21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
Wester
1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year
unprecedented prosperity was due to the work of Ronald
Reagan and George Bush, but that today's gas
prices are all Clinton's fault.
2) You have to believe that those privileged from
birth achieve success all on their own.
3) You have to be against government programs, but
expect your Social Security checks on time.
4) You have to believe that government should stay out
of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate
only opposite-gender marriages, what a
woman does with her uterus, and what your official
language should be.
5) You have to believe that pollution is OK so long as
it makes a profit.
6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long
as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha or the Goddess.
7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers
are still virgins.
8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted
with decisions about her own body, but that large
multi-national corporations should have no
regulation or interference whatsoever.
9) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way,
Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals,
and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
10) You have to believe that society is color-blind
and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your
opportunities, but you wouldn't vote for a
black candidate for president.
11) You have to believe that it was great to allow Ken
Starr to spend $90 million dollars to attack Clinton
because no other U.S. presidents have been
unfaithful to their wives.
12) You have to believe that a waiting period for
purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a
new firearm is an important concern for all
Americans.
13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out
of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't
have condoms they won't have sex.
14) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because
they defend the Constitution, while the NRA is good
because they defend the Constitution.
15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked
anywhere, and that
Europe doesn't exist.
16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not
important enough to deserve federal funding
proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the
public doesn't need
to be educated about it, because if we ignore it, it
will go away.
17) You have to believe that biology teachers are
corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach
them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible,
which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.
18) You have to believe that Chinese communist
missiles have killed more Americans than handguns,
alcohol, and tobacco.
19) You have to believe that even though governments
have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most
of the great works of Renaissance art were paid
for by governments, our government should shun any
such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy
their own and the poor don't need any.
20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last
one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth
the destruction of those forests and the
extinction of the several species of plants and
animals in them because it allows logging companies to
add to their profit margin.
21) You have to believe that we should forgive and
pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston
for their marital infidelities, but that bastard
Clinton should have been impeached.
D.G. Porter
22) You believe that Republicans never, ever stole an election, not in
1968, 1980 or 2000, and that if only Nixxon™ had pursued the count in
1960 he would have won.
23) Nixxon™ had every right to defend America from that commie bastard
(and WWII hero) McGovern because he was gonna make America lose the
first war in its history, and the Dems took revenge by hounding him from
office, which justified the Repubs stealing the election from Carter in
1980.
24) America could have won the war against Vietnam if only we hadn't
listened to wimps at home who were really on the payroll of Russia.
(How dare those people that we found in the mud stand up to us!)
MrCurious
life.
Kilroy911!
instead of Presidential aides in the WH. Did
any of you know that all targets in North Viet
Nam had to be approved by the Whitehouse.
We lost in VN because the politicians had to
have their hands in everything. We lost the rescue
mission for the hostages in Iran because the
WH was ON THE PHONE with the field forces.
We won in the middle east because Schazkaugh(sp?)
was allowed to run things militarily NOT
politically (not to mention better equipment).
We destroyed them in Eastern Europe because
again the military ran the show, not draft dodging
presidential aides from the safety of their offices
in the WH!!
Kilroy911!!!
Kilroy911!
work right they still smell things up!!!
Kilroy911!!!
Tempest
"Kilroy911!" wrote:
>
> ...the military had been allowed to run the war
> instead of Presidential aides in the WH. Did
> any of you know that all targets in North Viet
> Nam had to be approved by the Whitehouse.
> We lost in VN because the politicians had to
> have their hands in everything.
You failed to mention that the American people were against the war.
We lost the rescue
> mission for the hostages in Iran because the
> WH was ON THE PHONE with the field forces.
I thought it was poor weather that caused the helicopters to crash?
> We won in the middle east because Schazkaugh(sp?)
> was allowed to run things militarily NOT
> politically (not to mention better equipment).
We won because the US was a vast superior army facing a rag tag group of
demoralized, underfed and unorganized men. And don't claim that I was
against the war because I didn't care less. It wouldn't have had
happened in the first place if Shrub Sr. would have only been paying
attention to the area.
> We destroyed them in Eastern Europe because
> again the military ran the show, not draft dodging
> presidential aides from the safety of their offices
> in the WH!!
When you say "we" I'm going to assume that you mean the Allies destroyed
them. I would hate to think that you believe that the USA won the war by
itself. Of course, with all the crap coming out of Hollywood I can see
why you might think that.
When you look at the number of Allies soldiers killed in the war
remember this: The Americans made up a small percentage of the total
Allied forces. A vast majority of the names you see on the list of the
dead are made up of Europeans and Russians that were fighting for their
homelands. Not because they were ordered to.
> Kilroy911!!!
Scott D. Erb
Tempest wrote:
>
> "Kilroy911!" wrote:
> >
> > ...the military had been allowed to run the war
> > instead of Presidential aides in the WH. Did
> > any of you know that all targets in North Viet
> > Nam had to be approved by the Whitehouse.
> > We lost in VN because the politicians had to
> > have their hands in everything.
>
> You failed to mention that the American people were against the war.
The war was unwinnable, and Johnson gave Westmoreland just about
all he asked for, wanting to win the war. The kind of rewriting
of history to make it seem like it could have been won "if
only..." is simply wrong. It was a stupid war that probably was
unwinnable. The only things that might have turned it around
would have risked provoking the Soviets and potentially led to an
escalation to WWIII. Given how unimportant Vietnam was for US
interests, any risk of that would have been foolhardy.
Kennedy and Johnson overestimated the ability to project American
power, and LBJ personalized the war as an affront to his
manhood. That prevented the politicians from doing what would
have been best for the country and the military: getting out and
recognizing it wasn't in the US interest to be there supporting a
corrupt regime, violating the Geneva agreements to settle the
earlier French-Indochina conflict.
> We lost the rescue
> > mission for the hostages in Iran because the
> > WH was ON THE PHONE with the field forces.
>
> I thought it was poor weather that caused the helicopters to crash?
Yes.
> > We won in the middle east because Schazkaugh(sp?)
> > was allowed to run things militarily NOT
> > politically (not to mention better equipment).
>
> We won because the US was a vast superior army facing a rag tag group of
> demoralized, underfed and unorganized men. And don't claim that I was
> against the war because I didn't care less. It wouldn't have had
> happened in the first place if Shrub Sr. would have only been paying
> attention to the area.
Quite true. It was a relatively easy war, nothing like Vietnam.
> > We destroyed them in Eastern Europe because
> > again the military ran the show, not draft dodging
> > presidential aides from the safety of their offices
> > in the WH!!
>
> When you say "we" I'm going to assume that you mean the Allies destroyed
> them. I would hate to think that you believe that the USA won the war by
> itself. Of course, with all the crap coming out of Hollywood I can see
> why you might think that.
> When you look at the number of Allies soldiers killed in the war
> remember this: The Americans made up a small percentage of the total
> Allied forces. A vast majority of the names you see on the list of the
> dead are made up of Europeans and Russians that were fighting for their
> homelands. Not because they were ordered to.
The Red Army really did the most to win the war in Europe,
suffering 20 million deaths, and bearing the brunt of the German
forces. Granted, they probably couldn't have done it alone: Lend
lease, equipment, and operations in Africa and Italy made it
easier, as well as the fact that Hitler had to keep a lot of
forces on the western front to try to prevent an attack. But by
the time a second front was opened in France in 1944, the Russian
forces were already
heading to Berlin.
Tempest
Desert with all the new modern technology is a hell of a lot easier than
the jungle with no modern technology.
> > > We destroyed them in Eastern Europe because
> > > again the military ran the show, not draft dodging
> > > presidential aides from the safety of their offices
> > > in the WH!!
> >
> > When you say "we" I'm going to assume that you mean the Allies destroyed
> > them. I would hate to think that you believe that the USA won the war by
> > itself. Of course, with all the crap coming out of Hollywood I can see
> > why you might think that.
> > When you look at the number of Allies soldiers killed in the war
> > remember this: The Americans made up a small percentage of the total
> > Allied forces. A vast majority of the names you see on the list of the
> > dead are made up of Europeans and Russians that were fighting for their
> > homelands. Not because they were ordered to.
>
> The Red Army really did the most to win the war in Europe,
> suffering 20 million deaths, and bearing the brunt of the German
> forces. Granted, they probably couldn't have done it alone: Lend
> lease, equipment, and operations in Africa and Italy made it
> easier, as well as the fact that Hitler had to keep a lot of
> forces on the western front to try to prevent an attack. But by
> the time a second front was opened in France in 1944, the Russian
> forces were already
> heading to Berlin.
I wouldn't want to fight the Russians, they're ability to survive is
astonishing. Also, their willingness to throw people into a fight is
scary.
King Pineapple
news:DbOm7.8958$d86.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
BTW, did you know that Abraham Lincoln's critics called him a monkey too?
> 21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
>
> 1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year
> unprecedented prosperity was due to the work of Ronald
> Reagan and George Bush, but that today's gas
> prices are all Clinton's fault.
Not Reagan, but the recovery began on Pappy Bush's watch. A full year and a
half before Clinton was even elected. However, it was not reported by the
Scaife-controlled media.
As for the gas prices, they ARE Clinton's fault. "We were caught
napping"-Clinton's alleged "Energy Secretary" Bill Richardson, admitting to
an angry mob in Boston in early 2000 that he and his boss ignored warnings
from OPEC that they were cutting production.
Under Clinton, I saw my home heating oil go from 69 cents a gallon to nearly
$1.70 a gallon. In less than two months.
> 2) You have to believe that those privileged from
> birth achieve success all on their own.
Just ask the Kennedys. Or Algore, who was raised in a fancy hotel in D.C.
and who himself is richer than 98 percent of Americans.
> 3) You have to be against government programs, but
> expect your Social Security checks on time.
It's our money.
> 4) You have to believe that government should stay out
> of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate
> only opposite-gender marriages, what a
> woman does with her uterus, and what your official
> language should be.
Marriages are regulated by state government to begin with, so you're talking
out of your rosell here.
> 5) You have to believe that pollution is OK so long as
> it makes a profit.
We've been exploring for oil in Alaska for over 50 years. It's still there.
> 6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long
> as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha or the Goddess.
Better burn all your money then. "In God We Trust" is on every piece.
> 7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers
> are still virgins.
?
> 8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted
> with decisions about her own body, but that large
> multi-national corporations should have no
> regulation or interference whatsoever.
Last time I checked, abortion was still legal. As for corporate welfare, we
didn't see people like you whine about all the corporate welfare that went
on under Clinton, so don't whine about it now.
> 9) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way,
> Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals,
> and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Back when the Democrats were a relevant party, they prided themselves on
their religious tolerance. Then assholes like you and the Clintons came
along.
> 10) You have to believe that society is color-blind
> and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your
> opportunities, but you wouldn't vote for a
> black candidate for president.
LOL. Pretty funny. Also pretty racist on your part.
> 11) You have to believe that it was great to allow Ken
> Starr to spend $90 million dollars to attack Clinton
> because no other U.S. presidents have been
> unfaithful to their wives.
You can cheat on your wife, just don't do it on the public's time in a
Federal Office, then lie under oath about it. By the way, half of Starr's
prosecutors were Democrats themselves, and his investigations were
authorized by Clinton's own Attorney General. Damn, you make this easy.
Who's writing this crappy material for you? Begala?
> 12) You have to believe that a waiting period for
> purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a
> new firearm is an important concern for all
> Americans.
Enforce the laws already on the books first. Massachusetts, for example, has
some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Yet a guy still went
into his workplace after Christmas last year and gunned down his co-workers
in cold blood.
> 13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out
> of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't
> have condoms they won't have sex.
?
> 14) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because
> they defend the Constitution, while the NRA is good
> because they defend the Constitution.
