Recent subjects I brought up

I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to
Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a
lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got
through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my
reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now,
allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it?
Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I
justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through
and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms.

I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through.



Shane wrote:
I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted
oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I
repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally
meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the
group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing
in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made
before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it
wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my
current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and
*it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms.

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

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.

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!

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

"Shane" wrote in message
...
I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through.



Shane wrote:
I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted
oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I
repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally
meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the
group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing
in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made
before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it
wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my
current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and
*it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms.

"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.

"Eric" wrote in message
...

"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.

Leaving the rest up for discussion, I must whole heartedly agree with this
viewpoint and include Iraq in this equation. Initially we didn't go there to
fight terrorism, nor to preserve *our* freedom, but for control of the oil
reserves. Time *to wake up*. H.


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.

"webster72n" wrote in message
...
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.

Leaving the rest up for discussion, I must whole heartedly agree with this
viewpoint and include Iraq in this equation. Initially we didn't go there
to
fight terrorism, nor to preserve *our* freedom, but for control of the
oil
reserves. Time *to wake up*. H.

Bush says we initially went there to fight terrorism, that the main if not
only reason we removed Saddam from power was because he was allowing
terrorists to train in his country and was even funding their efforts.
While this may have been our main reason for initially sending in troops,
Bush did seem to make a fool of himself by repeating that we were there
because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (which were apparently
smuggled out of the country just before we got there). I am a little
puzzled by every Bush speech that makes it sound like our entire mission in
Iraq is still fighting terrorists, even though we reportedly did kill
al-Quaeda's #2 guy among others. It seems most of our missions there have
nothing to do with any terrorists that are remotely connected with the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Our main mission it appears is
keeping the peace, which has a lot to do with religion (Sunnis fighting
Shi'ites), and surely has something to do with the flow of oil.
So I am in favor of keeping our troops there for as long as the Iraqi people
need us and as long as they are committed to taking over the peacekeeping
efforts themselves as soon as possible, and even sending more troops
temporarily, but it would be nice if a Bush speech would tell the whole
story.

Been offline for awhile. You have good points. interleave below
"Eric" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yes they did, but thankfully not to the level in the Moslem terrorist world.

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.

It is my understanding that Uncle Ho approached us for support and we were
leaning his direction, but then abandoned him to back the French. He then
went to the communists for support and thus didn't really get what he wanted
but instead a deal with the devil. Did you know that the first American
killed in Vietnam was shot because gate guards thought he was French?
And not very content from what I hear. Efforts continue to recover our MIA
and humanitarian efforts to help them. Recent guest speakers for vietnam
vets told of the corruption within the government and having to pay off a
lot of them to gain access to build schools, distribute food and goods, or
search for missing. And the most recent speaker got to know some very high
ups from that time. One of them a high ranking general and his private
statement was, "I fought for the wrong side." Life is not so great
overthere. Aside from the millions killed after we left, most are still very
poor and living off the land.

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.


Consititution? First, they are not citizens. Only rule that applies here is
the Geneva convention. That is why troops carry the Geneva convention card.
And the point of my previous meandering. Thankfully our leaders have ignored
the whims of other countries that want us dragged into some international
court. Like justice real exists around the world. Troops mainly answer to
the UCMJ.
Norman

One more point. As so many others, you just don't get it. Our rules mean
nothing to them and it is a win or lose situation. Winning we could
indoctrinate towards a better humanity over years. Losing, you face similar
to the Jews under Hitler. Or maybe a blinding flash and instant
vaporization. We are not dealing with people that think like us. It is
closer to the gold lusting Spaniards being befriended by American Indians.
Tricked and then slaughtered, and if we don't wake up to the reality of who
or what we are dealing with we might have a fate similar to the Indians.
Make it simple. You and your family are stranded on an isolated
island(pretend you are vegitarians). There is one other family of similar
strength (they are carnivores). They have weaponry used for hunting. You
have it but never used it, more civilized and never needed to hunt or
defend. While out gathering fruit near the other tribes home, you overhear a
plot to wipe you from the island in 3 days, maybe eat you. What do you do?
Norman
"Norman" wrote in message
...
Been offline for awhile. You have good points. interleave below
"Eric" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yes they did, but thankfully not to the level in the Moslem terrorist
world.

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.

It is my understanding that Uncle Ho approached us for support and we were
leaning his direction, but then abandoned him to back the French. He then
went to the communists for support and thus didn't really get what he
wanted
but instead a deal with the devil. Did you know that the first American
killed in Vietnam was shot because gate guards thought he was French?
And not very content from what I hear. Efforts continue to recover our MIA
and humanitarian efforts to help them. Recent guest speakers for vietnam
vets told of the corruption within the government and having to pay off a
lot of them to gain access to build schools, distribute food and goods, or
search for missing. And the most recent speaker got to know some very high
ups from that time. One of them a high ranking general and his private
statement was, "I fought for the wrong side." Life is not so great
overthere. Aside from the millions killed after we left, most are still
very
poor and living off the land.

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.


Consititution? First, they are not citizens. Only rule that applies here
is
the Geneva convention. That is why troops carry the Geneva convention
card.
And the point of my previous meandering. Thankfully our leaders have
ignored
the whims of other countries that want us dragged into some international
court. Like justice real exists around the world. Troops mainly answer to
the UCMJ.
Norman

"Norman" wrote in message
...
Been offline for awhile. You have good points. interleave below
"Eric" wrote in message
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.


Consititution? First, they are not citizens. Only rule that applies here
is
the Geneva convention. That is why troops carry the Geneva convention
card.
And the point of my previous meandering. Thankfully our leaders have
ignored
the whims of other countries that want us dragged into some international
court. Like justice real exists around the world. Troops mainly answer to
the UCMJ.
Norman

I understand you want to treat our citizens nice and do whatever we want to
our captives, but that's not how our current government sees it. They want
to apply the "no cruel and unusual means" clause of our constitution to our
captives as well, to avoid the hypocrisy. They don't want us to torture our
own citizens, so they don't want us to torture our enemies, in the hopes
that if our enemies capture our citizens they won't torture them either.
That most likely would not be the reality, but it might help convince other
nations to support us if indeed our enemies torture our people. Our
government and media has recently attacked our military for using such
torture methods on captured al Quaeda as water-boarding and sensory
deprivation. Next they got in trouble for handing over our prisoners to
other countries that didn't have laws against cruel torture methods.
Besides what other countries might think of us, or intend to do to our
people, we have to worry about what to do with our prisoners who are
suspected of terrorist acts and later found to be innocent.

Norman,
Very good post. Viet Vets like your self should hold your
heads high with pride. You were treated very shabbily by
the same types that you can see are still around and that
have answers for everything. I like Isreal's approach, d**k
with us and we'll put your lights out.
"Norman" wrote in message
...
I have to wonder if such off topic is an effort to kill ME,
since this is a
wME group.

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.

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!

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

"Shane" wrote in message
...
I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and
don't get through.



Shane wrote:
I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job,
an inserted
oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which
I now see I
repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I
originally
meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've
reset the
group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no
longer believing
in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to
which I've made
before. The question is: who would censor it? Because
these days it
wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I
justified my
current position on the emotive subject. If this gets
through and
*it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms.