts God's law. Fighting an enemy of your nation does not cont
radict God's law.

>I doubt it. Those "predecessors" were probably thinking the same
thing as
>me...I'm sure if you had asked any of them, they would have rather
taken
>some money and gone to college than be sent off to fight, and
possibly die,

No doubt, but they didn't. That is the difference if you and them.
Courage is being afraid and doing it ANYWAY. In this age of peace and
safety, have you volunteered for service? Why? There's no threat to
your pretty head Johnny. No courage?

>I think anyone in their right mind would make that choice. But that
choice wasn't available
>to them like it is to me, so they weren't able to make it.

Yes the choice was available...Klinton exercised it, didn't he?

>Sorry I do not own property yet.

Apology accepted.

>If you'll send me a check to cover all of the costs, I'll be glad to
buy a nice piece of property in the mountains.
>Furthermore, go ahead and send some extra so I can buy some more
stuff and
>contribute to the economy. If not, don't bug me, I'll have my own
property
>soon enough.

That's the problem with you and your thinking. You want others to
take care of you and you do nothing. You don't serve your nation, you
just criticize and whine when things do go like you'd like them to go.
But if we were threatened in any way you'd be clamoring for protection
and help.

>You are probably a staunch conservative republican, drive an army
tank, and
>keep your gun with you at all times in case the communists invade.
You're
>bald, in your twenties, and you think you work for the CIA.

I drive a BMW, am a republican, own weapons (and legally carry a
sidearm using aa federal weapons permit), I have hair and I KNOW that
I DID work for the agency. What do you do Johnny? Sing?

>>By the way you misspelled "Expenditures"
>

>So sue me.

I'm also in law school now. I couldn't sue you on grounds that would
win, since your inability to spell hasn't harmed me in any way. It
has just made you look inept. You also mispelled license above (it's
not liscense).

:)
WmWallace!

>
>
>
>

John Gibbs

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to

WmWallace! wrote in message ...
>Johnny,
>
>Your view is NOT accurate. McCarthy did NOT write the containment
>policy. Do you know who did? That was the impetus for our involvement
>in Vietnam, since that was the overall national strategy adopted to
>combat communism. By the way, it worked.


I never said McCarthy wrote the containment policy. Secondly, the fear of
communism was a weapon used by the government to gain support for operations
in Vietnam. The government, through propaganda, instilled in loyal subjects
such as yourself an unfounded fear and loathing of communism which served as
a platform of public support for the Cold War, including Vietnam. Most
people that hated communism could not even explain what it was.

>>The kind of people that will use thousands of young men as pawns to
>show the
>>world how big their balls are, rather than implementing intelligent
>policy
>>and striving for a level-headed solution.
>
>Okay smart guy, what would you have done in Vietnam? Let us in on what
>Gibbs would have done had he been the NCA at the time. I'm sure your
>knowledge and wisdom would have been far superior to those who worked
>on this daily, at that time.

For starters, I would not have been so staunch about French frendship that I
would abandon a major possible ally in southeast Asia (Ho Chih Minh); I
would have given Ho Chi Minh financial aid to establish a new democratic
government. Secondly, I would have realized, as a number of officials did
at that time, that a ground war would not be winable. You cannot fight
against a people who have fought off three foreign invaders in their recent
history and are masters of Guerilla warfare, they have too much heart and
experience. (Remember how the French got their *** kicked). I would not
have sanctioned a war simply to test our new M-16's and Hueys, to show the
Russians how tough we were; I certainly wouldn't have landed a single
American soldier there.
I would have gone with a plan of monetary aid and political advising, like
we did with the Japanese after World War 2. Vietnam, like South Korea,
could have been another positive asset in Asia, but unfortunately they fell
to the dirt because of our unwise administration.

This is not to mention the capitalists who could have made millions
exploiting Vietnam for it's rubber resources.

>But Johnny, my point is that you have NO control over what is spent of
>what. You can have your ideals of YOUR money benefiting our country,
>but in fact you do NOT have control. You do it because you are scared
>not to do it.

I do it because I do not have a choice. And to tell you the truth, I really
don't have a problem with taxes. I don't mind paying them, as long as the
gov't works to spend my money more efficiently

>You had to "think" about that one? I don't--I wouldn't jump, that's
>foolish and serves no purpose. However, serving my country in uniform
>is an honor and I would do it again. Doing something your government
>orders you to do is an obligation that you owe. The only time you can
>buck that order is if the government orders you to do something that
>contradicts God's law. Fighting an enemy of your nation does not cont
>radict God's law.


Don't tell me about God's law and then justify war in the same sentence.
It also says "BE NOT MAKERS OF WAR" and "turn ye your swords to plows"!
Didn't we completely and absolutely violate this in Vietnam? Killing
another man violates God's law. We killed hundreds of thousands of
civilians in Vietnam. American troops in the 19th century murdered several
hundred thousand native americans. Is that a violation of God's law?

Doing something my gov't orders me to do is an obligation I owe, eh? If I
recall correctly, the gov't still owes me forty acres and a mule.

>>I doubt it. Those "predecessors" were probably thinking the same
>thing as
>>me...I'm sure if you had asked any of them, they would have rather
>taken
>>some money and gone to college than be sent off to fight, and
>possibly die,
>
>No doubt, but they didn't. That is the difference if you and them.
>Courage is being afraid and doing it ANYWAY. In this age of peace and
>safety, have you volunteered for service? Why? There's no threat to
>your pretty head Johnny. No courage?

I think it is pretty smart not to risk one's life for a lost cause (i.e.
Vietnam). There's no shame in that, but I bet you would have jumped at the
first chance.

>>I think anyone in their right mind would make that choice. But that
>choice wasn't available
>>to them like it is to me, so they weren't able to make it.
>
>Yes the choice was available...Klinton exercised it, didn't he?


See above.

>That's the problem with you and your thinking. You want others to
>take care of you and you do nothing. You don't serve your nation, you
>just criticize and whine when things do go like you'd like them to go.
>But if we were threatened in any way you'd be clamoring for protection
>and help.


I don't want others to take care of me and me do nothing. That is why I
work 8 hours a day in the summer when school is out; so I can provide things
for myself. That is why I am in college, so I will one day be able to
provide for myself and for a family. And, if the security of my nation were
*truly* threatened to the point that it needed me to fight, I would be the
*first* to protect it, however, this has not occured since WWII, and even
then, in WW2, I would not have fought, for other reasons (they wouldn't let
me vote, or even sit in the front of a bus, but they wanted me to go fight
for them? what gives..).
Our national security was not threatened in Vietnam, or Desert Storm, for
that matter.