Who says the ACLU is bad? In case you forgot, the ACLU got one of the
conservatives' heroes off (Ollie North).
> 15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked
> anywhere, and that
> Europe doesn't exist.
Socialism HASN'T worked. ANYWHERE. You don't have to be a conservative to
figure that out.
> 16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not
> important enough to deserve federal funding
> proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the
> public doesn't need
> to be educated about it, because if we ignore it, it
> will go away.
You can spend *your* money on it. Just don't try and pick MY pocket to spend
MY money on it.
> 17) You have to believe that biology teachers are
> corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach
> them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible,
> which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.
?
> 18) You have to believe that Chinese communist
> missiles have killed more Americans than handguns,
> alcohol, and tobacco.
Not yet, anyway.
> 19) You have to believe that even though governments
> have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most
> of the great works of Renaissance art were paid
> for by governments, our government should shun any
> such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy
> their own and the poor don't need any.
Last time I checked, the arts were still getting PLENTY of Federal funding.
But they should get more funding from private sources.
> 20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last
> one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth
> the destruction of those forests and the
> extinction of the several species of plants and
> animals in them because it allows logging companies to
> add to their profit margin.
Don't believe everything Robert Redford tells you. Just how much old-growth
forest do we need, anyway? Lumber is a renewable resource. Trees grow like
crazy.
> 21) You have to believe that we should forgive and
> pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston
> for their marital infidelities, but that bastard
> Clinton should have been impeached.
Did any of them lie under oath? No. What did Clinton "win" again? If he had
simply had the balls to tell the truth in the first place, he wouldn't be
the first elected President to be impeached, held in contempt of court and
the first President to cut a deal with a Federal Prosecutor to avoid felony
indictment for perjury.
And if Clinton had simply told the truth to begin with, you wouldn't have to
whine about all this stuff. Know why? Because Algore would be the President.
GeeDubyah
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3B9BB2...@pacbell.net>...
> 1968, 1980 or 2000, and that if only Nixxon? had pursued the count in
> 1960 he would have won.
>
> 23) Nixxon? had every right to defend America from that commie bastard
Goose
GeeDubyah <5j6ae3o...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
<1484f113.0109...@posting.google.com>...
Lady Liberty
25) You have to believe that the millions of unemployed American citizens
don't really exist and what we need is to open our borders to Mexican
immigrants because we have too many jobs and not enough people who really want
to work.
26) You have to believe that de-regulating nursing homes will result in more
competition in the nursing home industry resulting in patients receiving
better care. You have to deny the fact that the regulations were there in the
first place because of patient neglect.
Robin*
> Interesting.
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<3B9BB2...@pacbell.net>...
> > Wester wrote:
> > >
> > > 21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
> > >
> > > 1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year
> > > unprecedented prosperity was due to the work of Ronald
> > > Reagan and George Bush, but that today's gas
> > > prices are all Clinton's fault.
Gas prices are not Klinton's fault. Gas taxes promoted and added by Klinton
are.
> > > 2) You have to believe that those privileged from
> > > birth achieve success all on their own.
Wrong again.
> > > 3) You have to be against government programs, but
> > > expect your Social Security checks on time.
I'm too young to receive SS. I'm against it, and money removed from
paychecks for that program should remain with the earner to invest as they
see fit. That's three strikes against you. You're out, but I'll continue.
> > > 4) You have to believe that government should stay out
> > > of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate
> > > only opposite-gender marriages, what a
> > > woman does with her uterus, and what your official
> > > language should be.
Four wrong: It's up to churches to decide about same-gender marriages.
Govenments should stay *totally* out of it. That includes any financial
considerations.
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, and the resulting right to
an abortion is flawed. It should be up to each individual state. Tenth
Amendment, look it up.
Nothing wrong with an official language. You want to succeed here, you've
got to know English.
> > > 5) You have to believe that pollution is OK so long as
> > > it makes a profit.
Oh yes, Republicans enjoy breathing polluted air and drinking dirty water.
(What a maroon!)
> > > 6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long
> > > as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha or the Goddess.
There should not be any state mandated prayer in school.
> > > 7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers
> > > are still virgins.
Huh?
> > > 8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted
> > > with decisions about her own body, but that large
> > > multi-national corporations should have no
> > > regulation or interference whatsoever.
We think women have no business murdering other people, be they in the womb,
or not.
No Republican wants 100% total removal of business regs. (where'd you come
up with this BS???)
> > > 9) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way,
> > > Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals,
> > > and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
There are hateful people in both partys, dumbass.
> > > 10) You have to believe that society is color-blind
> > > and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your
> > > opportunities, but you wouldn't vote for a
> > > black candidate for president.
Black candidates can get elected in white communities. The opposite is
rare.
> > > 11) You have to believe that it was great to allow Ken
> > > Starr to spend $90 million dollars to attack Clinton
> > > because no other U.S. presidents have been
> > > unfaithful to their wives.
Klinton was investigated for lying to a Democrat-appointed judge in a civil
rights lawsuit. Everything Starr did had the approval of a three judge
panel and Janet Reno.
> > > 12) You have to believe that a waiting period for
> > > purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a
> > > new firearm is an important concern for all
> > > Americans.
Waiting periods don't stop gun crime. A criminal will just go elsewhere.
How effective do you think drug laws have been?
Besides, Constitutional Rights are given by God, not by man, or Washington.
> > >
> > > 13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out
> > > of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't
> > > have condoms they won't have sex.
Accesss to condoms is a parental decision.
> > > 14) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because
> > > they defend the Constitution, while the NRA is good
> > > because they defend the Constitution.
I love the ACLU.
> > > 15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked
> > > anywhere, and that
> > > Europe doesn't exist.
Huh?
> > > 16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not
> > > important enough to deserve federal funding
> > > proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the
> > > public doesn't need
> > > to be educated about it, because if we ignore it, it
> > > will go away.
AIDS is a behavioral problem. You honestly think there are people who don't
know about this??
> > > 17) You have to believe that biology teachers are
> > > corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach
> > > them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible,
> > > which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.
Neither should be taught in Public School.
> > > 18) You have to believe that Chinese communist
> > > missiles have killed more Americans than handguns,
> > > alcohol, and tobacco.
Are you on dope?
> > > 19) You have to believe that even though governments
> > > have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most
> > > of the great works of Renaissance art were paid
> > > for by governments, our government should shun any
> > > such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy
> > > their own and the poor don't need any.
It's not the US Government's responsiblity to pay people taxpayers money to
produce art. If you're good enough, you'll make a living. If you suck,
change professions.
> > > 20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last
> > > one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth
> > > the destruction of those forests and the
> > > extinction of the several species of plants and
> > > animals in them because it allows logging companies to
> > > add to their profit margin.
You want to put logging companies out of business? Kill all the trees.
> > > 21) You have to believe that we should forgive and
> > > pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston
> > > for their marital infidelities, but that bastard
> > > Clinton should have been impeached.
G, H, & L did the honorable thing. Klinton and honor aren't even in the
same solar system.
> > 22) You believe that Republicans never, ever stole an election, not in
> > 1968, 1980 or 2000, and that if only Nixxon? had pursued the count in
> > 1960 he would have won.
Remember Dems saying we wanted to reverse the 1996 election by impeaching
Klinton? If Klinton gets booted, who becomes President? Gore! How is that
a reversal???
> > 23) Nixxon? had every right to defend America from that commie bastard
> > (and WWII hero) McGovern because he was gonna make America lose the
> > first war in its history, and the Dems took revenge by hounding him from
> > office, which justified the Repubs stealing the election from Carter in
> > 1980.
Yep, you're on drugs.
> > 24) America could have won the war against Vietnam if only we hadn't
> > listened to wimps at home who were really on the payroll of Russia.
> > (How dare those people that we found in the mud stand up to us!)
The question is, which drug?
Wayne Mann
<lincoln...@chimpdestroyer.net> wrote:
>21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
Idiocy like this wouldn't be so bad since it is some sick
mind's idea although there is no truth to it, but it isn't even funny.
It's just a sick and warped minds stupidity!
Serial
>> > 21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
>> >
>> > 1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year
>> > unprecedented prosperity was due to the work of Ronald
>> > Reagan and George Bush, but that today's gas
>> > prices are all Clinton's fault.
No, the gas prices have to do with greed on the part of major oil
companies ... not Clinton, Bush, or Reagan.
>> > 2) You have to believe that those privileged from
>> > birth achieve success all on their own.
non sequitur and absurd.
The majority of Republicans are no different than the majority of
Democrats - average citizens. How many Republicans can spend $50
million to buy a Senate seat (NJ - Dem). He must believe he did it
all on his own I suppose.
And those who have a great deal, did not all gain it illegally or
through questionable means (Joseph P. Kennedy ... down to ... Teddy
... Joseph et al).
This is one area Democrats should not raise.
>> > 3) You have to be against government programs, but
>> > expect your Social Security checks on time.
Maybe they don't expect the SS checks to arrive either.
>> > 4) You have to believe that government should stay out
>> > of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate
>> > only opposite-gender marriages, what a
>> > woman does with her uterus, and what your official
>> > language should be.
Peoples lives ... does not include a national or official language.
As for the others listed ... there are far more insidious acts of
invasion that occur and have occurred while you were bellowing about
marriage and uterus' and you never even knew.
>> > 5) You have to believe that pollution is OK so long as
>> > it makes a profit.
Greed again ... not any one political party.
>> > 6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long
>> > as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha or the Goddess.
Wrong and those who adhere to the Muslim faith would be very upset
(which shows your disrespect) for placing Buddha and a goddess on the
same level as God.
>> > 7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers
>> > are still virgins.
Plausible given the state of moral decay.
>> > 8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted
>> > with decisions about her own body, but that large
>> > multi-national corporations should have no
>> > regulation or interference whatsoever.
True. If we believe a woman should not do X, we should most certainly
exercise more restraint over the greed of corporations and the abuses
they perpetrate here and abroad.
>> > 9) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way,
>> > Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals,
>> > and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Absurd. AIDS victims should not be placed along side homosexuals or
Bill and Hill. oranges, apples, grapefruit. No one believes anyone
hates Bill and Hillary ... one hates their actions, not their person,
for they are no better or worse than the least of us.
>> > 10) You have to believe that society is color-blind
>> > and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your
>> > opportunities, but you wouldn't vote for a
>> > black candidate for president.
Oh yeah. I'd be willing to bet Powell would have won easier than Bill
or Al combined (and for the dimwitted - that would require Republicans
to vote for him along with Democrats).
>> > 11) You have to believe that it was great to allow Ken
>> > Starr to spend $90 million dollars to attack Clinton
>> > because no other U.S. presidents have been
>> > unfaithful to their wives.
Non sequitur. Shows we have still not figured it all out when you are
clues behind.
>> > 12) You have to believe that a waiting period for
>> > purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a
>> > new firearm is an important concern for all
>> > Americans.
No. We should have a waiting period, and gun classes.
>> > 13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out
>> > of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't
>> > have condoms they won't have sex.
I wouldn't bet your life on the above being completely wrong.
>> > 14) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because
>> > they defend the Constitution, while the NRA is good
>> > because they defend the Constitution.
I see utterly no use for the aclu and have no passion for the NRA
either.
>> > 15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked
>> > anywhere, and that Europe doesn't exist.
It has not and does not work you idiot. Geesh. is it not clear.
Good lord, they do not have socialism, they have a combined bit of
this and that jumbled together. When socialism was tried, it didn't
work ... or rather, it was too burdensome and was tossed into the
dustbin along with its counterpart. What they have today is a hybrid.
>> > 16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not
>> > important enough to deserve federal funding
>> > proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the
>> > public doesn't need
>> > to be educated about it, because if we ignore it, it
>> > will go away.
