"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.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JIMinFL" wrote in message
t...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JIMinFL" wrote in message
.net...
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ers040908.html

I have a question for you. Is it possible that today, you might know
something I don't, and that a year from now, I might also know the
same thing?

Yes

Great! The suits who invented the domino theory knew by the late 1960s
that it was nonsense, and that's what the entire war was based on. All
presidents are the target of various so-called scholars and shmexperts.
Many of us figured out early on that the North Vietnamese were not
going to burn their way through the south and invade Australia next. Do
you remember this nonsense?
You are intellectually dishonest.

It appears you ran out of steam without being able to explain that
statement.

I mad the assumption that you are an educated man and you would
understand. However, you have proved to be just an arrogant and
argumentative prick again!



You still haven't explained what you mean. My qualities bear no relationship
to your inability to explain yourself. I've stated facts which history has
proven out. If you dispute them, back up your statements.

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.

"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.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JIMinFL" wrote in message
t...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JIMinFL" wrote in message
.net...
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ers040908.html

I have a question for you. Is it possible that today, you might know
something I don't, and that a year from now, I might also know the
same thing?

Yes

Great! The suits who invented the domino theory knew by the late 1960s
that it was nonsense, and that's what the entire war was based on. All
presidents are the target of various so-called scholars and shmexperts.
Many of us figured out early on that the North Vietnamese were not
going to burn their way through the south and invade Australia next. Do
you remember this nonsense?
You are intellectually dishonest.
It appears you ran out of steam without being able to explain that
statement.
I mad the assumption that you are an educated man and you would
understand. However, you have proved to be just an arrogant and
argumentative prick again!



You still haven't explained what you mean. My qualities bear no relationship
to your inability to explain yourself. I've stated facts which history has
proven out. If you dispute them, back up your statements.

I don't have to explain what I mean, it is clear to those that do not
have clouded vision like you do.

History is not on your side. From the time Stalin consolidated his power
within the USSR the USSR was actively promoting communism all around the
world. Finally it took a man, one man, to stand up call the communists
what they actually were which put an end to spread of communism.

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?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

Great! The suits who invented the domino theory knew by the late 1960s
that it was nonsense, and that's what the entire war was based on. All
presidents are the target of various so-called scholars and shmexperts.
Many of us figured out early on that the North Vietnamese were not going
to burn their way through the south and invade Australia next. Do you
remember this nonsense?



Doug, you are chanting a typical shallow and simplistic post mortem of a
very complex set of circumstances, alliances, and political commitments that
took place over many years, mired also in corruption. In the end it came
down to justifying the continuance of policies that weren't working or were
no longer purposeful.
If you simply believe it was all based on the "domino" theory, then it was
you that was duped.

RCE

"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.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JIMinFL" wrote in message
t...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JIMinFL" wrote in message
.net...
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ers040908.html

I have a question for you. Is it possible that today, you might
know something I don't, and that a year from now, I might also know
the same thing?

Yes

Great! The suits who invented the domino theory knew by the late
1960s that it was nonsense, and that's what the entire war was based
on. All presidents are the target of various so-called scholars and
shmexperts. Many of us figured out early on that the North Vietnamese
were not going to burn their way through the south and invade
Australia next. Do you remember this nonsense?
You are intellectually dishonest.
It appears you ran out of steam without being able to explain that
statement.
I mad the assumption that you are an educated man and you would
understand. However, you have proved to be just an arrogant and
argumentative prick again!



You still haven't explained what you mean. My qualities bear no
relationship to your inability to explain yourself. I've stated facts
which history has proven out. If you dispute them, back up your
statements.

I don't have to explain what I mean, it is clear to those that do not have
clouded vision like you do.

History is not on your side. From the time Stalin consolidated his power
within the USSR the USSR was actively promoting communism all around the
world. Finally it took a man, one man, to stand up call the communists
what they actually were which put an end to spread of communism.



And who was that one man?

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

Great! The suits who invented the domino theory knew by the late 1960s
that it was nonsense, and that's what the entire war was based on. All
presidents are the target of various so-called scholars and shmexperts.
Many of us figured out early on that the North Vietnamese were not
going to burn their way through the south and invade Australia next. Do
you remember this nonsense?



Doug, you are chanting a typical shallow and simplistic post mortem of a
very complex set of circumstances, alliances, and political commitments
that took place over many years, mired also in corruption. In the end it
came down to justifying the continuance of policies that weren't working
or were no longer purposeful.
If you simply believe it was all based on the "domino" theory, then it was
you that was duped.

RCE


Like the other two personal wars, it was based on weak presidents who
succumbed to bad advice, thus demonstrating their complete inability to
manage and think for themselves.