"Norman" wrote in message
...
I have to wonder if such off topic is an effort to kill ME, since this is a
wME group.

It was actually started with the premise of keeping wME alive, hoping that
even OT posts will keep the forum alive, and keep knowledgeable ME users
around in case someone does have an actual question.

That said here goes. Populace has to have guns in the event it is
necessary
to revolt against mind control of Hitler types. Otherwise you get Sadam
and
minions overlording the populace. You can find many examples of such
around
the world like in Africa. Besides, guns won't kill wME.

Indeed. If we are to believe the movie Blood Diamond, Africa is in the
midst of a bloody revolution.
I'm guessing Saddam's people did not have guns where they convicted him of
genocide.
The Jews apparently could have used a few more guns in Hitler's day but
still, Hitler was a good guy compared to Stalin.

And something else to chew on. (Vietnam Veteran) We didn't lose that Fing
war. The war was lost by the same types that today are saying Iraq is
another Vietnam. White House tapes prove it was hampered by diplomacy
because of nuclear concerns. No one can say that the push at the end if at
other time would not have proven concerns correct. Although peace monkeys
likely brought that push about, they should weigh their actions against
the
millions of lives lost after the peace. That sums the many years of the
war,
except the end when the push occurred. (when I served). From 68 to 72,
much
control had been handed to RVN, especially in air control, albeit with old
antiquated planes and equipment. Major offensive launched by NVA, Easter
of
'72, moving massive amounts of arms and troops south of border, large
numbers of Marines and Marine air wing moved back into Vietnam to stop
their
advance. Peacenik pressure against Vietnam moved most of us to support
areas, within flying distance. With winning or losing forced to
foreground,
Linebacker I and II were exercised. We finally did what could have been
done
earlier if not for the diplomacy thing. We took it to Hanoi and forced
them
to meet in Paris. But because of traitors like John F Kerry who held
unauthorized meetings with them, they renigged, resulting in Linebacker
II.
They signed that time. It is the Kerry types that would rather have you,
us,
lose wars. Maybe it would put most diplomats out of a job.
Lose, no way, we won the peace and that is what going to war is about.
We are disgraced by the fact that the peaceniks have not had to wear the
scars of what they did, yet we are constantly forced to wear the albatross
they created. They and the Capitol monkeys of the same mind. RVN lost in
the
end because the Capitol monkeys, in a single stroke, cut all money for the
promised weapons and support to RVN. If someone takes away your guns, how
long can you last against a well armed force that is being resupplied by
Russia and China?

Vietnam should never be compared to Iraq, just for the reason that it was
about Communist dominoes and this one is about a bunch of fanatics
indoctrinated in getting to Allah quickly via nuclear, biological, and
chemical. You have to know if they were handed a bomb that would vaporize
Earth, they'd hold a party and detonate it. KEEP THAT IN MIND!

I was going to mention that Iraq should not be compared to Vietnam, but I do
have a couple of points to add.

People willing to blow themselves up is not a difference. Vietnam had
people strapping bombs to women and children to kill our troops. That is
why Kerry accused our troops of being baby killers. Sometimes they leave
you no choice. Troops shoot people in Iraq all the time when those people
appear to be suicide bombers.

The other thing those wars have in common is the US fighting to bring
democracy to them. The big difference there is Vietnam never asked for it.
We declared communism to be evil after seeing what became of it in places
like Russia (under Stalin) and decided to remove the Vietnamese government
whether they liked it or not. To this day, as far as I'm aware, the
Vietnamese are still content to live with communism.

The Vietnam War was largely considered lost, but I suppose you could
consider it a win for both sides, since we got our troops out and they are
now at peace. We didn't accomplish what we went there to do, but we
shouldn't have tried to do that to begin with.
The people of Iraq wanted revolution. They were obviously not happy with
Saddam, as confirmed recently by his execution, and could not remove him
from power peacefully. The people of Vietnam did not want revolution. If
they decide they want one, and cannot attain it by peaceful means, and do
not have the power to revolt, then super power nations like the USA should
step in. China has been communist. They are not happy with their
government which still tries to censor their media. They are shifting
toward democracy, and getting there by peaceful means. War should always be
a last resort.

Last thought, and something for the Brits to chew over, Geneva Convention.
That Armed Forces Geneva Convention Card troops carry is a bunch of
baloney
created post the big one. If it had been in place during WWII, England
would
have lost, US likely would have lost. At the top and bottom of that Geneva
document it should have in very large letters, "YOU BREAK THESE RULES, SO
DO
WE, WITH PAYBACK!" You don't win wars by tying hands behind back.

Norman

Which rule(s) should we break?
The big one in the news is torture. We should not be able to torture our
captives by "cruel and unusual" means as our constitution prohibits. We
cannot "win" this war by sinking to their level. It may sound like a good
idea to be hypocritical and torture those we labeled terrorists in ways that
we would never use on our own people, to obtain information on their plans
or their leaders, but hypocrisy in a war on terror is always a bad idea.
When others hear about that, it simply breeds more terror. They are
following an idea, not a leader. If we could capture Bin Laden, they could
simply declare a new leader.