>I drive a BMW, am a republican, own weapons (and legally carry a
>sidearm using aa federal weapons permit), I have hair and I KNOW that
>I DID work for the agency. What do you do Johnny? Sing?


No, I'm just a college student. I do play (trombone) in the jazz band, but
I don't sing. I do not own a gun. I am a republican on some things and a
democrat on others. When at home, I drive an 85 Pontiac Sunbird.

>>>By the way you misspelled "Expenditures"
>>

>>So sue me.
>
>I'm also in law school now. I couldn't sue you on grounds that would
>win, since your inability to spell hasn't harmed me in any way. It
>has just made you look inept. You also mispelled license above (it's
>not liscense).


Wow. I bet you're proud of your spelling.

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
Yes, I'm proud that I can spell KORRECTLY.
 
>I never said McCarthy wrote the containment policy.
 
You assented by not disagreeing when I posted the following:
 
>Your view is rather simplistic, as well as ignorant.  Your history behind the Containment Policy is misinformed.  McCarthy didn't write
>it, try again and we'll discuss that one further.
 
Then you, JOHN GIBBS, responded:

>Actually, my view is pretty accurate. Those are the things that really happened.
This sounds like you thought McCarthy was in on it to me...
Now, to continue responding to your most recent post...
 
>Secondly, the fear of
>communism was a weapon used by the government to gain support for operations
>in Vietnam.  The government, through propaganda, instilled in loyal subjects
>such as yourself an unfounded fear and loathing of communism which served as
>a platform of public support for the Cold War, including Vietnam.  Most
>people that hated communism could not even explain what it was.
 
So are you saying that you support Communism? Would you advocate it as a replacement for our current system? John, have you ever read the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, volumes one and two?  It describes communist labor camps, tortures used to control people, etc.  Have you read accounts of the torture used on our soldiers/sailors/airmen in North Vietnam Prisons? Have you read of the Soviet techniques of torture used on the Afghani's during their attempted takeover? Do you realize that they replace God with the state, disallowing freedom of worship--a tenet our society was framed around? Johnny, I would rethink my stance on communism, if I were you.
 
>For starters, I would not have been so staunch about French frendship that I
>would abandon a major possible ally in southeast Asia (Ho Chih Minh);  I
>would have given Ho Chi Minh financial aid to establish a new democratic
>government.  Secondly, I would have realized, as a number of officials did
>at that time, that a ground war would not be winable.  You cannot fight
>against a people who have fought off three foreign invaders in their recent
>history and are masters of Guerilla warfare, they have too much heart and
>experience. (Remember how the French got their *** kicked).  I would not
>have sanctioned a war simply to test our new M-16's and Hueys, to show the
>Russians how tough we were;  I certainly wouldn't have landed a single
>American soldier there.
>I would have gone with a plan of monetary aid and political advising, like
>we did with the Japanese after World War 2.  Vietnam, like South Korea,
>could have been another positive asset in Asia, but unfortunately they fell
>to the dirt because of our unwise administration.
>
>This is not to mention the capitalists who could have made millions
>exploiting Vietnam for it's rubber resources.
 
Blah, blah, blah...you're so much smarter than the professionals of that day.  Hind sight is 20/20.  Read the Containment Policy's logic and come back.

>I do it because I do not have a choice. And to tell you the truth, I really
>don't have a problem with taxes.  I don't mind paying them, as long as the
>gov't works to spend my money more efficiently
 
Precisely my point--you DON'T have a choice AND they do what they want with your money.  I'll wait until you understand before I continue on this strain.
 
>Don't tell me about God's law and then justify war in the same sentence.
>It also says "BE NOT MAKERS OF WAR" and "turn ye your swords to plows"!
>Didn't we completely and absolutely violate this in Vietnam?  Killing
>another man violates God's law.  We killed hundreds of thousands of
>civilians in Vietnam.  American troops in the 19th century murdered several
>hundred thousand native americans. Is that a violation of God's law?
 
The Bible also describes Peter, a disciple of Jesus, as carrying a sword.  Remember when he "removed" the ear of the soldier's assistant at the garden when they came to take Christ away? He took the weapon out to protect the Lord.  What reason did he have for carrying a weapon, this disciple of Christ? It wasn't a knife, it is described as a sword.  I've not heard of swords used for much other than fighting.  DEFENDING what Peter held dear was his mission.  The US defends what it holds dear...Oh! but you say..."Jesus told him not to continue to attack the poor fellow"...yes, Johnny He did say that.  But did he tell him to throw away his weapon? No. He made no reference to laying down your sword and taking up the communist flag.  God is no stranger to war--see David, see Joshua, see Gideon, etc.  Christ engaged in combat to defend the temple when He entered and began flailing those money changers who were dishonoring (dissing, as you would put it) the temple of God.  Our bodies are the temple of God.  Protecting our bodies, since they are the temple of God is a responsibility.  That is why I carry a weapon--referring back to Peter's example and Christ's example (not to mention the fact that the fed suggested I do so for a period of time after I resigned for my own protection.)

>Doing something my gov't orders me to do is an obligation I owe, eh?  If I
>recall correctly, the gov't still owes me forty acres and a mule.
 
Now why did I know that you would insert race into this argument?  I guess my "Dissing" comment was correct.  No, by the way, you don't have 40 acres and a mule coming--re-read the document Johnny.

>I think it is pretty smart not to risk one's life for a lost cause (i.e.
>Vietnam).  There's no shame in that, but I bet you would have jumped at the
>first chance.
 
Boy, if my nation asked me to volunteer again for service I would.  There is a difference between you and I and it isn't just skin color.  You cannot pick and choose your war.  You serve your nation when called upon to do so--PERIOD.

>I don't want others to take care of me and me do nothing...if the security of my nation were

>*truly* threatened to the point that it needed me to fight, I would be the
>*first* to protect it,
 
BWho's going to make that assessment? You? What basis for this reasoning would you use? The media? The government? See where I'm going with this one? Your statement lacks thought.  What if everyone decided to say, "I'll fight if I think it's a good enough cause..." or "...if the nation is truly in peril, I'll fight!" When they idiots lack the access to the classified information (which cannot be released to the general public, as I'm sure you would advocate, because there might be a SPY in the crowd--imagine that!) which would allow them to make an uneducated guess, since they have no training in analyzing/evaluating that raw information.
 