Funding has gone up and up, education up and up and rate of infection
has also gone up and up (in certain sectors). No relationship.
>> > 17) You have to believe that biology teachers are
>> > corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach
>> > them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible,
>> > which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.
Sex without a message or direction is nothing more than animal
instinct and yes, it is bad/wrong/harmful. When it is incorporated
into the bigger picture with purpose and a message (as the Bible does)
... and besides, they don';t teach the Bible, but we have been
slopping the other shit out quite regularly for some time ...
>> > 18) You have to believe that Chinese communist
>> > missiles have killed more Americans than handguns,
>> > alcohol, and tobacco.
stupid. Btw, 1 missile if it hit, would kill more Americans in
moments than all the handgun accidents over a number of years.
Simply stupid.
>> > 19) You have to believe that even though governments
>> > have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most
>> > of the great works of Renaissance art were paid
>> > for by governments, our government should shun any
>> > such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy
>> > their own and the poor don't need any.
Wrong. Historically inaccurate. Patrons funded the arts. In earlier
dynasties, wealthy nobles or equivalent did ... govt has not.
Take an art history class.
>> > 20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last
>> > one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth
>> > the destruction of those forests and the
>> > extinction of the several species of plants and
>> > animals in them because it allows logging companies to
>> > add to their profit margin.
Wrong.
Look up some time, Balboa's journal from his expedition in 151? down
in Panama. Then come back and talk about deforestation.
>> > 21) You have to believe that we should forgive and
>> > pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston
>> > for their marital infidelities, but that bastard
>> > Clinton should have been impeached.
They left office. Bill didn't. Were they the president ... they
should have gone as quickly as they did while they were congressmen
(except for Hyde who did not commit any infidelity during your
lifetime).
>> 22) You believe that Republicans never, ever stole an election, not in
>> 1968, 1980 or 2000, and that if only Nixxon? had pursued the count in
>> 1960 he would have won.
How do you steal an election in 1968? or 1980 (are you alluding to
the October surprise?) .... what of Bill in 92 with 43% of the vote
... that is stealing an election when most assuredly the majority did
not want him.
>> 23) Nixxon? had every right to defend America from that commie bastard
>> (and WWII hero) McGovern because he was gonna make America lose the
>> first war in its history, and the Dems took revenge by hounding him from
>> office, which justified the Repubs stealing the election from Carter in
>> 1980.
You are delusional. First look at what Democrats did to McGovern and
the invective from RFK and Johnson toward McGovern. And how does 1869
relate to 1980. yeah, some stupid morons sat around in 68 and said
'lets just wait until 1980 and we'll get them' ... what drugs are you
on.
>> 24) America could have won the war against Vietnam if only we hadn't
>> listened to wimps at home who were really on the payroll of Russia.
>> (How dare those people that we found in the mud stand up to us!)
I dunno. Ask Johnson and Kennedy. Johnson had some nice things to
say about the people in the mud. And by the way, who was it that
finished it off over there? A Democrat? Nope.
D.G. Porter
Awwwwwww...
Get Wayno some cheese to go with his whine....
Steve Hiner
"Wayne Mann" <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:5bloptgmvgvt3gk2p...@4ax.com...
Maybe you would like to take his First Amendment Rights away too!
It was OK when it was Clinton and the Dems. in the White House when you
rightwingnuts bashed them!. But, now that the shoe is on the other foot
it's "sick, warped and stupid"! You rightwingnuts claim that the Liberals
in this country have no tolerance. I don't see a whole lot of tolerance
from you folks! "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks"!
SRH
Scott D. Erb
Rather than whine, smart Republicans should come up with a
humorous list about "rules for being a Democrat." And people on
both sides should learn to laugh at themselves too!
Scott D. Erb
King Pineapple wrote:
>
> Lincoln Freed the Slaves<lincoln...@chimpdestroyer.net> wrote in message
> news:DbOm7.8958$d86.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> BTW, did you know that Abraham Lincoln's critics called him a monkey too?
>
> > 21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
> >
> > 1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year
> > unprecedented prosperity was due to the work of Ronald
> > Reagan and George Bush, but that today's gas
> > prices are all Clinton's fault.
>
> Not Reagan, but the recovery began on Pappy Bush's watch. A full year and a
> half before Clinton was even elected. However, it was not reported by the
> Scaife-controlled media.
A full year and a half? Anyway, its fallacious to give Bush
credit for eight years of booming growth under Clinton, or to
give Reagan blame for the recession Bush endured that cost him
his office. Presidents really don't control the economy, and the
blame game is irrelevant. What a President does in an economic
downturn is what matters, and the onus is on Bush now to do a job
people see as positive.
> As for the gas prices, they ARE Clinton's fault.
The US has the cheapest gas prices in most of the industrialized
west, and during Clinton's administration, the cheapest in
history (adjusted for inflation). That isn't Clinton's credit or
blame, this (believe it or not!) is not something Presidents can
control!
"We were caught
> napping"-Clinton's alleged "Energy Secretary" Bill Richardson, admitting to
> an angry mob in Boston in early 2000 that he and his boss ignored warnings
> from OPEC that they were cutting production.
Which hardly means he caused the prices to rise or could have
done something to stop them from rising. Sheesh.
> Under Clinton, I saw my home heating oil go from 69 cents a gallon to nearly
> $1.70 a gallon. In less than two months.
If you blame Clinton for that, you need to learn a bit about
economics and politics (and you might also want to compare your
prices to the pre-Clinton years).
-snip bits I have no comment on-
> Socialism HASN'T worked. ANYWHERE. You don't have to be a conservative to
> figure that out.
What do you mean by Socialism? Sweden and many countries with
Social Democratic policies are very wealthy and have done quite
well. In Europe even Conservatives support health care programs
that cover everyone and basic social welfare guarantees. If by
"socialism" you mean the kind of brutal bureaucratic totalitarian
centrally planned system of the old Soviet bloc, well of course
-- that failed miserably, something Social Democrats,
Conservatives, and Liberals all agree upon. Do you consider
China "socialist"? They have the fastest growing economy in the
world, after all (for the last decade or so).
> > 16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not
> > important enough to deserve federal funding
> > proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the
> > public doesn't need
> > to be educated about it, because if we ignore it, it
> > will go away.
>
> You can spend *your* money on it. Just don't try and pick MY pocket to spend
> MY money on it.
Take a dollar out of your wallet. It says "United States Federal
Reserve Note." That means that you are using a societal means of
exchange (not a new example to be sure, a Jewish philosopher did
the same thing with a coin that had Ceasar's image on it almost
2000 years ago). The money is not completely yours, it is a
legal convention those use is governed by laws including those of
taxation. As such, passing taxes with democratic representation
to achieve the common good is not the same as picking your
pocket. The tax may be misguided, and you can certainly act
politically to try to convince people of that.
-snip-
> > 21) You have to believe that we should forgive and
> > pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston
> > for their marital infidelities, but that bastard
> > Clinton should have been impeached.
>
> Did any of them lie under oath?
I doubt it, but go back to Iran-Contra and Cap Weinberger, who
was pardoned by then President Bush on the charge of perjury.
Accepting a pardon means accepting guilt, and Weinberger no doubt
did comment perjury. At the time many in the GOP saw that as a
minor infraction, noting perjury of that sort was rarely
prosecuted. How times change!
> No. What did Clinton "win" again?
Well, a lot of elections and really lucrative book deals. I'm no
big Clinton fan, but the Clinton-hatred of some is amusingly
weird.
> If he had
> simply had the balls to tell the truth in the first place, he wouldn't be
> the first elected President to be impeached, held in contempt of court and
> the first President to cut a deal with a Federal Prosecutor to avoid felony
> indictment for perjury.
Agreed.
> And if Clinton had simply told the truth to begin with, you wouldn't have to
> whine about all this stuff. Know why? Because Algore would be the President.
That would probably be worse for the Democratic party now. I
predicted whoever would win in 2000 would be a one termer and
find their party hurting after 2002 because of an economic
recession. At the time I made that prediction I thought it would
be Gore. This might have been a really good election for the
Democrats to lose, especially in the way it happened. They're
well positioned for 2002 especially.
Oh: did you hear the news? Justice Souter said he could have
convinced Justice Kennedy if he'd had another day, turning the
5-4 decision to accept the Florida ruling into a 5-4 decision
that would have turned things over to the Congress (which
probably would have chosen Bush anyway). Only four justices were
supportive of some kind of recount.
J D
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
>
> What do you mean by Socialism? Sweden and many countries with
> Social Democratic policies are very wealthy and have done quite
> well. In Europe even Conservatives support health care programs
> that cover everyone and basic social welfare guarantees. If by
> "socialism" you mean the kind of brutal bureaucratic totalitarian
> centrally planned system of the old Soviet bloc, well of course
> -- that failed miserably, something Social Democrats,
> Conservatives, and Liberals all agree upon. Do you consider
> China "socialist"? They have the fastest growing economy in the
> world, after all (for the last decade or so).
Scottie you are an idiot! Of course it is very easy to show fast
growth when you start with basically nothing. I was there
in 1982 when they increased truck production in one plant
by 300% over the year before. They produced 160 trucks.
Really fantastic HuH! They were actually bragging about this
too! You weren't by chance the editor for the English China
TImes were you?
Jack
Tony G
"MrCurious" <abl...@email.com> wrote in message
news:IbPm7.1633$fS2.1...@news.uswest.net...
Aaron Hirshberg
snip-a-rama
>
> 22) You believe that Republicans never, ever stole an election, not in
> 1968, 1980 or 2000, and that if only Nixxon™ had pursued the count in
> 1960 he would have won.
>
> 23) Nixxon™ had every right to defend America from that commie bastard
> (and WWII hero) McGovern because he was gonna make America lose the
> first war in its history, and the Dems took revenge by hounding him from
> office, which justified the Repubs stealing the election from Carter in
> 1980.
McGovern was a WWII veteran. But I doubt that he was a hero. I know
that he flew his 24 missions, or whatever, as part of a bomber crew.
Which is more than Nixxon ever did. Anyone who thinks that the
liberals drove Nixxon from office is a fool. It was the right wing
that drove Nixxon from office.
> 24) America could have won the war against Vietnam if only we hadn't
> listened to wimps at home who were really on the payroll of Russia.
> (How dare those people that we found in the mud stand up to us!)
Vietnam was the first war handed to the US government by the CIA. No
wonder we lost.
Aaron Hirshberg
Tony G
stops bombing the shit out of North Vietnam, which was a military decision.
However as anyone will tell you bombing is not a good strategic plan in
general, especially when a country is being supplied from an external source
(China, Russia). It was not the Whitehouse that fucked things up, although
they were less than brilliant all around, it was the military, and anyhow
the war was unwinnable. The only thing the Whitehouse was guilty of was
listening to the military and getting us involved in the war to satisfy the
power hungry hawks in the military. The military came up with a host of lies
to convince MacNamara that it was statistically possible to win the war, but
the information was deliberately fabricated and any contrary intelligence
was quashed and ignored. Read "The Best and the Brightest" for a lengthy
discussion of the events leading to and during the tragedy in Viet Nam.
The strategy of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong was basically to
attack and run away. Harrass us until we got tired of it. This they were
prepared to do for 5, 10, 20 or 100 years until we went away dispondent and
brokenhearted, which is exactly what happened. Meanwhile the South
Vietnamese army was no help. The idea was to train them to fight their own
war but the leadership was too cowardly to risk a defeat, for political
reasons, and therefore would not risk their troops in battle. So the GIs
were left to do all the fighting for an ally who basically couldn't give a
crap except to exploit the situation for power and profit. The insane
complexities involved in this pathetic and sad chapter in American history
are almost too painful to contemplate, but it does nobody any good to
simplify matters and paint over them saying that the war was winable "if
only". No, it wasn't and it pays to learn that lesson, which most of America
seemingly has. The hubris of thinking you are always right and unbeatable
will get you in a world of shit every time.
