On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:33:12 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I resent the fact
that you have stooped so low as to accuse some here of being
purposeful baby killers and asking crude questions like "How many
innocent Asians did you kill?" That's lower than whale ****.

=====

Thank you, absolutely right.

On 7/28/13 7:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:33:12 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I resent the fact
that you have stooped so low as to accuse some here of being
purposeful baby killers and asking crude questions like "How many
innocent Asians did you kill?" That's lower than whale ****.

=====

Thank you, absolutely right.


Right, because we all know that the killing of noncombatant Asians was
nothing more than collateral damage, and not worth a second thought,
right, fellas?

Now, I know that many innocents were killed during World War II, and
that's sad, too, but at least our involvement in that war was necessary
for the survival of the free world. What were we doing in Vietnam, aside
from propping up another right-wing dictatorship?

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:34:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Right, because we all know that the killing of noncombatant Asians was
nothing more than collateral damage, and not worth a second thought,
right, fellas?

===

Killing of anyone is morally wrong unless they are trying to kill you
or your fellow troops. That said, war is hell. Many innocent
civillians are killed in all wars - doesn't make it right but there is
plenty of precedent for it.

On 7/28/13 7:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:34:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Right, because we all know that the killing of noncombatant Asians was
nothing more than collateral damage, and not worth a second thought,
right, fellas?

===

Killing of anyone is morally wrong unless they are trying to kill you
or your fellow troops. That said, war is hell. Many innocent
civillians are killed in all wars - doesn't make it right but there is
plenty of precedent for it.



Indeed, plenty of noncombatant civilians were killed in World War II,
the war in which the world as we know it was at stake. The rationales
for the war against Vietnam were nothing more than political canards,
and therefore the massive number of civilian deaths was even more
horrific.

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:46:06 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/28/13 7:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:34:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Right, because we all know that the killing of noncombatant Asians was
nothing more than collateral damage, and not worth a second thought,
right, fellas?

===

Killing of anyone is morally wrong unless they are trying to kill you
or your fellow troops. That said, war is hell. Many innocent
civillians are killed in all wars - doesn't make it right but there is
plenty of precedent for it.



Indeed, plenty of noncombatant civilians were killed in World War II,
the war in which the world as we know it was at stake. The rationales
for the war against Vietnam were nothing more than political canards,
and therefore the massive number of civilian deaths was even more
horrific.

===

Who would you thank for that, JFK or LBJ?

On 7/28/13 8:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:46:06 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/28/13 7:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:34:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Right, because we all know that the killing of noncombatant Asians was
nothing more than collateral damage, and not worth a second thought,
right, fellas?

===

Killing of anyone is morally wrong unless they are trying to kill you
or your fellow troops. That said, war is hell. Many innocent
civillians are killed in all wars - doesn't make it right but there is
plenty of precedent for it.



Indeed, plenty of noncombatant civilians were killed in World War II,
the war in which the world as we know it was at stake. The rationales
for the war against Vietnam were nothing more than political canards,
and therefore the massive number of civilian deaths was even more
horrific.

===

Who would you thank for that, JFK or LBJ?


Actually, the SEATO treaty goes back to 1954, and that was the precursor
to our involvement in Vietnam. It was an outgrowth of the Truman
Doctrine. The actual U.S. participation in the war usually is traced
back to 1955, but its real start was the end of World War II, when the
French tried to reestablish its colonial rule.

Certainly Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon had dirty hands in that war.