>however, this has not occured since WWII, and even then, in WW2, I would not have fought, for other reasons (they wouldn't let
>me vote, or even sit in the front of a bus, but they wanted me to go fight for them? what gives..).
 
Wah, wah, wah...there you go with that race stuff again.  Well, Toby, life has changed and you can vote, sit on the bus, and even sell crack on the bus if you want to.  So stop the whining and crying and laying your cowardice at the feet of racial injustice.

>Our national security was not threatened in Vietnam, or Desert Storm, for
>that matter.
 
Upon what factual, evidenciary grounds do you make that determination? I await your proof.

>No, I'm just a college student.  I do play (trombone) in the jazz band, but
>I don't sing.  I do not own a gun.  I am a republican on some things and a
>democrat on others. When at home, I drive an 85 Pontiac Sunbird.
 
BI played the trombone as well.  First chair.  I sing too.  Why do you flip flop on politics? Congratulations on driving.

>>>>By the way you misspelled "Expenditures"
>>>
>>>So sue me.
>>
>>I'm also in law school now.  I couldn't sue you on grounds that would
>>win, since your inability to spell hasn't harmed me in any way.  It
>>has just made you look inept.  You also mispelled license above (it's
>>not liscense).
>
>
>Wow.  I bet you're proud of your spelling.
 
As you so masterfully put it earlier, "SEE ABOVE."
 
WmWallace!

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
Yes, I'm proud that I can spell KORRECTLY.

>I never said McCarthy wrote the containment policy.

You assented by not disagreeing when I posted the following:

>Your view is rather simplistic, as well as ignorant. Your history


behind the Containment Policy is misinformed. McCarthy didn't write
>it, try again and we'll discuss that one further.

Then you, JOHN GIBBS, responded:

>Actually, my view is pretty accurate. Those are the things that
really happened.

This sounds like you thought McCarthy was in on it to me...
Now, to continue responding to your most recent post...

>Secondly, the fear of


>communism was a weapon used by the government to gain support for
operations
>in Vietnam. The government, through propaganda, instilled in loyal
subjects
>such as yourself an unfounded fear and loathing of communism which
served as
>a platform of public support for the Cold War, including Vietnam.
Most
>people that hated communism could not even explain what it was.

So are you saying that you support Communism? Would you advocate it as


a replacement for our current system? John, have you ever read the
Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, volumes one and two? It describes
communist labor camps, tortures used to control people, etc. Have you
read accounts of the torture used on our soldiers/sailors/airmen in
North Vietnam Prisons? Have you read of the Soviet techniques of
torture used on the Afghani's during their attempted takeover? Do you
realize that they replace God with the state, disallowing freedom of
worship--a tenet our society was framed around? Johnny, I would
rethink my stance on communism, if I were you.

>For starters, I would not have been so staunch about French frendship

Blah, blah, blah...you're so much smarter than the professionals of


that day. Hind sight is 20/20. Read the Containment Policy's logic
and come back.

>I do it because I do not have a choice. And to tell you the truth, I


really
>don't have a problem with taxes. I don't mind paying them, as long
as the
>gov't works to spend my money more efficiently

Precisely my point--you DON'T have a choice AND they do what they want


with your money. I'll wait until you understand before I continue on
this strain.

>Don't tell me about God's law and then justify war in the same


sentence.
>It also says "BE NOT MAKERS OF WAR" and "turn ye your swords to
plows"!
>Didn't we completely and absolutely violate this in Vietnam? Killing
>another man violates God's law. We killed hundreds of thousands of
>civilians in Vietnam. American troops in the 19th century murdered
several
>hundred thousand native americans. Is that a violation of God's law?

The Bible also describes Peter, a disciple of Jesus, as carrying a


sword. Remember when he "removed" the ear of the soldier's assistant
at the garden when they came to take Christ away? He took the weapon
out to protect the Lord. What reason did he have for carrying a
weapon, this disciple of Christ? It wasn't a knife, it is described as
a sword. I've not heard of swords used for much other than fighting.
DEFENDING what Peter held dear was his mission. The US defends what
it holds dear...Oh! but you say..."Jesus told him not to continue to
attack the poor fellow"...yes, Johnny He did say that. But did he
tell him to throw away his weapon? No. He made no reference to laying
down your sword and taking up the communist flag. God is no stranger
to war--see David, see Joshua, see Gideon, etc. Christ engaged in
combat to defend the temple when He entered and began flailing those
money changers who were dishonoring (dissing, as you would put it) the
temple of God. Our bodies are the temple of God. Protecting our
bodies, since they are the temple of God is a responsibility. That is
why I carry a weapon--referring back to Peter's example and Christ's
example (not to mention the fact that the fed suggested I do so for a
period of time after I resigned for my own protection.)

>Doing something my gov't orders me to do is an obligation I owe, eh?


If I
>recall correctly, the gov't still owes me forty acres and a mule.

Now why did I know that you would insert race into this argument? I
guess my "Dissing" comment was correct. No, by the way, you don't
have 40 acres and a mule coming--re-read the document Johnny.

>I think it is pretty smart not to risk one's life for a lost cause


(i.e.
>Vietnam). There's no shame in that, but I bet you would have jumped
at the
>first chance.

Boy, if my nation asked me to volunteer again for service I would.


There is a difference between you and I and it isn't just skin color.
You cannot pick and choose your war. You serve your nation when
called upon to do so--PERIOD.

>I don't want others to take care of me and me do nothing...if the


security of my nation were
>*truly* threatened to the point that it needed me to fight, I would
be the
>*first* to protect it,

BWho's going to make that assessment? You? What basis for this


reasoning would you use? The media? The government? See where I'm
going with this one? Your statement lacks thought. What if everyone
decided to say, "I'll fight if I think it's a good enough cause..." or
"...if the nation is truly in peril, I'll fight!" When they idiots
lack the access to the classified information (which cannot be
released to the general public, as I'm sure you would advocate,
because there might be a SPY in the crowd--imagine that!) which would
allow them to make an uneducated guess, since they have no training in
analyzing/evaluating that raw information.

>however, this has not occured since WWII, and even then, in WW2, I


would not have fought, for other reasons (they wouldn't let
>me vote, or even sit in the front of a bus, but they wanted me to go
fight for them? what gives..).

Wah, wah, wah...there you go with that race stuff again. Well, Toby,


life has changed and you can vote, sit on the bus, and even sell crack
on the bus if you want to. So stop the whining and crying and laying
your cowardice at the feet of racial injustice.

>Our national security was not threatened in Vietnam, or Desert Storm,
for
>that matter.

Upon what factual, evidenciary grounds do you make that determination?
I await your proof.

>No, I'm just a college student. I do play (trombone) in the jazz


band, but
>I don't sing. I do not own a gun. I am a republican on some things
and a
>democrat on others. When at home, I drive an 85 Pontiac Sunbird.

BI played the trombone as well. First chair. I sing too. Why do you


flip flop on politics? Congratulations on driving.

>>>>By the way you misspelled "Expenditures"


>>>
>>>So sue me.
>>
>>I'm also in law school now. I couldn't sue you on grounds that
would
>>win, since your inability to spell hasn't harmed me in any way. It
>>has just made you look inept. You also mispelled license above
(it's
>>not liscense).
>
>
>Wow. I bet you're proud of your spelling.

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
I threw in three spelling errors that are plain to see...can you find them Johnny? Maybe this will soothe your KONSCIOUS?
 
WmWallace!
WmWallace! wrote in message ...

John Gibbs

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to

WmWallace! wrote in message ...
>>I never said McCarthy wrote the containment policy.
>
>You assented by not disagreeing when I posted the following:


No, I know that McCarthy did not write the containment policy. Period. I
never said or meant that he did.

>So are you saying that you support Communism? Would you advocate it as
>a replacement for our current system? John, have you ever read the
>Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, volumes one and two? It describes
>communist labor camps, tortures used to control people, etc. Have you
>read accounts of the torture used on our soldiers/sailors/airmen in
>North Vietnam Prisons? Have you read of the Soviet techniques of
>torture used on the Afghani's during their attempted takeover? Do you
>realize that they replace God with the state, disallowing freedom of
>worship--a tenet our society was framed around? Johnny, I would
>rethink my stance on communism, if I were you.


I never said that I support communism. However, capitalists have killed more
people than communists have. Have you read accounts of the slave trade, a
gleaming gem of capitalism? How about working 8 year old children 14 hours a
day so some baron can expand his fortune? Have you read accounts of the
American extermination of 10,000,000 Indians? And the brutal murder of over
300,000 blacks after the civil war?

>The Bible also describes Peter, a disciple of Jesus, as carrying a
>sword. Remember when he "removed" the ear of the soldier's assistant
>at the garden when they came to take Christ away? He took the weapon
>out to protect the Lord. What reason did he have for carrying a
>weapon, this disciple of Christ? It wasn't a knife, it is described as
>a sword. I've not heard of swords used for much other than fighting.
>DEFENDING what Peter held dear was his mission. The US defends what
>it holds dear...Oh! but you say..."Jesus told him not to continue to
>attack the poor fellow"...yes, Johnny He did say that. But did he
>tell him to throw away his weapon? No. He made no reference to laying
>down your sword and taking up the communist flag. God is no stranger
>to war--see David, see Joshua, see Gideon, etc. Christ engaged in
>combat to defend the temple when He entered and began flailing those
>money changers who were dishonoring (dissing, as you would put it) the
>temple of God. Our bodies are the temple of God. Protecting our
>bodies, since they are the temple of God is a responsibility. That is
>why I carry a weapon--referring back to Peter's example and Christ's
>example (not to mention the fact that the fed suggested I do so for a
>period of time after I resigned for my own protection.)


Well, when it comes right down to it, you could probably justify anything
based on the Bible, if you pick and choose the right passages. People have
justified slavery to the Nazi holocaust to all-out war. However, I tend to
agree with the interpretation that we should avoid war and fighting at all
costs, and should not perpetuate violence by carrying weapons on our person.

>>Doing something my gov't orders me to do is an obligation I owe, eh?
>If I
>>recall correctly, the gov't still owes me forty acres and a mule.
>
>
>Now why did I know that you would insert race into this argument? I
>guess my "Dissing" comment was correct. No, by the way, you don't
>have 40 acres and a mule coming--re-read the document Johnny.


No, I was *not* inserting race, you're wrong. I was telling you about
"obligations". The government has obligations that it refuses to meet. All
obligations I owe to the government are given in taxes.

>Boy, if my nation asked me to volunteer again for service I would.
>There is a difference between you and I and it isn't just skin color.
>You cannot pick and choose your war. You serve your nation when
>called upon to do so--PERIOD.

I bet you would. I bet if they told you to jump off the Empire State
building, you would too. Did they tell you that Santa Claus exists? I bet
you think Oliver North is a great man.

>BWho's going to make that assessment? You? What basis for this
>reasoning would you use? The media? The government? See where I'm
>going with this one? Your statement lacks thought. What if everyone
>decided to say, "I'll fight if I think it's a good enough cause..." or
>"...if the nation is truly in peril, I'll fight!" When they idiots
>lack the access to the classified information (which cannot be
>released to the general public, as I'm sure you would advocate,
>because there might be a SPY in the crowd--imagine that!) which would
>allow them to make an uneducated guess, since they have no training in
>analyzing/evaluating that raw information.


I'm making that assesment, correct. I would rather put my life in my own
hands than those of Uncle Sam, who has proven that he will not make the
wisest decision. I would not have gone to fight in Vietnam. I would not
have fought in desert storm so that rich oil barons could keep their prices
cheap.

>Wah, wah, wah...there you go with that race stuff again. Well, Toby,
>life has changed and you can vote, sit on the bus, and even sell crack
>on the bus if you want to. So stop the whining and crying and laying
>your cowardice at the feet of racial injustice.

My name isn't Toby, grand wizard wallace. It's John. (READ: JOHN) And, I
see you've resorted to the lowest kind of attack on me; associating me with
a crack dealer. The same crack which, by the way, made it's way into this
country with the stamped approval of your beloved CIA, so it could fund
South American rebel insurgencies. Read Gary Webb's Dark Defiance:
irrefutable numbers, names, and dates clearly showing the connection.

Anyway, what basis do you have to associate me with crack? Just curious as
to the mindset of a person who would automatically associate any black
person with crack.

>>Our national security was not threatened in Vietnam, or Desert Storm,
>for
>>that matter.
>
>Upon what factual, evidenciary grounds do you make that determination?
>I await your proof.


No, the question is, how could one possibly show that either Vietnam or
Desert Storm threatened our national security? Vietnam; an excuse to test
out our new guns and helicopters and to show the Russians how tough we were.
Desert storm, a fight endorsed by oil players to protect their almighty
dollar.

Kirby Urner

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
"WmWallace!" <calv...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The Bible also describes Peter, a disciple of Jesus, as carrying a
>sword. Remember when he "removed" the ear of the soldier's assistant
>at the garden when they came to take Christ away? He took the weapon
>out to protect the Lord.

