"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..


Why does it matter? New rules? Nobody can talk about this if they
haven't served?
It has nothing to do with talking, everybody can do that with
exception to those that can't physically talk.

If somebody asks a medical questions and you respond with an
answer. Are they entitled to know if you are medical professional
and at what level?

Opinions can have weight and that weight is in direct proportion
to the the education and experience of the person giving the
opinion.

Would you let the guy taking his first auto mechanics class
rebuild your car's engine? Do you want your doctor's first surgery
to be the one he performs on you?
As expected, all stupid analogies. This discussion is about the
propriety of certain wars. You do not need military service to
discuss this issue. Be careful about disagreeing with that
statement. It's a trap.
As I stated your opinion has value if it is valued. Your opinions
have not valued because they are not valued by others.

Your president created a war, but served no time in the military.
Based on that, ANYONE is welcome to an opinion about the validity of
certain wars.
Your President loathed the military just like you.

Irrelevant.
Why? Clinton used the military without obtaining congress' approval. Do
you condemn Clinton's actions?

Back up. No detours. We're talking about Vietnam. No breaks for you here.

Wrong. You are focusing on Vietnam but, the rest of us look at the entire
world rather than just a small part.



No detours. A valid war does not justify the next one if it's invalid. No
breaks for you here.