You have to read up on the war to understand what really went on over there.
Anyway, in a sense perhaps now we are actually winning the war. All we had
to do was wait until the Vietnamese realized that capitalism is the only way
to make money, which is why they are now a trading partner with the US.
Hopefully democracy will follow.
To compare Iraq to Viet Nam is interesting but not in the sense that you
simplify it. Iraq was basically a rag tag army of poorly supplied and
trained misfits with poor morale operating in a no man's land of desert with
no support from outside. They were sitting ducks for smart bombs and F-16's.
Yes Swarzkopf conducted a masterful strategy of wiping out their armor and
pounding them into submission before the ground forces were engaged. But the
enemy and the terrain were vastly different. Somehow I can't picture the
North Vietnamese running after a cameraman waving a white flag of surrender.
Tony G
"J D" <jac...@bwn.net> wrote in message
news:D64645639B2C38C8.F1210808...@lp.airnews.net...
Tony G
hypocracy, and this is what this post points out. I don't think it is sick
at all. I think that it succinctly deliniates what it is that bothers so
many people in this country about the skewed, one sided myopia that has
become so prevalent in our society.
I personally try to make a bold distinction between social conservatives and
economic conservatives, which few in this newsgroup or anywhere else seem to
do. Clinton and Gore (Clinton more so) and perhaps the majority of democrats
are economic conservatives, relatively speaking, because the lessons of the
past have demonstrated that some degree of conservatism is justified in
terms of fiscal policy. The difference hopefully is that the Democrats bear
some concern for the social implications of economic conservatism, however
mild that concern is because their constituents demand it. However, social
conservatism (anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-environment, pro-gun,
pro-rich) is what most liberals find to be objectionable about Republicans
in general. There are some in both parties that cross over the line in
either direction but most of the social conservatives from the south that
used to be in the Democratic party have long since crossed over to the
Republican side, which has further divided the country on issues of race,
gender, lifestyle, ecological views and various social issues.
"Wayne Mann" <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:5bloptgmvgvt3gk2p...@4ax.com...
Kilroy911!!!
power hungry hawks in the military.
Gee a true historian. How is the rewrite going? Exactly what planet are
you posting from anyway? As war goes WH aids couldn't find their
ass with both hands, a flashlight, a road map and assistance from the
AAA!
The VN war was VERY winnable. Obviously you've never seen an ARC
LIGHT in the morning. What pissed off the American people was the fact
that the war was going on and on and on. THAT was because the bombing
of NVN was confined to only targets that were POLITICALLY
CORRECT. During WWII we pounded every city in Germany until
they were rubble. We literally destroyed their ability to wage war. Not
so in VN. They knew we would not strike an ammo dump next to a
school or hospital so they put their military installations next to schools and
hospitals. So most supplies coming from China and Russia went
untouched.
Their endangering noncombatants was an unconsionable act. But it was
a strategy that worked because the WH did not want to make the HARD
choices.
Read up on the war? Sonny I was IN IT!!!!
Kilroy911!!!
userb3
2) You have to believe that that rich bastard who thought up the money
tree, bought the land for the tree, planted the tree, fertilized the
tree, pruned the tree, harvested the tree, and stored the money from
the tree doesn't have as much right to the money as you do.
3) In fact, that bastard OWES you the money! Where does he get off
thinking he deserves the fruits of his labor or his ideas!
4) The job of the government is to get money from the rich bastards and
give it to you. If the rich bastards don't have any money, then the
government should simply pull some out of thin air and give it to you.
5) Any social program that sounds nice is a good program.
6) Good self esteem is more important than hard work, ability, or
creativity.
7) Anyone that opposes your ideas is a dinosaur, a bigot, or a rich
greedy bastard. At no time should you ever question your own ideas and
their value.
8) No matter how moderate they may seem, no matter what common sense
they offer, all Republicans are scum.
9) The only important constitutional rights are the ones you personally
enjoy. Those enjoyed by anyone else may be trampled at will.
10) Never forget: They OWE you!
Jeffrey Laventure
Please read a few books about the war before you present an opinion.
"Tony G" <galli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9nii4u$qoc$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Martin McPhillips
>
> The war was a futile and pointless exercise that left a million
> Vietnamese dead, as well as many Americans. Anyone who reads up
> on the war and studies it knows that, its not even really
> controversial once you get away from the political propaganda.
> It was a period of shame for American foreign policy.
That's as ill-informed an opinion as I've ever read.
Vietnam is no longer something that should be viewed entirely
as a thing unto itself. It was a battle in the Cold War, which
was a serious and dangerous struggle between two ideologies.
There is no defense for Vietnamese communism, that much is
certain. How the U.S. handled the entire struggle is a
serious question and defies simplistic and frankly stupid
comments such as yours.
The Cold War was the real war, and Vietnam was one of its
battles. The U.S. lost that battle, for a variety of reasons
too complex to bother you with, but it won the war.
That's why while Nixon and Kissinger were pursuing Detente
in the front parlor, Vietnam was like an on-going knife fight
in the kitchen. That contradiction alone should tell you
why your simplistic analysis falls so short.
Scott D. Erb
abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
understand what happened. I have read *many* books about the
Vietnam war, and am only happy that it showed that in a democracy
the people can force the government to change from a disasterous
path -- it just took awhile to do it.
Scott D. Erb
Vietnamese dead, as well as many Americans. Anyone who reads up
on the war and studies it knows that, its not even really
controversial once you get away from the political propaganda.
It was a period of shame for American foreign policy.
Kurt Nicklas
news:3B9CF432...@worldnet.att.net:
> Anyone who tries to claim that the war was anything other than an
> abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
> effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
> understand what happened. I have read *many* books about the
> Vietnam war, and am only happy that it showed that in a democracy
> the people can force the government to change from a disasterous
> path -- it just took awhile to do it.
Actually, I've read a number of books about it as well, served 5 years
in the post-Vietnam military after being in college during the war. It
seems to me it was neither futile nor misguided though could have been
prosecuted more effectively at all levels.
But by far the biggest falsehood is that it was doomed from the beginning.
That's simply silly.
But we did lose the propaganda war and the fact that we have so many
otherwise intelligent people spouting your line 25+ years after the end is
a testimony to the effectiveness of that propaganda and the extent to which
it penetrated our national consciousness.
But it didn't have to be that way.
--
Kurt Nicklas
-----------------------
Leftwing Howlers:
'skunks never change their strips(sic)'
-- Glen Yeadon
'Keep your head down and your knees
bent, Witless. I've got my wizard's
staff about halfway up your ass.
Don't be afraid, there's only about 36
inches left to go.'
-- Richard Hanson
J D
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> Anyone who tries to claim that the war was anything other than an
> abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
> effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
> understand what happened. I have read *many* books about the
> Vietnam war, and am only happy that it showed that in a democracy
> the people can force the government to change from a disasterous
> path -- it just took awhile to do it.
Anyone who thinks that the Vietnam war was an abject failure of
American foreign policy is a fool who was not only not there but
hasn't a damn clue as to what actually went on. This was a futile
and misguided effort only because McNamara and LBJ were involved
in too many extremely bad decisions. You are not happy just
very very " BLISSFUL" and are too ignorant to know the difference.
Jack C. Dawes
Martin McPhillips
>
> Anyone who tries to claim that the war was anything other than an
> abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
> effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
> understand what happened.
Anybody who tries to say what you just said doesn't understand
what happened.
> I have read *many* books about the
> Vietnam war,
Good for you. I'm sure that you think that Frances Fitzgerald's
was the best. The fact is, however, that Vietnam can only
be understood in the context of the Cold War. Then you can
begin to understand the social and political conflicts as
they were.
I was a vehement opponent of the Vietnam War, by the way.
But there is absolutely no good reason to continue to treat
it as though it was a thing unto itself, or that the divisions
about it in the U.S. are sufficient to define its meaning.
It's only proper context is the Cold War, and the Cold
War was real and serious business. Vietnam was a battle
that the U.S. lost, while winning the war. Why successive
administrations chose to stake a fight there is not
some mystery lost in the vapors of time. The purpose was
to give no ground to Communists. What the U.S. eventually
wound up with was more than it bargained for, and the
circumstances became very difficult, but even at that
it is not clear that the decision to fight there was
wrong, and the effort there should not be summarily
dismissed by a tacky poly sci professor like you.
Azzendogorph the Tacky
"Kilroy911!!!" <kilr...@moonem.com> wrote in message
news:3B9CD797...@moonem.com...
> .....listening to the military and getting us involved in the war to
satisfy the
>
> power hungry hawks in the military.
>
> Gee a true historian. How is the rewrite going? Exactly what planet are
> you posting from anyway? As war goes WH aids couldn't find their
> ass with both hands, a flashlight, a road map and assistance from the
> AAA!
If we are going to rewrite history, imagine what the world would have looked
like if we had listened to Patton(sp?) and McArthur, and taken China and
Russia when they were weakened. How many of these later wars would have
never existed?
David Lentz
Tony G wrote:
>
> That is the biggest myth in American history. The airforce pulled out all
> stops bombing the shit out of North Vietnam, which was a military decision.
> However as anyone will tell you bombing is not a good strategic plan in
> general, especially when a country is being supplied from an external source
> (China, Russia). It was not the Whitehouse that fucked things up, although
> they were less than brilliant all around, it was the military, and anyhow
> the war was unwinnable. The only thing the Whitehouse was guilty of was
> listening to the military and getting us involved in the war to satisfy the
> power hungry hawks in the military. The military came up with a host of lies
> to convince MacNamara that it was statistically possible to win the war, but
> the information was deliberately fabricated and any contrary intelligence
> was quashed and ignored. Read "The Best and the Brightest" for a lengthy
> discussion of the events leading to and during the tragedy in Viet Nam.
Bull.
Save for twelve days of Linebacker II, there was no concerted
air campaign to win the war. The gist of a strategic campaign is
to destroy what the enemy can least afford to lose. The air
campaign was never designed to eliminate North Vietnam's ability
to wage war. Rather the campaign was only intended to persuade
the North to quit prosecuting the war.
The measure of a bombinb campaign is not measured in tonnage of
bombs drops but rather in enemy capacity destroyed.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
J D
unless they try awfully hard!
The point is when you start from nothing it is very easy to post gains that
look like
the economy is doing great. When measured against the economies of the West
and
Japan or even Korea the Chinese pale in comparison! They produce a lot
because they
have a hell of a lot of people but their production per person is very small
in comparison
to the West. And most of their gains are not from their system but from the
West building
automobiles, televisions etc. making a large investment because of the cheap
Chinese labor.
Do you really think the Chinese system has anything to do with this?
And, by the way, I go back at least once a year. They have made progress
in twenty years. But nothing like Scottie would have you believe.
Jack
J D
Tony G wrote:
> That is the biggest myth in American history. The airforce pulled out all
> stops bombing the shit out of North Vietnam, which was a military decision.
> However as anyone will tell you bombing is not a good strategic plan in
> general, especially when a country is being supplied from an external source
> (China, Russia). It was not the Whitehouse that fucked things up, although
> they were less than brilliant all around, it was the military, and anyhow
> the war was unwinnable.
Your ignorance of what really went on is beyond belief!
Jack C. Dawes
David Lentz
Aaron Hirshberg wrote:
<snip>
> McGovern was a WWII veteran. But I doubt that he was a hero. I know
> that he flew his 24 missions, or whatever, as part of a bomber crew.
> Which is more than Nixxon ever did. Anyone who thinks that the
> liberals drove Nixxon from office is a fool. It was the right wing
> that drove Nixxon from office.