<<SNIP>>

Interesting invocation of Biblical themes and hyperlinking to
USA's protecting of imperial Christendom against those Commie
athiests -- and in response to someone bringing up genocide
against native Americans no less. So perfect, so pat.

Post Cold War, maybe the fork in Christianity (western vs.
eastern patriarchies, Rome vs. Byzantium) and the more mystical
bent of the latter, brings native Americans closer to Russians
such that USA will feel safer about its Christian assets and
do that swords into plough shares thing more successfully.
Quakers, with strong NavAm ties and high tech holdings, a
useful bridge (one of many).

Atheist suppresion of eastern mysticism resulted in a lot of
"over the edge" science growing up behind the "Iron Curtain"
-- Carlos Castaneda had nothing on those paranormalists with
their "tensegrity" (lighter-weight, less oppressive) blueprints
for tomorrowland's cathedrals (aka religious sites, focii for
pilgrims -- Christocentric included).

>Boy, if my nation asked me to volunteer again for service I would.
>There is a difference between you and I and it isn't just skin color.
>You cannot pick and choose your war. You serve your nation when
>called upon to do so--PERIOD.
>

More difficult is to detect when your nation and its ideals are
being twisted around by some derelict crowd with less integrity
and intelligence than those who set an earlier course. In the
transition from FDR to Nixon, for example, when do your blow the
whistle? Or do we think real dissent is always by definition
highly illegal (in which case a police state is our lot)?

Counterintelligence on the home front: a delicate business
sometimes (starts within -- one can be overtaken by insidious
mob psychologies that, in retrospect, turn out to be downright
unAmerican).

>BWho's going to make that assessment? You? What basis for this
>reasoning would you use? The media? The government? See where I'm
>going with this one? Your statement lacks thought. What if everyone
>decided to say, "I'll fight if I think it's a good enough cause..." or
>"...if the nation is truly in peril, I'll fight!" When they idiots
>lack the access to the classified information (which cannot be
>released to the general public, as I'm sure you would advocate,
>because there might be a SPY in the crowd--imagine that!) which would
>allow them to make an uneducated guess, since they have no training in
>analyzing/evaluating that raw information.
>

Note USA has freedom and democracy as designed-in features, with
secrecy sometimes necessary for the preservation of same.

But circular logic whereby "idiots" must admit their subservience to
a caste of "in the know" professionals (with privileged access to
situation rooms), which latter dictate the whys and wherefores of
a war (hot, warm or cold) in which the "idiots" must fight -- such
a state of affairs is oft times (if not always) symptomatic of a
democracy deceased. So then do we recognize our USA as behind the
call to arms, and when do we work the grass-roots against thuggery?

Thanks to open sources, our emerging high tech ability to cross-check
data from all walks in a hurry, the situation room people have
progressively less of an edge, are having a harder time proving
that their "secrets" aren't public knowledge, already circulated
among those keeping a look out (NGOs seem to have some pretty
well placed sources, judging from their success as "watch dogs"
of late).

Again, when do you recognize "when in the course of human events..."
it becomes necessary to stop unquestioningly "following your betters"?

Founders were clear the USA would need a lot of built-in fail-safes
(and even those weren't enough, the design was flawed from the
beginning, lots added later, more to go). If we'd left it to the
unquestioning, the authoritarians, we'd still be a part of the UK.

Anyway, I'm glad the USA won against LAWCAP in Vietnam in the final
analysis (I'm using somewhat byzantine logic here, I realize).

>
>WmWallace!
^^^^^^^^^^
dim bulb!


Kirby

---------------------------------------------------------
Kirby T. Urner http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/kirby.html
4D Solutions http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ [PGP OK]
---------------------------------------------------------

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
Johnny,

>No, I know that McCarthy did not write the containment policy.
Period. I
>never said or meant that he did.

Then who did?

>I never said that I support communism. However, capitalists have
killed more
>people than communists have. Have you read accounts of the slave
trade, a
>gleaming gem of capitalism? How about working 8 year old children 14
hours a
>day so some baron can expand his fortune? Have you read accounts of
the
>American extermination of 10,000,000 Indians? And the brutal murder
of over
>300,000 blacks after the civil war?

Have you ever heard of a man called Stalin? In his reign alone he
wiped out more people than WWII. Substantiate the 10,000,000 red
skins with fact, if you please. I do not accept gratiutous
assertions. Also factually support the "murder of 300k blacks" after
the war between the states.


That was not interpreting anything, that was clearly observing the
actions of Jesus and one is His most trusted disciples. Close your
eyes to the truth and you just run into the wall. It does you no
good--it's still there. How do you justify Peter's carrying the
weapon? How do you answer the Lord's actions in the Temple? Or can
you?

>Boy, if my nation asked me to volunteer again for service I would.
>>There is a difference between you and I and it isn't just skin
color.
>>You cannot pick and choose your war. You serve your nation when
>>called upon to do so--PERIOD.
>
>I bet you would. I bet if they told you to jump off the Empire State
>building, you would too. Did they tell you that Santa Claus exists?
I bet
>you think Oliver North is a great man.

North was a great man because he volunteered to defend his nation, was
awarded the purple heart and the silver star. He's a patriot who
tried to gain the release of hostages (American citizens in Lebanon)
by tricking the Iranian rag heads into letting them go for
money/stingers. You seem to hvae a fixation with the Empire State
building and jumping off of it. This is the second time you've
mentioned it.

>I'm making that assesment, correct. I would rather put my life in my
own
>hands than those of Uncle Sam, who has proven that he will not make
the
>wisest decision. I would not have gone to fight in Vietnam. I would
not
>have fought in desert storm so that rich oil barons could keep their
prices
>cheap.

You have no idea why the "storm" was fought. Only limited morons
accept that blood for oil argument. Expand you mind, son. It doesn't
surprise me that you wouldn't fight for your country.

>>Wah, wah, wah...there you go with that race stuff again. Well,
Toby,
>>life has changed and you can vote, sit on the bus, and even sell
crack
>>on the bus if you want to. So stop the whining and crying and
laying
>>your cowardice at the feet of racial injustice.
>
>My name isn't Toby, grand wizard wallace. It's John. (READ: JOHN)
And, I
>see you've resorted to the lowest kind of attack on me; associating
me with
>a crack dealer. The same crack which, by the way, made it's way into
this
>country with the stamped approval of your beloved CIA, so it could
fund
>South American rebel insurgencies. Read Gary Webb's Dark Defiance:
>irrefutable numbers, names, and dates clearly showing the connection.


