"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how did
you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!

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

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
m...

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to
die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how did
you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???


Not as deep as yours!


Really? You're the one who fell for the b.s. of a marine recruiter.

No, my contract was explicit. When on the forth anniversery of my enlistment
I told my section NCOIC that is was nice knowing him and that I was class 3
now he was shocked. He said that all reserve contracts are for six years
active reserve. But, mine specifically said 4 years active reserve and two
years inactive reserve. After he looked at my SRB and confirmed it he shook
my hand and said good luck.

I was my recuriter's first contract. It only took a single phone call to get
me to enlist. I was tired of the Agriculture's BS in promotions. GS-9's were
getting more money than I was and I was doing four times their work as a
GS-3.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:41:59 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:

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

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
m...

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how did
you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???


Not as deep as yours!


Really? You're the one who fell for the b.s. of a marine recruiter.

Harry, your constant bitterness towards the military seems indicative of some
traumatic event between you and the military. Why don't you tell us the whole
story? Did you *try* to get in, and they wouldn't let you, or what?

Your antagonism seems to go beyond the norm, even for extreme liberals.

--
John H

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how did
you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!



So, you are pretending to forget about the "secret" bombing of Cambodia, and
(SEPARATE ISSUE) the bombing of Hanoi which Air Force generals told Nixon
was not effective in any way after a certain point.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to
die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how did
you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!



So, you are pretending to forget about the "secret" bombing of Cambodia,
and (SEPARATE ISSUE) the bombing of Hanoi which Air Force generals told
Nixon was not effective in any way after a certain point.

Grow up and read some history. Hopefully, you will read more than the
history of the last 40 years.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to
die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how
did you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!



So, you are pretending to forget about the "secret" bombing of Cambodia,
and (SEPARATE ISSUE) the bombing of Hanoi which Air Force generals told
Nixon was not effective in any way after a certain point.

Grow up and read some history. Hopefully, you will read more than the
history of the last 40 years.



Let's put it this way: Legislators on both sides of the aisle were extremely
concerned about Nixon's behavior in Cambodia. And, don't spew any nonsense
about how the bombing, if continued, would've prevented the later genocide.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to
die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how
did
you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!



So, you are pretending to forget about the "secret" bombing of
Cambodia,
and (SEPARATE ISSUE) the bombing of Hanoi which Air Force generals told
Nixon was not effective in any way after a certain point.

Grow up and read some history. Hopefully, you will read more than the
history of the last 40 years.

Liebral logic at play once again...LMAO

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to
die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how
did you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!



So, you are pretending to forget about the "secret" bombing of Cambodia,
and (SEPARATE ISSUE) the bombing of Hanoi which Air Force generals told
Nixon was not effective in any way after a certain point.

Grow up and read some history. Hopefully, you will read more than the
history of the last 40 years.



Let's put it this way: Legislators on both sides of the aisle were
extremely concerned about Nixon's behavior in Cambodia. And, don't spew
any nonsense about how the bombing, if continued, would've prevented the
later genocide.

Why is it nonsense. My father told me that Tet '68 was hell but that we
were beating the little ****ers now that they had come out into the open.
And, that if we had been allowed to chase them down and kill them the war
would have been over in a year or two. Instead the people of this country
were swayed by the almighty media and we went back into garrison and started
fighting a defensive war.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to
die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how
did you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!



So, you are pretending to forget about the "secret" bombing of
Cambodia, and (SEPARATE ISSUE) the bombing of Hanoi which Air Force
generals told Nixon was not effective in any way after a certain point.

Grow up and read some history. Hopefully, you will read more than the
history of the last 40 years.



Let's put it this way: Legislators on both sides of the aisle were
extremely concerned about Nixon's behavior in Cambodia. And, don't spew
any nonsense about how the bombing, if continued, would've prevented the
later genocide.

Why is it nonsense. My father told me that Tet '68 was hell but that we
were beating the little ****ers now that they had come out into the open.
And, that if we had been allowed to chase them down and kill them the war
would have been over in a year or two. Instead the people of this country
were swayed by the almighty media and we went back into garrison and
started fighting a defensive war.


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+ years
before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have surrendered.
And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda nuked 'em".

While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the Vietnamese
threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us why you believe
the domino theory was valid.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:23:50 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:


I guess to some $30,000 seems a sim. But it kinda makes you wonder
about
the connection between Bush's open door illegal worker policy and
a
military drawn from mostly lower socio-economic classes. Keep the
pressure on them, offer them a few bucks, and send them off to
die...no
decent jobs around here anyway, eh?

Harry, in your review of articles to cut'n'paste this morning, how
did you miss
this:


He missed this one too

ROFL!!! How deep was your head up your ass between 1970 and 1975???

Not as deep as yours!



So, you are pretending to forget about the "secret" bombing of
Cambodia, and (SEPARATE ISSUE) the bombing of Hanoi which Air Force
generals told Nixon was not effective in any way after a certain
point.

Grow up and read some history. Hopefully, you will read more than the
history of the last 40 years.