George McGovern piloted a B-24 Liberator, for either the Eighth
and Fifteenth Air Force. Given the loss rate suffered by B-24's,
that very much makes McGovern a hero.
Politically, McGovern was and is a dipshit.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Scott D. Erb
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:3B9CF432...@worldnet.att.net:
>
> > Anyone who tries to claim that the war was anything other than an
> > abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
> > effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
> > understand what happened. I have read *many* books about the
> > Vietnam war, and am only happy that it showed that in a democracy
> > the people can force the government to change from a disasterous
> > path -- it just took awhile to do it.
>
> Actually, I've read a number of books about it as well, served 5 years
> in the post-Vietnam military after being in college during the war. It
> seems to me it was neither futile nor misguided though could have been
> prosecuted more effectively at all levels.
> But by far the biggest falsehood is that it was doomed from the >beginning. That's simply silly.
>
> But we did lose the propaganda war and the fact that we have so many
> otherwise intelligent people spouting your line 25+ years after the end is
> a testimony to the effectiveness of that propaganda and the extent to which
> it penetrated our national consciousness.
>
> But it didn't have to be that way.
If you can explain your position and let me know what sources
might be good to read to understand your point of view on this,
I'd appreciate it. I'm always looking for new info or arguments.
To be sure, as is normal for these forums my statement sounded
more absolutist than it probably should have. But given the
corruption of the South Vietnamese government, the relative
unimportance of Vietnam for American national interest (even
realists like Morgenthau opposed US involvement), the nature of
the 1954 Geneva Treaty which promised an election, the long term
tactical possibilities of Ho's troops, and not unimportantly the
belief by Johnson and Nixon that too much offensive aggression
could risk turning it into a wider war (in those days people
worried about WWIII -- and no one thought Vietnam was worth
risking a nuclear holocaust), I think it was a very misguided
venture.
Johnson wanted to win -- and gave Westmoreland more troops as he
demanded it, up to over half a million. Johnson (and I find this
almost unforgivable) also personalized the war and saw it as a
test of his manhood, he stopped really objectively looking at the
issues. The US policy making group -- JFK's 'best and brightest'
also overlooked military realities because of their politicians
view of power as an abstract. There are a lot of things that one
could theoretically change and maybe get some kind of better
solution. But I really think, with hindsight to be sure, that it
was a very stupid war to get involved in.
But if you explain why you think I'm wrong and give me a good
alternate argument I can use (besides the typical Johnson
administration rationales for the war -- I know those pretty
well) on what could be done differently, I'd appreciate it and
likely integrate that argument in any teaching I do on the
Vietnam war, especially if you include sources for me to examine.
Feel free to respond by e-mail if you prefer that rather than
posting it all.
Jeffrey Laventure
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B9CF432...@worldnet.att.net...
> Anyone who tries to claim that the war was anything other than an
> abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
> effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
> understand what happened. I have read *many* books about the
> Vietnam war, and am only happy that it showed that in a democracy
> the people can force the government to change from a disasterous
> path -- it just took awhile to do it.
>
> Jeffrey Laventure wrote:
> >
> > I hope you aren't in a position to pass your ignorance on to anyone
else.
> > Please read a few books about the war before you present an opinion.
> >
war activities. The military did the bombing of the North, the White House
approved the targets. To a lesser degree, the same applied to the South.
> > >
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The war was unwinnable, and Johnson gave Westmoreland just about
>all he asked for, wanting to win the war.
Yeah, especially in February 1968 when he asked for 206,00 more
troops, and Johnson fired him less than a month later. I'm no fan of
Westmoreland, but you simply don't know what you're blithering about,
Scotti.
> The kind of rewriting
>of history to make it seem like it could have been won "if
>only..." is simply wrong. It was a stupid war that probably was
>unwinnable. The only things that might have turned it around
>would have risked provoking the Soviets and potentially led to an
>escalation to WWIII. Given how unimportant Vietnam was for US
>interests, any risk of that would have been foolhardy.
Oh, yeah? Gee, in light of the fact that, on the very day of the
very first US air attack on Hanoi (February 7, 1965), Aleksei Kosygin,
and his Air Staff were right there in town discussing air defence
requirements. I mean, if they didn't "escalate to WW III" when their
own premier was ducking the very first bombs, and considering the fact
that the Soviets sat still for "Linebacker II", you're the one who's
looking pretty foolish with your rot about "rewriting history".
>Kennedy and Johnson overestimated the ability to project American
>power, and LBJ personalized the war as an affront to his
>manhood.
That must be why he offered Ho Chi Minh a billion-dollar Mekong
River development project if he'd back out of the South.
"Doktor".
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Billy Beck
"Tony G" <galli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That is the biggest myth in American history. The airforce pulled out all
>stops bombing the shit out of North Vietnam,...
Not until 1972. You're hardly in shape to talk about "myth[s]"
regarding Vietnam.
>However as anyone will tell you bombing is not a good strategic plan in
>general, especially when a country is being supplied from an external source
>(China, Russia).
That is one of the *best* conditions for a "strategic plan" for
the use of air power, and it's also precisely the aspect in which
"Rolling Thunder" was handicapped throughout its three-year campaign
against North Vietnam. For one obvious thing right off the bat, the
intelligence problem of target selection in a case like that is almost
childishly simple in solution. The case of Japan in WW II is
illuminating here in that they had a comprehensive industrial-base
against which strategic air could be brought to bear, as well as
widely *distributed* production of component products in myriad
home-shops, and this meant that strategic attack was a very complex
affair bearing on tactics only after equally complex economic analysis
-- including the furthest reaches of "The Greater Asian Co-Prosperity
Sphere" -- and even a lot of guesswork. North Vietnam had no such
industrial base to speak of, and the problem of strategic attack was
easily reducible to strikes against a relatively small number of
precisely identifiable targets.
In mid 1964, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had worked out a list of
ninety-four targets in the North, and it's instructive to note that
industrial and power plants were in the small minority. The list was
comprised mostly of bridges, rail, military materiel storage areas,
POL ("petroleum, oil, & lubricants) storage, and airfields. The
campaign against this list was projected at two to three weeks, and
there is simply no question that this was achievable by US air power
at that stage of the war. Consider that the first appearance of
organized NVA units in the South didn't occur until August of 1964,
and the importance of such a campaign starts becoming apparent. The
projected JCS campaign was perfectly tailored to inhibit that sort of
action: the NVA would not have been able to get involved in the South
as they did because they simply would not have had the tools to do so,
and no way to assemble them. There is an old adage that "amateurs
study tactics, while professionals study logistics," and it's true.
Logistics is where the action is, and that's a lot of the whole point
of strategic bombing.
Within a context stipulating to the probity of the war -- which
is certainly arguable -- the first problem is that Johnson didn't have
the nerve to *prosecute* the war with air power. "Rolling Thunder"
dragged out with "protective reaction strikes" and "graduated
response", and it's simply nonsensical to call this stuff "pull[ing]
out all the stops". In a very good history of that campaign, John T.
Smith writes a telling sentence about the November 1964 White House
policy review: "The reality was that the Government of the North was
prepared to sustain any level of bombing that the Americans were
*politically* prepared to carry out." [emphasis added]
From the perspective of nearly forty years' history, there could
be all kinds of arguments about the reasons for this fact, but it's a
fact, nonetheless, that Rolling Thunder is a study in the worst
consequences of compromise. The United States took all the
international public relations gas associated with bombing North
Vietnam, and didn't achieve any of the military results. The fact is
that the initiative passed to North Vietnam: they could actually
control the pace and intensity of the bombing with diplomatic hints at
negotiations, while they studied campaign tactics and applied the
lessons to their air defence, with the help of the USSR. This last
point circles back to the original aim of the JCS target list: a
proper strategic campaign would have precluded Soviet aid. This fact
became evident with the mining of Haiphong in 1972, after which
virtually no Soviet aid reached the North.
It was "Linebacker II" in November of 1972 that "pulled out the
stops", as far as they were ever pulled in the whole war. That
campaign yet labored under a heritage of political meddling in
military operations (the notorious "route package" system of
operations-division between Air Force and Navy airpower being perhaps
the most obvious). However, the original 1964 JCS target list was
updated to meet the new tactical and strategic realities, the
completely appalling Rules of Engagement for air operations were
ditched, and it was the very first time in the war that North Vietnam
understood what serious air power was all about. It's not for nothin'
that Le Duc Tho decided to return to Paris negotiations after only
eleven days of this sort of thing.
There are good reasons why assertions of strategic airpower as
*decisive* remain controversial in purely military terms. World War
II Japan is perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis -- even
without the matter of nuclear weapons -- but there's still a lot of
room for dispute. However, it won't do at all to disparage it as "not
a good strategic plan in general", because that does not account for
the particular context of any given application. I, for one, have
never agreed with the objection that strategic air cannot accomplish
what actual infantry occupation of enemy ground can, because that does
not account for the prospect of enemy *surrender*, or even complete
destruction, under strategic attack when that can be accomplished, and
the historical paucity of such episodes does not negate the
possibility. But it all depends on the situation, and -- again:
within context of stipulating to the war, itself -- the case of North
Vietnam in 1964-65 was an excellent candidate.
This,...
>It was not the Whitehouse that fucked things up, although
>they were less than brilliant all around, it was the military, and anyhow
>the war was unwinnable. The only thing the Whitehouse was guilty of was
>listening to the military and getting us involved in the war to satisfy the
>power hungry hawks in the military. The military came up with a host of lies
>to convince MacNamara that it was statistically possible to win the war, but
>the information was deliberately fabricated and any contrary intelligence
>was quashed and ignored. Read "The Best and the Brightest" for a lengthy
>discussion of the events leading to and during the tragedy in Viet Nam.
...is, a lot, nonsense. Again: the JCS had a far more aggressive
plan for airpower than was ever undertaken by LBJ. It's ridiculous to
assert that threadbare "power hungry hawks" rubbish in the face of the
facts. Westmoreland certainly hyped the prospects a lot better than
they actually were, and McNamara *always* had his head up his ass, but
the plain fact is that the device of airpower was never fully
exploited while those guys were in the driver's seat, and the
opportunity was pissed-away with spectacular abandon to foolishness.
>The strategy of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong was basically to
>attack and run away. Harrass us until we got tired of it. This they were
>prepared to do for 5, 10, 20 or 100 years until we went away dispondent and
>brokenhearted, which is exactly what happened.
That's right, but it's only because they were *allowed* to do
that. One occasionally comes across US military complaints that the
NVA and VC never could have prevailed in a "stand-up fight", and the
fact is that such a thing would have been nearly completely beyond
their reach if they hadn't been able to gear-up for their particular
flavor of operations. This is the supply and logistics angle, again.
>To compare Iraq to Viet Nam is interesting but not in the sense that you
>simplify it. Iraq was basically a rag tag army of poorly supplied and
>trained misfits with poor morale operating in a no man's land of desert with
>no support from outside. They were sitting ducks for smart bombs and F-16's.
>Yes Swarzkopf conducted a masterful strategy of wiping out their armor and
>pounding them into submission before the ground forces were engaged. But the
>enemy and the terrain were vastly different. Somehow I can't picture the
>North Vietnamese running after a cameraman waving a white flag of surrender.
I can't, either. However, what I *can* imagine is North Vietnam
reduced to a howling wilderness in which human life had become
completely impossible. In brief: political motivation is impossible
among dead enemies, and dead enemies are the principle feature of war.
It was certainly possible to do this to the North Vietnamese, but that
simply was never seriously entertained by US leadership.
They never really knew what they were doing, or why.