You brought up the "same song and dance" sit on the bus argument so I
brought up the typical stereotype of blacks. Tit for tat. You bring
up that crap I bring up this crap. Don't like it? Don't start it.

>Anyway, what basis do you have to associate me with crack? Just
curious as
>to the mindset of a person who would automatically associate any
black
>person with crack.

See above.

>>>Our national security was not threatened in Vietnam, or Desert
Storm,
>>for
>>>that matter.
>>
>>Upon what factual, evidenciary grounds do you make that
determination?
>>I await your proof.
>
>
>No, the question is, how could one possibly show that either Vietnam
or
>Desert Storm threatened our national security? Vietnam; an excuse to
test
>out our new guns and helicopters and to show the Russians how tough
we were.
>Desert storm, a fight endorsed by oil players to protect their
almighty
>dollar.

I see you dodging a direct question--probably because you have no
answer. Not surprising.

dim bulb is right.

WmWallace!

Bill Mechlenburg

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
Let me know when you finish this debate on Vietnam and you can go to work on
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!

--
Bill Mechlenburg
wm...@worldnet.att.net
For discussion of Political & Tax Reform
http://home.att.net/~wmech


WmWallace! wrote in message ...

The Shoe

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
McCarthy was a manifestation of society's concerns, a panderer of fear. He
did not write the containment policy nor was he ever particularly concerned
about the Soviet Union. He had only one objective in life-getting elected.
He was so unprincipled that he could smear, lie, do anything. He succeeded
during an era of American history when he could capitalize on fear. He
followed Hitler's tactics in that regard.

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
Yeah, this is about as productive an effort isn't it? It began by my
requesting Johnny to substantiate his claims of my old agency
resorting to terrorism within the US, then Gibbs began blathering on
about how he would not fight unless HE thought is was right, blah,
blah, blah.
Hopefully he will let it go, get a life and move along tom something
more productive.

WmWallace!

Bill Mechlenburg wrote in message
<6o62e2$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

Yatsu

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
Let it go? The bottom line is that the CIA has been proven to be involved
in dirty business since the 1950's. From mob bosses to South American
cartels to Iranian terrorists, the CIA has helped the best of em.
And if someone honestly believes that the CIA hasn't been involved in more
lying than Pinnochio with a nose the size of New York, I think they are a
little strange. I don't think this is you, though...I've finally got the
idea that you are just joking, about the CIA and all. OK, so it took a
while, but I finally got it.
I mean, this is a guy that "really" (but really jokingly) thinks Oliver
North is a great man. Enough said.

WmWallace! <calv...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<PsAp1.35$sh.1...@firenze.visi.net>...

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
Nope, you missed it--not joking. North is a great man. The CIA is a
patriotic, dedicated group of men and women striving to
collect/protect the interests of the US 24/7, that I am proud to have
been a part of at one time.
WmWallace!
GIBBS are your from Memphis State University or Mississippi State
University?

Yatsu <*ya...@nospam.geocities.com"> wrote in message
<01bdac85$a56799e0$8208...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...

Donald L Ferry

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
"WmWallace!" <calv...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Nope, you missed it--not joking. North is a great man. The CIA is a
>patriotic, dedicated group of men and women striving to
>collect/protect the interests of the US 24/7, that I am proud to have
>been a part of at one time.
>WmWallace!
>GIBBS are your from Memphis State University or Mississippi State
>University?

Which just proves on thing = dem chickens have come home to roost!

Rmplstlskn

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
>
> That was not interpreting anything, that was clearly observing the
> actions of Jesus and one is His most trusted disciples. Close your
> eyes to the truth and you just run into the wall. It does you no
> good--it's still there. How do you justify Peter's carrying the
> weapon? How do you answer the Lord's actions in the Temple? Or can
> you?
>

I'm pleased to see that you understand this truth that so, so many ignore,
shut away or twist with the "love" and "turn your cheek" argument. The
worst are our so-called shepherds who have become religious politicians
instead of teachers of the things of God. The comfy, feel-good doctrine of
a pre-millenial rapture is also associated with the concepts of arms and
self-defense.

Meekness? Power under control!

Rmpl

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-=> Rmplstlskn <=- <rm...@gate.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PGP 2.6.2 & 5.53 CK-T Key available
from Rmpl's WWW site: <http://www.gate.net/~rmpl>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe ... Our
destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter.
From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their
government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess
that I do apprehend some danger. ...Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
Roger, glad to hear another sane voice.
WmWallace!
Rmplstlskn wrote in message
<01bdad11$829fc540$3528...@rmpl.gate.net>...

>>
>> That was not interpreting anything, that was clearly observing the
>> actions of Jesus and one is His most trusted disciples. Close your
>> eyes to the truth and you just run into the wall. It does you no
>> good--it's still there. How do you justify Peter's carrying the
>> weapon? How do you answer the Lord's actions in the Temple? Or can
>> you?
>>
>

Mark Anderson

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
In article WmWallace! calv...@hotmail.com says...

> Nope, you missed it--not joking. North is a great man. The CIA is a
> patriotic, dedicated group of men and women striving to
> collect/protect the interests of the US 24/7, that I am proud to have
> been a part of at one time.

And the Cocaine Dealers of America appreciate your efforts. Keep the
shipments flowing!

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
You're welcome and okay.

(Do not read that as an admission.)

WmWallace!

Mark Anderson wrote in message ...


>In article WmWallace! calv...@hotmail.com says...
>

>> Nope, you missed it--not joking. North is a great man. The CIA is
a
>> patriotic, dedicated group of men and women striving to
>> collect/protect the interests of the US 24/7, that I am proud to
have
>> been a part of at one time.
>

Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia WmWallace! <calv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: The Containment Policy, which advocated a policy of containing

: communism, i.e, not allowing it to spread to say...ah, Vietnam, then
: Laos, the Cambodia, etc. In other words, fighting for your national
: interests, since it was a stated national interest to contain
: communism.

It was a kneejerk reaction to the "Iron Curtain". We were deathly afraid
of a Chinese "Iron Curtain".

Eric

Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia WmWallace! <calv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Nope, you missed it--not joking. North is a great man.

...or is a crook that got away with lots. I guess it's all in who you talk
to.

: The CIA is a


: patriotic, dedicated group of men and women striving to
: collect/protect the interests of the US 24/7, that I am proud to have
: been a part of at one time.