Let's put it this way: Legislators on both sides of the aisle were
extremely concerned about Nixon's behavior in Cambodia. And, don't spew
any nonsense about how the bombing, if continued, would've prevented the
later genocide.

Why is it nonsense. My father told me that Tet '68 was hell but that we
were beating the little ****ers now that they had come out into the open.
And, that if we had been allowed to chase them down and kill them the war
would have been over in a year or two. Instead the people of this country
were swayed by the almighty media and we went back into garrison and
started fighting a defensive war.


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda nuked
'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the Vietnamese
threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us why you believe
the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to throw
out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet benefactors.
We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their asses handed to
them in Vietnam.

The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever we
could. Communism was and is a plague on this earth and we needed to defeat
the Soviets to thwart their expansionism all over the world. Even the
ChiCom's know that Communism is a failure but, it is the only way that the
communist aristocracy can keep control of the flow of money and ideas. The
capitalism iin China is booming but, it has the ever present eye of the
state making sure that it doesn't prosper too much without thier taking
credit. The ChiCom's will one day be overthrown and then China will be the
biggest kid on the block.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that, Harry.

In the end, Iraq is going to turn out badly for us, and not just because
thousands of Americans will have died needlessly over there, and
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will have died.

Not fair to blame Bush for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam.
I'm sure that's where your number came from.

It'll turn out badly for us because Iraq is going to become exactly what
the Muslims who live there want it to be, and that is NOT a
western-style democracy.

Does "the Muslims who live there" include those who voted?

And we'll be paying the price for Bush's stupidity and arrogance for
decades.

Yes. We should have elected Kerry!


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda nuked
'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.



While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the Vietnamese
threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us why you
believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit to
being aligned with the NV.


The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold 3
presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

Communism was and is a plague on this earth and we needed to defeat the
Soviets to thwart their expansionism all over the world. Even the ChiCom's
know that Communism is a failure but, it is the only way that the
communist aristocracy can keep control of the flow of money and ideas.

Communism is a red herring. If it's not communism, it's Islamic
fundamentalists. It's always something, and the "something" usually means
"not like us". By the way, have you noticed that since we left, communism
has NOT spread to Indonesia, the Phillippines or Australia? Take Australia
off the list because applying the domino theory to that country was just
plain silly. What about the other two?

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.


"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."

You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the military
do their job.

Now, go back to bed.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

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


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda
nuked 'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.

Who was contemplating dropping a nuke on Vietnam?

While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the
Vietnamese threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us
why you believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit to
being aligned with the NV.

Because they had accomplished their objective getting the US to turn tail
and leave Vietnam. They did this by good use of the media. They sure as hell
couldn't win on an unrestrained battle field.

The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold 3
presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have
thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU
PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say
that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.


"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."

You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the
military
do their job.

Now, go back to bed.

So, when officers sit in classes, they are never asked (by teachers) "Look
at this battle situation. What would you do if this or that happened?" ?

Is that what you're saying, John? That never happens? Rarely happens?
Choose.

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

Communism was and is a plague on this earth and we needed to defeat the
Soviets to thwart their expansionism all over the world. Even the
ChiCom's know that Communism is a failure but, it is the only way that
the communist aristocracy can keep control of the flow of money and
ideas.

Communism is a red herring. If it's not communism, it's Islamic
fundamentalists. It's always something, and the "something" usually means
"not like us". By the way, have you noticed that since we left, communism
has NOT spread to Indonesia, the Phillippines or Australia? Take Australia
off the list because applying the domino theory to that country was just
plain silly. What about the other two?

Doug, you need to expand your horizons and look at the issues from both
sides. The communists didn't like us because we weren't like them. The
Muslims don't like us because we aren't like them.

Communism has not been able to sustain itself due to its inability to
satisfy mans inherent greed. Without reward for ones work one settles into
just doing enough to get by. That is the legacy of communism, turning
productive members of society into sloths.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:17:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have
thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU
PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say
that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.


"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."

You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the
military
do their job.

Now, go back to bed.

So, when officers sit in classes, they are never asked (by teachers) "Look
at this battle situation. What would you do if this or that happened?" ?

Is that what you're saying, John? That never happens? Rarely happens?
Choose.


Some 'what ifs' are appropriate. Some are inane.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

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


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda
nuked 'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.

Who was contemplating dropping a nuke on Vietnam?

Don't you read? Nixon contemplated it repeatedly. Kissinger and other
advisors kept him caged. I'd provide the names of some books for you, but
I'm 100% sure you'd concoct some reason for not reading them.



While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the
Vietnamese threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us
why you believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit
to being aligned with the NV.

Because they had accomplished their objective getting the US to turn tail
and leave Vietnam. They did this by good use of the media. They sure as
hell couldn't win on an unrestrained battle field.

Your time line is mangled. 2-3 years before we left, the Soviets (first) and
the Chinese (second) were already telling our government that it was no
longer in their best interests to continue backing the NV. Remember that at
this time, China was still dangled by the Russians, so they often did what
they were told.