D.G. Porter
>
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 18:05:23 GMT, "Wester"
> <lincoln...@chimpdestroyer.net> wrote:
>
> >21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
>
> Idiocy like this wouldn't be so bad since it is some sick
> mind's idea although there is no truth to it, but it isn't even funny.
> It's just a sick and warped minds stupidity!
Translation: "WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!! It's all to true!!!"
Scott D. Erb
It wasn't my claim -- I replied in response to your response to
another. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Clearly LBJ limited some activity because (logically) he feared
the war would spread. Westmoreland constantly increased the
number of troops he thought he needed, and LBJ kept giving him
what he wanted until things fell apart with the Tet offensive and
the entire White House braintrust realized the war was too costly
to be worth it.
It was a really stupid war, and the mistakes were primarily
political.
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3B9BB2...@pacbell.net>...
> > Wester wrote:
>
> snip-a-rama
>
> >
> > 22) You believe that Republicans never, ever stole an election, not in
> > 1968, 1980 or 2000, and that if only Nixxon™ had pursued the count in
> > 1960 he would have won.
> >
> > 23) Nixxon™ had every right to defend America from that commie bastard
> > (and WWII hero) McGovern because he was gonna make America lose the
> > first war in its history, and the Dems took revenge by hounding him from
> > office, which justified the Repubs stealing the election from Carter in
> > 1980.
>
> McGovern was a WWII veteran. But I doubt that he was a hero. I know
> that he flew his 24 missions, or whatever, as part of a bomber crew.
I saw a bio program on McGovern, and his biggest supporters were members
of the crews he got back home safely. They all had complete confidence
in their leader.
And the GOP made him out to be a hippie-commie protester-type in '72.
I remember being screamed at by helmet-haired ladies of the GOP for
having a McGovern sticker on my car.
Tom Abbott
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Tempest wrote:
>>
>> "Kilroy911!" wrote:
>> >
>> > ...the military had been allowed to run the war
>> > instead of Presidential aides in the WH. Did
>> > any of you know that all targets in North Viet
>> > Nam had to be approved by the Whitehouse.
>> > We lost in VN because the politicians had to
>> > have their hands in everything.
>>
>> You failed to mention that the American people were against the war.
>
>The war was unwinnable, and Johnson gave Westmoreland just about
>all he asked for, wanting to win the war. The kind of rewriting
>of history to make it seem like it could have been won "if
>only..." is simply wrong.
You are the one rewriting history. The facts are South
Vietnam was a viable country with a viable military capable
of defending themselves, when US troops left in 1973, and it
wasn't until the liberal appeasers in the US Congress cut
the military aid to South Vietnam that they were finally
overcome by the North Vietnamese in 1975.
Now note carefully the critical dates: in 1973 ALL US
forces left South Vietnam and went home. South Vietnam was
still South Vietnam at that time. South Vietnam did not
fall because of something the US military did, because while
the US military was there, South Vietnam was in good shape.
It was two years later, in 1975 before the aid cuts
Congressional liberals made finally drained South Vietnam of
the means and the will to resist and they finally fell to
North Vietnam's last attack.
1973: ALL American troops leave South Vietnam.
1975: South Vietnam defeated.
Now, how is this the fault of the U.S. military, if South
Vietnam isn't defeated until two years *after* the US
military leaves the country? Answer: It is NOT the fault
of the U.S. military. The U.S. military did its job. The
reason South Vietnam fell is not a US military issue it is
political: the liberal democrat appeasers in the U.S.
Congress washed their hands of South Vietnam like Pontius
Pilot washed his hands of Jesus Christ, and the appeasers
threw South Vietnam to the communist wolves by cutting off
their money. And they did so even though not one American
life was on the line. All they had to do was spend a little
money ($400 million) to keep South Vietnam free, not
American lives, but they wouldn't even do that.
> It was a stupid war that probably was
>unwinnable. The only things that might have turned it around
>would have risked provoking the Soviets and potentially led to an
>escalation to WWIII. Given how unimportant Vietnam was for US
>interests, any risk of that would have been foolhardy.
>
>Kennedy and Johnson overestimated the ability to project American
>power, and LBJ personalized the war as an affront to his
>manhood. That prevented the politicians from doing what would
>have been best for the country and the military: getting out and
>recognizing it wasn't in the US interest to be there supporting a
>corrupt regime, violating the Geneva agreements to settle the
>earlier French-Indochina conflict.
>
All your "analysis" of the how's and why's of the war is
irrelevant to the end results. The facts are, for all the
mistakes made by the politicians and military during the
Vietnam war, in the end, the US. military stabilized the
military situation in South Vietnam, trained the South
Vietmese military to defend themselves and be the equal of
the North Vietnamese military, and then left the country,
just as Congress mandated for them to do in the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution of 1964. In other words, the US military
fulfilled its mandate from Congress to the maximum. Blaming
the fall of South Vietnam on the US military is a disservice
to all those who served there, and is a danger to the
country when a school teacher distorts history.
It was only after the U.S. military left South Vietnam and
the liberal appeasers in Congress cut off South Vietnam's
money (overriding President Ford's veto) that South Vietnam
became vulnerable to North Vietnam and eventually fell.
[snip]
TA
Tom Abbott
<tem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>>
>> Tempest wrote:
>> >
>> > "Kilroy911!" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ...the military had been allowed to run the war
>> > > instead of Presidential aides in the WH. Did
>> > > any of you know that all targets in North Viet
>> > > Nam had to be approved by the Whitehouse.
>> > > We lost in VN because the politicians had to
>> > > have their hands in everything.
>> >
>> > You failed to mention that the American people were against the war.
>>
>> The war was unwinnable, and Johnson gave Westmoreland just about
>> all he asked for, wanting to win the war. The kind of rewriting
>> of history to make it seem like it could have been won "if
>> only..." is simply wrong. It was a stupid war that probably was
>> unwinnable. The only things that might have turned it around
>> would have risked provoking the Soviets and potentially led to an
>> escalation to WWIII. Given how unimportant Vietnam was for US
>> interests, any risk of that would have been foolhardy.
>>
>> Kennedy and Johnson overestimated the ability to project American
>> power, and LBJ personalized the war as an affront to his
>> manhood. That prevented the politicians from doing what would
>> have been best for the country and the military: getting out and
>> recognizing it wasn't in the US interest to be there supporting a
>> corrupt regime, violating the Geneva agreements to settle the
>> earlier French-Indochina conflict.
>>
>> > We lost the rescue
>> > > mission for the hostages in Iran because the
>> > > WH was ON THE PHONE with the field forces.
>> >
>> > I thought it was poor weather that caused the helicopters to crash?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > > We won in the middle east because Schazkaugh(sp?)
>> > > was allowed to run things militarily NOT
>> > > politically (not to mention better equipment).
>> >
>> > We won because the US was a vast superior army facing a rag tag group of
>> > demoralized, underfed and unorganized men. And don't claim that I was
>> > against the war because I didn't care less. It wouldn't have had
>> > happened in the first place if Shrub Sr. would have only been paying
>> > attention to the area.
>>
>> Quite true. It was a relatively easy war, nothing like Vietnam.
>
>Desert with all the new modern technology is a hell of a lot easier than
>the jungle with no modern technology.
>
>> > > We destroyed them in Eastern Europe because
>> > > again the military ran the show, not draft dodging
>> > > presidential aides from the safety of their offices
>> > > in the WH!!
>> >
>> > When you say "we" I'm going to assume that you mean the Allies destroyed
>> > them. I would hate to think that you believe that the USA won the war by
>> > itself. Of course, with all the crap coming out of Hollywood I can see
>> > why you might think that.
>> > When you look at the number of Allies soldiers killed in the war
>> > remember this: The Americans made up a small percentage of the total
>> > Allied forces. A vast majority of the names you see on the list of the
>> > dead are made up of Europeans and Russians that were fighting for their
>> > homelands. Not because they were ordered to.
>>
>> The Red Army really did the most to win the war in Europe,
>> suffering 20 million deaths, and bearing the brunt of the German
>> forces. Granted, they probably couldn't have done it alone: Lend
>> lease, equipment, and operations in Africa and Italy made it
>> easier, as well as the fact that Hitler had to keep a lot of
>> forces on the western front to try to prevent an attack. But by
>> the time a second front was opened in France in 1944, the Russian
>> forces were already
>> heading to Berlin.
>
>I wouldn't want to fight the Russians, they're ability to survive is
>astonishing. Also, their willingness to throw people into a fight is
>scary.
Don't underestimate the Americans. They can get pretty
scrappy, too. Just ask the Chinese who participated in
those human wave attacks that Americans repulsed over and
over again in Korea (or any one of ten thousand other
examples).
TA
Tempest
are.
Right wingers are bad enough, but they are downright scary when they
can't laugh at themselves.
Steve Hiner wrote:
>
> "Wayne Mann" <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:5bloptgmvgvt3gk2p...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 18:05:23 GMT, "Wester"
> > <lincoln...@chimpdestroyer.net> wrote:
> >
> > >21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
> >
> >
> > Idiocy like this wouldn't be so bad since it is some sick
> > mind's idea although there is no truth to it, but it isn't even funny.
> > It's just a sick and warped minds stupidity!
>
> Maybe you would like to take his First Amendment Rights away too!
>
> It was OK when it was Clinton and the Dems. in the White House when you
> rightwingnuts bashed them!. But, now that the shoe is on the other foot
> it's "sick, warped and stupid"! You rightwingnuts claim that the Liberals
> in this country have no tolerance. I don't see a whole lot of tolerance
> from you folks! "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks"!
>
> SRH
qwerty
> Aaron Hirshberg wrote:
> >
> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<3B9BB2...@pacbell.net>...
> > > Wester wrote:
> >
> > snip-a-rama
> >
> > >
> > > 22) You believe that Republicans never, ever stole an election, not in
> > > 1960 he would have won.
> > >
> > > (and WWII hero) McGovern because he was gonna make America lose the
> > > first war in its history, and the Dems took revenge by hounding him
from
> > > office, which justified the Repubs stealing the election from Carter
in
> > > 1980.
> >
> > McGovern was a WWII veteran. But I doubt that he was a hero. I know
> > that he flew his 24 missions, or whatever, as part of a bomber crew.
>
> I saw a bio program on McGovern, and his biggest supporters were members
> of the crews he got back home safely. They all had complete confidence
> in their leader.
> And the GOP made him out to be a hippie-commie protester-type in '72.
> I remember being screamed at by helmet-haired ladies of the GOP for
> having a McGovern sticker on my car.
http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/books/docs/wildblue19.htm
Published Sunday, Aug. 19, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News
THE WILD BLUE: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany
By Stephen E. Ambrose
Simon & Schuster, 301 pp., $26
BY MARK EMMONS
Mercury News
The lumbering Liberator bomber flew straight into the thick, coal-black
cloud, which was punctuated by angry flashes of red. The plane shuddered as
anti-aircraft flak -- jagged shards of steel shrapnel -- erupted around it,
ripping holes through the bomber's thin aluminum shell.
``Hell can't be any worse,'' thought George McGovern, a 22-year-old South
Dakota boy who was piloting the wounded plane in the last days of World War
II.
War, you may have heard, is hell. You certainly can read that, too, as
bookstore shelves increasingly creak under the weight of books hooked to the
``Greatest Generation'' era.
A new arrival to this crowded field, historian Stephen E. Ambrose's ``The
Wild Blue: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany,'' is a solid
work about plucky young Americans from all backgrounds who are bound by
patriotism and a clear purpose to defeat evil in the world. And if that
sounds familiar, it darn well should. ``The Wild Blue'' resembles many other
World War II books in tone, and that's disappointing because Ambrose is not
a run-of-the-mill writer.