...or is a corrupt organization which is involved in everything from drug
running to actual acts of treason. I guess it's all in who you talk to.

Eric

The Shoe

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
We were scared to death of communism. We saw it as an addictive drug. We
had no problem at all supporting Latin American dictators who killed and
maimed all over the place but we abhored Castro. I remember an old Cold War
cartoon showing a road block. The guard is saying to the people in the car
(the car was labeled "Right Wing dictators") "Oh, you have pulled off a
military coup, executed more dissidents than Castro did, filled the
prisons, protected drug dealers and Nazis. But because you hate communists,
we'll let you pass".

Matthew Devney

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
WmWallace! wrote:
>
> The Containment Policy, which advocated a policy of containing
> communism, i.e, not allowing it to spread to say...ah, Vietnam, then
> Laos, the Cambodia, etc. In other words, fighting for your national
> interests, since it was a stated national interest to contain
> communism.

So you're saying that you fought and risked your life for a failed
solution to a mythical problem based on a disproven theory that most of
the world knew was wrong? Why?

> Why did you vote?
So I don't lose my right to complain


> Why did you pay your taxes?

Because the government makes me


> Why did you buy a car tag?

?


> Why did you register for selective service?

Because the government makes me
> Why did you pay your property taxes?
Because the government makes me.


>
> Is there a common denominator here?
>

Duh.
> WmWallace!
>
--
Matthew Devney
A conservative is a person who lives in a past that never existed.

god money lets go dancing on the backs of the bruised god moneys not one
to choose

XYZ

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
No shit??...wow..!!!! they fooled me!!!.....LOL
Btw, shit happens........
J.A.

Yatsu <*ya...@nospam.geocities.com"> wrote in message
<01bdac85$a56799e0$8208...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...

XYZ

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
Mathew, The reason why people fight & die is because many don't have the
BALLs & someone has to. People like yourself criticize what the mil & govt
do, but they're damn happy they can live like they do. And a failed
solution?? Are you talkig about the USSR? Had your Big Mac today???
J.A.

Matthew Devney wrote in message <35AAA5...@devney.com>...

WmWallace!

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
Oh, Matthew! You're SOOOOOO smart!
WRONG. You're an idiot.
Yes I fought and risked my life for the US, like many others have.
The solution to communism, containment, did not fail. You need to
read your history, son.

Matthew Devney wrote in message <35AAA5...@devney.com>...

>WmWallace! wrote:
>>
>> The Containment Policy, which advocated a policy of containing
>> communism, i.e, not allowing it to spread to say...ah, Vietnam,
then
>> Laos, the Cambodia, etc. In other words, fighting for your
national
>> interests, since it was a stated national interest to contain
>> communism.
>

>So you're saying that you fought and risked your life for a failed
>solution to a mythical problem based on a disproven theory that most
of
>the world knew was wrong? Why?
>

Matthew Devney

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
XYZ wrote:
>
> Mathew, The reason why people fight & die is because many don't have the
> BALLs & someone has to. People like yourself criticize what the mil & govt
> do, but they're damn happy they can live like they do. And a failed
> solution?? Are you talkig about the USSR? Had your Big Mac today???
> J.A.
>
Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about containment in Viet
Nam? The war we PULLED OUT OF? Because we were LOSING? And then, when
we finally gave up and the domino effect *DIDN'T* kick in, and we
realized that, oh hey, guess it was wrong all along.

And matter of fact, I don't see what's so wrong about communism anyway.
You're damn right I criticize the government, but only when I know that
it is doing something wrong.

P.S.: Please, spell my name right! Spell it the way you saw it and the
way it's written in the Bible.

> Matthew Devney wrote in message <35AAA5...@devney.com>...
>

> >So you're saying that you fought and risked your life for a failed
> >solution to a mythical problem based on a disproven theory that most of
> >the world knew was wrong? Why?
> >

--
Matthew Devney

If men are from Mars, and women are from Venus,
there's going to be a disagreement about where to set the thermostat.

Rmplstlskn

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
Matthew Devney <ma...@devney.com> wrote in article
> Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about containment in Viet
> Nam? The war we PULLED OUT OF? Because we were LOSING? And then,

Because of liberal fucknuts who played war games instead of fighting the
enemy. The ROE are exactly why our efforts were so limited. The blood of
good Americans is on their hands and can never be washed clean.

> And matter of fact, I don't see what's so wrong about communism anyway.

Prohibition of Life, Liberty and Property to name a few!

> You're damn right I criticize the government, but only when I know that
> it is doing something wrong.

I criticize as well, but our foundational tenets, clearly defined in the
Constitution, the "original" Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Arms, the
Declaration of Independence, the Federalist (gag!) and anti-Federalist (oh
joy!) Papers still make this country the BEST in the world and the object
of the world's envy and hate.
Attempt to change these essential liberties and foundational ideologies and
you may soon find out how many cherish these things over life and wealth
itself.

Donald L Ferry

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
"Rmplstlskn" <rm...@gate.net> wrote:

of the world's envy and hate.
>Attempt to change these essential liberties and foundational ideologies and
>you may soon find out how many cherish these things over life and wealth
>itself.

HMMMMM! Is not that what the commies did, cherise this way over life
and wealth. Sounds like you got to be put down also bud!

XYZ

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to

Matthew Devney wrote in message <35AAE0...@devney.com>...
Mattthew, Sorry for the typo on your name...

Now that I'm certain of what you think you know you're talking about I can
respond:


1)--- Viet Nam? The war we PULLED OUT OF? Because we were LOSING? And


then, when we finally gave up and the domino effect *DIDN'T* kick in, and we
realized that, oh hey, guess it was wrong all along.

1a*)-- Militarily, using COIN warfare, not Westmoreland's & the JCS's
conventional tactics, we had the war won, at more than one point(1 example).
Our fighting insurgents using mech division logic was the prob. Ref your
Domino effect theory, have you ever wondered what the case may have been
had the Brits NOT been successful (sorry to ask, I'm sure you haven't)? And
things in S.E.A. have been a disaster since we left, and were long before we
got there. Viet Nam & China began fighting as soon as we left; oooops, that
must be termed "political intercourse" by you.


2)-- And matter of fact, I don't see what's so wrong about communism anyway.
2a*)-- I guess quite a few Soviet (Russian, Latvian, Estonian, etc, etc,
etc) citizen's weren't as thrilled with their "Communist Utopian Society" as
you are; Jesus!! & they lived there!!! What fools they must have been to
rebel? But, I'm sure you did also, how else could you have the nerve to
make that statement about life without 1st hand knowledge. I'm DAMN
impressed!!! Where was your dacha at?? Do all your shopping at GUM or the
govt shop's?

