"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
news

"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
news

"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.