Few contemporary authors have made history as compelling. His non-fiction
usually reads like an epic novel. Ambrose has brought to life grand,
sweeping sagas such as the Lewis and Clark expedition, the building of the
transcontinental railroad and especially, of course, World War II. It was
Ambrose who paved the way for Tom Brokaw's ``Generation'' series. He greatly
influenced Steven Spielberg's ``Saving Private Ryan.'' And next month
Spielberg and Tom Hanks are joining forces again as the creative minds
behind the HBO production of Ambrose's ``Band of Brothers'' book about World
War II foot soldiers.
Yet ``The Wild Blue'' is a strangely antiseptic book; it fails to tug at the
emotional heartstrings the way a men-in-battle drama should. It reads like
just another item on the prolific Ambrose's lengthy ``to do'' list of World
War II topics. Or maybe reader combat fatigue has set in, and we're hitting
the saturation point of this genre.
The book focuses on a bomber squadron whose job it is to carry the war into
the heart of the dwindling Nazi empire. At the forefront is the crew of a
single Liberator called the Dakota Queen.
We're introduced to dozens of people, and it quickly becomes hard to keep
track of everyone. In fact, early on I had to dog-ear the ``cast of
characters'' page. While Ambrose dutifully writes a few paragraphs or more
about each person's background, I never felt I really got to know most of
these people.
The exception is the main character; the person who holds the book together
and ultimately makes it a reasonably satisfying read is McGovern. The man
who would go on to become a senator from South Dakota, McGovern comes across
as a commanding presence who resolutely does his best while leading men into
battle.
Let's just say readers will come away with a different image of the man who
was trounced by Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election, in part
because McGovern was labeled as weak for opposing the Vietnam War.
``If he ever panicked, I never knew about it,'' a crewman said of McGovern.
``Whatever happened, that sort of nasal twang of his came over the intercom
as clear and flat as it was on the ground.''
As they join up to fight in the wake of Pearl Harbor, McGovern and the
others share a desire both to fly and to stay out of foxholes. We learn how
the United States built the world's largest and best-trained air force as
pilots embarked on the dangerous training of the difficult-to-fly bombers.
In one training exercise, four bombers crash and kill 24 airmen. When the
base chaplain enters the married men's barracks with the list of the dead,
the ``awful cries of anguish'' begin. A half-century later, McGovern said he
could still hear the screams of their wives.
The book finds its pace when McGovern and crew are shipped to Italy and
experience the terror of combat in the most extreme conditions.
Temperatures in the non-pressurized plane could reach 50 degrees below zero,
causing oxygen masks to freeze to faces. The plane was so cramped that
crewmen, who moved around on eight-inch-wide catwalks, often couldn't wear
their parachutes.
In an early mission, one piece of shrapnel bursts into the cockpit and comes
within inches of killing McGovern. Another time, his bomber loses two
engines and has to land on an island with a short airstrip. After they come
to a safe stop, at the base of a mountain, the crew piles out and kisses the
ground. Then they watch another stricken B-24 slam right into the rocks,
killing everyone aboard.
The goal of aviators was to complete 35 missions so they could go home. On
McGovern's last flight, the Dakota Queen -- named for McGovern's wife,
Eleanor -- was shot full of holes. Yet McGovern managed to nurse the plane
home and land it with no brakes, the flaps inoperative, one engine out of
commission and a wounded man aboard.
But the memory that haunts McGovern is a flight on which a lone bomb becomes
stuck in their plane. When it finally is dislodged, McGovern watches the
sickening sight of it landing squarely on an isolated farm.
Back at the base, McGovern learns that Eleanor has given birth to their
first child. For years he couldn't shake the haunting knowledge that he
might have just killed someone else's baby.
The happy ending is that after he told that story on Austrian television
three decades later, the farmer contacted him and let him know that no one
was injured. And in hindsight, the incident offers some context to
McGovern's opposition to the bombing campaigns in Southeast Asia. Readers
now can see that he knew firsthand about the horrors that bombing inflicted.
Insightful nuggets such as that make ``The Wild Blue'' worthwhile. Too bad
there aren't more of them.
Tempest
Tony G wrote:
>
> That is the biggest myth in American history. The airforce pulled out all
> stops bombing the shit out of North Vietnam, which was a military decision.
> However as anyone will tell you bombing is not a good strategic plan in
> general, especially when a country is being supplied from an external source
> (China, Russia). It was not the Whitehouse that fucked things up, although
> they were less than brilliant all around, it was the military, and anyhow
> the war was unwinnable. The only thing the Whitehouse was guilty of was
> listening to the military and getting us involved in the war to satisfy the
> power hungry hawks in the military.
The White House is also guilty of listening to France and believing the
lie 'Nam would crumble after a few good offensives.
> The military came up with a host of lies
> to convince MacNamara that it was statistically possible to win the war, but
> the information was deliberately fabricated and any contrary intelligence
> was quashed and ignored. Read "The Best and the Brightest" for a lengthy
> discussion of the events leading to and during the tragedy in Viet Nam.
>
> The strategy of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong was basically to
> attack and run away. Harrass us until we got tired of it. This they were
> prepared to do for 5, 10, 20 or 100 years until we went away dispondent and
> brokenhearted, which is exactly what happened.
After all, they did it to France. I guess US arrogance thought that they
would be different.
> Meanwhile the South
> Vietnamese army was no help. The idea was to train them to fight their own
> war but the leadership was too cowardly to risk a defeat, for political
> reasons, and therefore would not risk their troops in battle.
Hard to get excited about helping a country that is killing, raping and
stealing from your family, civilians and other countrymen that were
supposably allies.
> So the GIs
> were left to do all the fighting for an ally who basically couldn't give a
> crap except to exploit the situation for power and profit. The insane
> complexities involved in this pathetic and sad chapter in American history
> are almost too painful to contemplate, but it does nobody any good to
> simplify matters and paint over them saying that the war was winable "if
> only". No, it wasn't and it pays to learn that lesson, which most of America
> seemingly has. The hubris of thinking you are always right and unbeatable
> will get you in a world of shit every time.
>
> You have to read up on the war to understand what really went on over there.
> Anyway, in a sense perhaps now we are actually winning the war. All we had
> to do was wait until the Vietnamese realized that capitalism is the only way
> to make money, which is why they are now a trading partner with the US.
> Hopefully democracy will follow.
We could have won without the war a lot sooner if we would have accepted
Ho Chi Ming has a legitimate leader and made nice with him instead of
trying to have him assassinated. Same thing with Castro.
> To compare Iraq to Viet Nam is interesting but not in the sense that you
> simplify it. Iraq was basically a rag tag army of poorly supplied and
> trained misfits with poor morale operating in a no man's land of desert with
> no support from outside. They were sitting ducks for smart bombs and F-16's.
> Yes Swarzkopf conducted a masterful strategy of wiping out their armor and
> pounding them into submission before the ground forces were engaged. But the
> enemy and the terrain were vastly different. Somehow I can't picture the
> North Vietnamese running after a cameraman waving a white flag of surrender.
Sure made for good ratings though...
Tempest
Tony G wrote:
>
> The worst thing about the social conservative mindset is the wholesale
> hypocracy, and this is what this post points out. I don't think it is sick
> at all. I think that it succinctly deliniates what it is that bothers so
> many people in this country about the skewed, one sided myopia that has
> become so prevalent in our society.
>
> I personally try to make a bold distinction between social conservatives and
> economic conservatives, which few in this newsgroup or anywhere else seem to
> do. Clinton and Gore (Clinton more so) and perhaps the majority of democrats
> are economic conservatives, relatively speaking, because the lessons of the
> past have demonstrated that some degree of conservatism is justified in
> terms of fiscal policy. The difference hopefully is that the Democrats bear
> some concern for the social implications of economic conservatism, however
> mild that concern is because their constituents demand it. However, social
> conservatism (anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-environment, pro-gun,
> pro-rich) is what most liberals find to be objectionable about Republicans
> in general. There are some in both parties that cross over the line in
> either direction but most of the social conservatives from the south that
> used to be in the Democratic party have long since crossed over to the
> Republican side, which has further divided the country on issues of race,
> gender, lifestyle, ecological views and various social issues.
Tempest
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> The war was a futile and pointless exercise that left a million
> Vietnamese dead, as well as many Americans. Anyone who reads up
> on the war and studies it knows that, its not even really
> controversial once you get away from the political propaganda.
> It was a period of shame for American foreign policy.
That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is Tony's interpretation of
it.
Scott D. Erb
"Mr. Lochner" wrote:
>
> Tempest wrote:
> >
> > It cracks me up to see these idiots taking apart the joke
> > they way they are.
> > Right wingers are bad enough, but they are downright scary
> > when they can't laugh at themselves.
>
> --True story, that..
They say if you lack a sense of humor you have a lot more
nightmares than if you don't...
Scott D. Erb
Steve Hiner wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, do you have the results to show of how the Senators
> and Representatives voted on cutting the aid package to South Vietnam? Or
> is this just conjecture and theory on your part, that it was only the
> Liberals that voted against the aid package?
>
> Also, who was the President in 1975 and was he a Democrat or a Republican?
Tom comes up with bizarre assertions all the time. The idea that
ANY country could be viable and healthy and then within weeks of
having military aid cut suddenly crumble is absurd. The Vietnam
war was a horrid mistake on the part of the US, leading numerous
Americans and Vietnamese dead, all in vain.
Tempest
J D wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> > Anyone who tries to claim that the war was anything other than an
> > abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
> > effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
> > understand what happened. I have read *many* books about the
> > Vietnam war, and am only happy that it showed that in a democracy
> > the people can force the government to change from a disasterous
> > path -- it just took awhile to do it.
>
> Anyone who thinks that the Vietnam war was an abject failure of
> American foreign policy is a fool who was not only not there but
> hasn't a damn clue as to what actually went on.
So over 50,000 dead soldiers and a disgraceful exit is a success?
Steve Hiner
"Tom Abbott" <tab...@intellex.com> wrote in message
news:hdhqpt4vetrh92iph...@4ax.com...
Just out of curiosity, do you have the results to show of how the Senators
and Representatives voted on cutting the aid package to South Vietnam? Or
is this just conjecture and theory on your part, that it was only the
Liberals that voted against the aid package?
Also, who was the President in 1975 and was he a Democrat or a Republican?
SRH
Tempest
It was in 'Nam. And when Nixon started questioning the tonnage dropped,
McNamara started lying about the casualty rates from the bombings.
>
> David
>
> --
> qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Scott D. Erb
Tempest wrote:
>
> J D wrote:
> >
> > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone who tries to claim that the war was anything other than an
> > > abject failure of American foreign policy, a futile and misguided
> > > effort that was doomed from the beginning, doesn't really
> > > understand what happened. I have read *many* books about the
> > > Vietnam war, and am only happy that it showed that in a democracy
> > > the people can force the government to change from a disasterous
> > > path -- it just took awhile to do it.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks that the Vietnam war was an abject failure of
> > American foreign policy is a fool who was not only not there but
> > hasn't a damn clue as to what actually went on.
>
> So over 50,000 dead soldiers and a disgraceful exit is a success?
The guy you're responding to can't be taken seriously. I once
posted something about the tax rebate, and he flamed me and
accused me of being an idiot. I then posted a cite from CNN FN
that explained and verified that I was correct. He then said
that the article was wrong and I was an idiot. I realized at
that point that he doesn't care about the truth, just making
assertions that those whose political beliefs he disagrees with
are wrong. I stopped reading his posts. To claim that the
Vietnam war was anything but a failure is a similar absurdity.
The guy isn't being serious.
Donovan Rebbechi
The Chinese weren't defending their wives and children. I'd have second
thoughts about going overseas to kill for Dow Jones, but I'd fight
to the death for my home, and my family.