3)-- >You're damn right I criticize the government, but only when I know


that it is doing something wrong.

3a*)-- Ever try that in a communist country, sport??? How was the
Lubianka..??.....lol If you were this critical of govt policy in,
(whats left, China & Cuba??), you'd have to see a doctor to get the PC
removed from your ass.


4)-->P.S.: Please, spell my name right! Spell it the way you saw it and the


way it's written in the Bible.

4a*)-- Sorry about that..:) I must have an older edition....

To conclude:
A) How long were YOU in S.E.A.?? (really, easy good damn question).
B) How long did YOU spend living i a communist state???? (again, easy
question).
C) As opposed to other's, a real "No BS" answer would be refreshing.
D) You can still move to Cuba or China.
E) Make an effort to talk to people(refugee's, or anyone that actually
lived there. Get their "feel" for your thoughts. Wear your running shoes!

Viva la revolucion nacional !!! Arriba con las putas!!!

Btw, "via' con jotos.."
J.A.

Matthew Devney

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
Rmplstlskn wrote:
>
> Matthew Devney <ma...@devney.com> wrote in article
> > Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about containment in Viet

> > Nam? The war we PULLED OUT OF? Because we were LOSING? And then,
>
> Because of liberal fucknuts who played war games instead of fighting the
> enemy. The ROE are exactly why our efforts were so limited. The blood of
> good Americans is on their hands and can never be washed clean.
>
Any war that is to be fought should be fought completely. Rules of
engagement are just a stupid idea. You want to win a war? Remember
Gen. Sherman's ideas about "total war". It's messy and cruel, but it
wins the war QUICK, thus losing fewer lives.

> > And matter of fact, I don't see what's so wrong about communism anyway.
>

> Prohibition of Life, Liberty and Property to name a few!
>

Only property, and that to a limited extent. The others I believe
you've got mixed up with Stalinism, which, while the two are often
paired, is entirely unrelated.

> > You're damn right I criticize the government, but only when I know that
> > it is doing something wrong.
>

> I criticize as well, but our foundational tenets, clearly defined in the
> Constitution, the "original" Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Arms, the
> Declaration of Independence, the Federalist (gag!) and anti-Federalist (oh
> joy!) Papers still make this country the BEST in the world and the object

> of the world's envy and hate.
> Attempt to change these essential liberties and foundational ideologies and
> you may soon find out how many cherish these things over life and wealth
> itself.
>

Um...I have a feeling you're trying to insult me here, but I don't get
it. I agree with you.

> Rmpl
> --

Matthew Devney

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
Rmplstlskn wrote:
>
> Donald L Ferry <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in article

> >
> > HMMMMM! Is not that what the commies did, cherise this way over life
> > and wealth. Sounds like you got to be put down also bud!
>
> I would hope so! Duty, Honor, Country is not just American.
>
> If fate would have it, and I had my dendrites polarized for the irrational,
> and I was born a Red, believing with all my being that Communism was right,
> I too would say the same statement as above. I would probably offer my life
> for it as well.
>
I hope you would offer your life for whatever you feel is right. In the
end, that says better things about you than what you believe in does.

> However, this is not the case. Republicanism and, dare I say it, democracy
> has kicked Commie ass! We are the fittest. Problem is, treasonous,
> misguided fools are giving our victory away in massive chunks. We somehow
> "FEEL" we have to appologize for something and punish ourselves.
>
So it is your contention that Capitalism has been proven a better system
simply because it lasted the longest? Boy, are you wrong. It may (or
may not) interest you to know that the USSR fell because of a large
number of social, fiscal, political, and geographical factors, some of
which are pure coincidence, and almost all of which are just bad luck.

(and for the record, the USSR was technically a democracy. By the
dictionary definition, anyway.)

Further, communist countries like China, North Korea, and Cuba are doing
just fine, except that the former two have a little overpopulation
problem. And while those governments are struggling to feed their
underfed populaces, the US doesn't seem to care how many people starve
in is streets. Remember: what is right and god and strong are three
different things, and Capitalism is only one of those.

> China, the PLA and other haters of individual liberties and sovereignty
> <sp?> are ROTFLOL at our foolishness. One day I fear they may kick our ass
> in the Pacific and Asian rim. Things are very bad right now...
>
Yes, things are very bad right now. But that's because of Reagan and
Bush. Things have been getting better over the last few years, and I
expect them to continue.

Rmplstlskn

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Donald L Ferry <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
>
> HMMMMM! Is not that what the commies did, cherise this way over life
> and wealth. Sounds like you got to be put down also bud!

I would hope so! Duty, Honor, Country is not just American.

If fate would have it, and I had my dendrites polarized for the irrational,
and I was born a Red, believing with all my being that Communism was right,
I too would say the same statement as above. I would probably offer my life
for it as well.

However, this is not the case. Republicanism and, dare I say it, democracy


has kicked Commie ass! We are the fittest. Problem is, treasonous,
misguided fools are giving our victory away in massive chunks. We somehow
"FEEL" we have to appologize for something and punish ourselves.

China, the PLA and other haters of individual liberties and sovereignty


<sp?> are ROTFLOL at our foolishness. One day I fear they may kick our ass
in the Pacific and Asian rim. Things are very bad right now...

Rmpl

Rmplstlskn

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Matthew Devney <ma...@devney.com> wrote in article
> Any war that is to be fought should be fought completely. Rules of
> engagement are just a stupid idea. You want to win a war? Remember
> Gen. Sherman's ideas about "total war". It's messy and cruel, but it
> wins the war QUICK, thus losing fewer lives.

War, by definition, is messy and cruel. I hate WAR!!! However, war is a
necessary function of our lifes due to our nature. When one tries to
enslave or steal from you, you must smash his balls, bash his head to pulp
and put an American-made bullet through his head. I have no mercy for the
evil.

> > > And matter of fact, I don't see what's so wrong about communism
anyway.
> >
> > Prohibition of Life, Liberty and Property to name a few!
> >
> Only property, and that to a limited extent. The others I believe

Life and Liberty are not just words with singular definitions. They are
CONCEPTS. Life and Liberty consist of many things, all of which are
prohibited in Communism, except the singular definition of Life itself.

> Um...I have a feeling you're trying to insult me here, but I don't get
> it. I agree with you.

No insult intended, I don't think. 8-)