Don't read much, eh? You mentioned history in an earlier message. What are
some of your sources for the history of that period? They are incomplete.




The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold
3 presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

Give me a break. First of all, our presence in Vietnam had nothing to do
with those places in a strategic sense. And second, all the places you
mentioned are culturally different from one another, and from Vietnam
(obviously). If you don't think the local culture has any effect on the
likelihood of a new political system being established, this conversation is
over.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

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

Communism was and is a plague on this earth and we needed to defeat the
Soviets to thwart their expansionism all over the world. Even the
ChiCom's know that Communism is a failure but, it is the only way that
the communist aristocracy can keep control of the flow of money and
ideas.

Communism is a red herring. If it's not communism, it's Islamic
fundamentalists. It's always something, and the "something" usually means
"not like us". By the way, have you noticed that since we left, communism
has NOT spread to Indonesia, the Phillippines or Australia? Take
Australia off the list because applying the domino theory to that country
was just plain silly. What about the other two?

Doug, you need to expand your horizons and look at the issues from both
sides. The communists didn't like us because we weren't like them. The
Muslims don't like us because we aren't like them.

Communism has not been able to sustain itself due to its inability to
satisfy mans inherent greed. Without reward for ones work one settles into
just doing enough to get by. That is the legacy of communism, turning
productive members of society into sloths.


Your last paragraph is absolutely correct. Do you see why you have kicked
the foundation out from under the reason for our presence in Vietnam?

And, tell me this: Some people believe that one way to collapse the last
remnants of communism in China is to crank up the trade. What do you think
about that?

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:17:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have
thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU
PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say
that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.


"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."

You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the
military
do their job.

Now, go back to bed.

So, when officers sit in classes, they are never asked (by teachers) "Look
at this battle situation. What would you do if this or that happened?" ?

Is that what you're saying, John? That never happens? Rarely happens?
Choose.


Some 'what ifs' are appropriate. Some are inane.

They're only inane if the question, and the possible answers exceed your
ability to ponder them. Kissinger was repeatedly told by NV diplomats that
no matter WHAT we did, they would not surrender. You would have the exact
same attitude if this country were invaded, so it baffles me why you can't
accept the same attitude from another country.

With this in mind, it is most certainly NOT inane to suggest that you might
put yourself in the position of a president, and decide when enough is
enough.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

And, an argument can be made that communist expansionism was just another
form of colonialism. Communism can't exist within the confines of a single
country. Unless you control all of the economy communism "can't fully be
realized."

There is another belief system that is working its way throught the world
and its goal is that it is not fully realized until the whole world is
subjugated and believes. This is the fight we in now.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

Yeah. Conquistadors like Armand Hammer, among others.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard
of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

Yeah. Conquistadors like Armand Hammer, among others.

Hammer was a guilty entrepuenurer.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 10:29:08 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:17:13 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard
of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

An argument can be made that the root cause of all of the above
conflicts
was colonialism, not communism.

Those damn Conquistadors again!

Yeah. Conquistadors like Armand Hammer, among others.

Hammer was a guilty entrepuenurer.



A guilty WHAT?

Doesn't matter. Colonialism doesn't exist because of government officials.
There's always someone behind them, pushing.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jeff Rigby wrote:
The person who wrote this article is either an idiot who can't read or a
lier who has no regard for the truth.


You mean like a "lier" who would say 'my social security plan should stand
on it's own merits' while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars under
the table to wage a publicity campaign to drum up public support for his
social security plan? A person who would say 'we *will* get Osama Bin
Laden, the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack in history' and
then pull thousands of troops away from the hunt for Bin Laden so as to
stage an invasion of another country that had zero involvement in anti-US
terrorism? You mean like a person that would tout his plan to preserve the
environment while dismantling the EPA?

I could go on, but I bet you've got the idea.

DSK

My statement is an objective questioning of facts used in an argument. The
facts as stated in his argument were WRONG, in fact SO WRONG as to make him
appear to be an idiot or a lier

Your statement while I disagree with it and find it somewhat biased is not
wrong. It quotes no facts in error.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/...iew/1213/1/99/


Dying in Iraq is not a career choice

By Bud Deraps

6-01-05,9:44am

Completely unknown to these young people, and never discussed by
recruiters, is the fact that of the 580,000 U.S. troops who served in the
six-week 1991 Gulf War, 11,000 are now dead, and by the year 2000,
325,000 were on permanent medical disability from the depleted uranium
weaponry and the many other toxic and horrifying conditions they were
exposed to.


Wrong, according to The New England Medical journal in a study, the
veterans were healthier than the US general population of the same age
with a LOWER mortality rate than expected.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/335/20/1498


The person who wrote this article is either an idiot who can't read or a
lier who has no regard for the truth.



I made no claim that George W. Bush wrote the article, even though he is
"an idiot who can't read or a 'lier' who has no regard for the truth.


That's statement is just stupid Harry.