--
Donovan
Tempest
Tom Abbott wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:32:18 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tempest wrote:
> >>
> >> "Kilroy911!" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ...the military had been allowed to run the war
> >> > instead of Presidential aides in the WH. Did
> >> > any of you know that all targets in North Viet
> >> > Nam had to be approved by the Whitehouse.
> >> > We lost in VN because the politicians had to
> >> > have their hands in everything.
> >>
> >> You failed to mention that the American people were against the war.
> >
> >The war was unwinnable, and Johnson gave Westmoreland just about
> >all he asked for, wanting to win the war. The kind of rewriting
> >of history to make it seem like it could have been won "if
> >only..." is simply wrong.
>
> You are the one rewriting history. The facts are South
> Vietnam was a viable country with a viable military capable
> of defending themselves, when US troops left in 1973, and it
> wasn't until the liberal appeasers in the US Congress cut
> the military aid to South Vietnam that they were finally
> overcome by the North Vietnamese in 1975.
Not true. When the US pulled out, the South 'Nam army was in complete
disorder. Several high ranking officers had been murdered (some by the
CIA) and defections to the North were running about 1000 men a day.
Congress pulled funding BECAUSE the Southern army was in such bad shape.
> Now note carefully the critical dates: in 1973 ALL US
> forces left South Vietnam and went home. South Vietnam was
> still South Vietnam at that time. South Vietnam did not
> fall because of something the US military did, because while
> the US military was there, South Vietnam was in good shape.
>
> It was two years later, in 1975 before the aid cuts
> Congressional liberals made finally drained South Vietnam of
> the means and the will to resist and they finally fell to
> North Vietnam's last attack.
For all practical purposes the South had fallen before the last Northern
offensive. The North was sending Southern deserters back to the South to
spy on the military and civilians, and to demoralize the South. Morale
in the south was very bad and all everyone wanted was for it all to end.
> 1973: ALL American troops leave South Vietnam.
>
> 1975: South Vietnam defeated.
>
> Now, how is this the fault of the U.S. military, if South
> Vietnam isn't defeated until two years *after* the US
> military leaves the country? Answer: It is NOT the fault
> of the U.S. military. The U.S. military did its job. The
> reason South Vietnam fell is not a US military issue it is
> political: the liberal democrat appeasers in the U.S.
> Congress washed their hands of South Vietnam like Pontius
> Pilot washed his hands of Jesus Christ, and the appeasers
> threw South Vietnam to the communist wolves by cutting off
> their money. And they did so even though not one American
> life was on the line. All they had to do was spend a little
> money ($400 million) to keep South Vietnam free, not
> American lives, but they wouldn't even do that.
The Congress cut their losses, nothing more. The war could not have been
won by the Southern army alone.
Tempest
Back then the US had resolve. What resolve is there now? If it meant
missing an episode of "Survivor", "The Weakest Link" or "Sex in the
City", you might as well count out the US.
Tempest
Even if he never gets it, at least by posting it I might enlighten one
person out there...
Gandalf Grey
Wayne Mann <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:5bloptgmvgvt3gk2p...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 18:05:23 GMT, "Wester"
> <lincoln...@chimpdestroyer.net> wrote:
>
> >21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
>
>
> Idiocy like this wouldn't be so bad since it is some sick
> mind's idea although there is no truth to it, but it isn't even funny.
> It's just a sick and warped minds stupidity!
Wayne Mann commenting on his years of his LIAR rants.
Gandalf Grey
Tempest <tem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B9D5539...@hotmail.com...
> It cracks me up to see these idiots taking apart the joke they way they
> are.
> Right wingers are bad enough, but they are downright scary when they
> can't laugh at themselves.
A sense of humor is the second thing you check at the door when you join the
Right Wing in America. A sense of integrity is the first.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B9D60F9...@worldnet.att.net...
And if you REALLY lack a sense of humor you can become a nightmare by
joining the Right Wing.
Kilroy911!!!
Anyone know why? You will not believe the answer! I didn't.
We could have had Viet Nam without firing as shot!!!!
Kilroy911!!!
Kilroy911!!!
Kilroy911!!!
Tony G wrote:
> Funny, I aced all the economics classes I ever took.
>
> "MrCurious" <abl...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:IbPm7.1633$fS2.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > Never get a passing grade in an economics class in your entire opinionated
> > life.
> >
> >
> >
Scott D. Erb
"Kilroy911!!!" wrote:
>
> ....THAT PRESIDENTIAL MORON....HARRY S. TRUMAN.
>
> Anyone know why? You will not believe the answer! I didn't.
> We could have had Viet Nam without firing as shot!!!!
Ho Chi Minh wrote Truman two letters, welcoming the US policy of
anti-colonialism and asking for assistance. The US, believing it
was better to stay on the good side of France, decided to ignore
Ho's correspondence.
Scott D. Erb
Tempest wrote:
> > It was two years later, in 1975 before the aid cuts
> > Congressional liberals made finally drained South Vietnam of
> > the means and the will to resist and they finally fell to
> > North Vietnam's last attack.
>
> For all practical purposes the South had fallen before the last Northern
> offensive. The North was sending Southern deserters back to the South to
> spy on the military and civilians, and to demoralize the South. Morale
> in the south was very bad and all everyone wanted was for it all to end.
Undeniably. And anyway, his claim that within weeks after a
Congressional act to cut military funding a viable and strong
state would suddenly collapse completely only because of a vote
to cut funding is absurd on its face.
Why should we fund either side in a civil war anyway?
Scott D. Erb
"Mr. Lochner" wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> Does dreaming in differential equations qualify?
>
> --Ducking back under the covers... /&^)
Ever get those dreams where you know you're dreaming? Now THOSE
are fun!
Tempest
Especially since we could have made nice with Ho Chi Min and had access
to Vietnam's resources, and markets through diplomatic means.
Instead we destroyed their ability to develop internally and lift
themselves out of third world status.
Tempest
The one I hate is where I'm getting up to go work and spending the day
on the job. Then the alarm goes off and I really have to get up and go
to work.
Scott D. Erb
Calvin and Hobbes had a strip like that -- Calvin's mom yells,
"Calvin, time to get up," so he gets up, eats breakfast, his mom
kisses him on the head and sends him off to the school bus...then
suddenly he's back in bed, his mom is yelling, "Calvin, time to
get up," and he says, "My dreams are getting too literal."
J D
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
And you Scottie were a horrid mistake on the part of your parents!
Jack
Wayne Mann
<shi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Wayne Mann" <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:5bloptgmvgvt3gk2p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 18:05:23 GMT, "Wester"
>> <lincoln...@chimpdestroyer.net> wrote:
>>
>> >21 Rules For Being A Good Republican....
>>
>>
>> Idiocy like this wouldn't be so bad since it is some sick
>> mind's idea although there is no truth to it, but it isn't even funny.
>> It's just a sick and warped minds stupidity!
>
>
>Maybe you would like to take his First Amendment Rights away too!
>
>It was OK when it was Clinton and the Dems. in the White House when you
>rightwingnuts bashed them!. But, now that the shoe is on the other foot
>it's "sick, warped and stupid"! You rightwingnuts claim that the Liberals
>in this country have no tolerance. I don't see a whole lot of tolerance
>from you folks! "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks"!
>
>SRH
>
Stupid, ignorant people like you just have to demonstrate it
at ever opportunity don't you? The FACT is I am NOT A "rightwinger"
as you try to denigrate them, I am NOT a Conservative. YOu make up
things, and with the most corrupt administration no one had to make up
anything. People like you are just so demagogic and such an idealogue
that you think everyone that is not in agreement with you on
everything are evil and "Rightwing" what ever that is. Your ignorance
is ONLY exceeded by your stupidity!
Wayne Mann
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Rather than whine, smart Republicans should come up with a
>humorous list about "rules for being a Democrat." And people on
>both sides should learn to laugh at themselves too!
Hey Erb, why are you so stupid? There was NOTHING funny about
that sick list.
Tempest
Hey Wayne, where's your sense of humor? Even my Republican friends
thought it was funny.
BitHead
wrote:
You have friends?
-
Rule number 1: Democrats lie.
Rule number 2: See rule 1.
-
PAVE THE WEST BANK!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Hiner
are! I would have thought you would have had more respect for the Americans
that have died and were injured today! You say you are Americans, but, your
actions now have given everyone a reason to question that citizenship!
SRH
"BitHead" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b9e88b4.7922411@news...
BitHead
<shi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Are folks that "petty" to continue these arguments in the manner that you
>are! I would have thought you would have had more respect for the Americans
>that have died and were injured today! You say you are Americans, but, your
>actions now have given everyone a reason to question that citizenship!
Ever hear of gallows humor?
/E
Steve Hiner
SRH
"BitHead" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b9e9751.11663821@news...
BitHead
<shi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Ever hear of sick and despicable behavior?
>> Ever hear of gallows humor?
Lighten up, Steve.
Everyone has different ways of dealing with tragedy.
jer
effort...not the military. You tell me about one army, just one, that thinks
its a good idea to keep taking the same real eastate over and over for no
reason? You tell me about one army that wants no front? You tell me about
one army that doesn't want to "march forward" instead of around in circles?
You fool.
"David Lentz" <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote in message
news:3B9CFD7A...@signfile.net...
>
>
> Tony G wrote:
> >
> > That is the biggest myth in American history. The airforce pulled out
all
> > stops bombing the shit out of North Vietnam, which was a military
decision.
> > However as anyone will tell you bombing is not a good strategic plan in
> > general, especially when a country is being supplied from an external
source
> > (China, Russia). It was not the Whitehouse that fucked things up,
although
> > they were less than brilliant all around, it was the military, and
anyhow
> > the war was unwinnable. The only thing the Whitehouse was guilty of was
> > listening to the military and getting us involved in the war to satisfy
the
> > power hungry hawks in the military. The military came up with a host of
lies
> > to convince MacNamara that it was statistically possible to win the war,
but
> > the information was deliberately fabricated and any contrary
intelligence
> > was quashed and ignored. Read "The Best and the Brightest" for a lengthy
> > discussion of the events leading to and during the tragedy in Viet Nam.
>
> Bull.
>
> Save for twelve days of Linebacker II, there was no concerted
> air campaign to win the war. The gist of a strategic campaign is
> to destroy what the enemy can least afford to lose. The air
> campaign was never designed to eliminate North Vietnam's ability
> to wage war. Rather the campaign was only intended to persuade
> the North to quit prosecuting the war.
>
> The measure of a bombinb campaign is not measured in tonnage of
> bombs drops but rather in enemy capacity destroyed.
>
> David
>
> --
> qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Tony G
"Tempest" <tem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B9D5A7F...@hotmail.com...
> Well stated Tony...
>
> Tony G wrote:
> >
> > The worst thing about the social conservative mindset is the wholesale
> > hypocracy, and this is what this post points out. I don't think it is
sick
> > at all. I think that it succinctly deliniates what it is that bothers so
> > many people in this country about the skewed, one sided myopia that has
> > become so prevalent in our society.
> >
> > I personally try to make a bold distinction between social conservatives
and
> > economic conservatives, which few in this newsgroup or anywhere else
seem to
> > do. Clinton and Gore (Clinton more so) and perhaps the majority of
democrats
> > are economic conservatives, relatively speaking, because the lessons of
the
> > past have demonstrated that some degree of conservatism is justified in
> > terms of fiscal policy. The difference hopefully is that the Democrats
bear
> > some concern for the social implications of economic conservatism,
however
> > mild that concern is because their constituents demand it. However,
social
> > conservatism (anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-environment,
pro-gun,
> > pro-rich) is what most liberals find to be objectionable about
Republicans
> > in general. There are some in both parties that cross over the line in
> > either direction but most of the social conservatives from the south
that
> > used to be in the Democratic party have long since crossed over to the
> > Republican side, which has further divided the country on issues of
race,
> > gender, lifestyle, ecological views and various social issues.