Discussion:
Why does Johnny come marching homeless?
(too old to reply)
Tim May
2008-01-21 02:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Not meant to criticize the soldiers. I know quite a few and they are
fine people. My comments referred to how the power brokers in
Washington view them. It was a quote from one of them. If anyone in
DC gave a crap they would not use them foolishly and they would attend
to the injuries they receive. But hey, that's money better used in
the trough, they think.
Fact is, a lot of those who go into the military are "homeless in
waiting." They were clueless and homeless in waiting when they
enlisted.

They lack the skills to get into college, they will never become
doctors or engineers or business tycoons.

Now they get home and find that their cluelessness has not lessened,
that they are even less likely to find work at Wendy's and Tim Horton's
and other fast food places than they were before they went.

"Duh."

It was this way 35-40 years ago, during Vietnam, and we saw the
"Homeless Vet--Please Help" beggar signs for a decade after the end of
the war.

By 1985, of course, most of these "Nam Vets" had been flushed out of
our consciousness, either dead of ODs, or dead of exposure, or dead in
killings amongst their kind, or just plain vanished back into the
homeless shelters and neverending "recovery" scams.

The Iraq vets will be cut far less slack. A lot of us are actively
hostile toward them and will cheer when then sink beneath the waves.

Thesse were dirt peoplw who signed on to kill people who had never done
a damned thing against the U.S. or its people.

They deserve their poverty and, judging by Nam, likely death within a
decade.

--Tim May
Geoff Miller
2008-01-22 03:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Fact is, a lot of those who go into the military are "homeless
in waiting." They were clueless and homeless in waiting when
they enlisted.
And you'd know this how, exactly?

You speak with the conviction that's born of experience and
first-hand observation. So tell us: when and where did you
serve, Timbo?

Didn't think so.



Geoff

--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of heir parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
Myal
2008-01-22 15:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Miller
Post by Tim May
Fact is, a lot of those who go into the military are "homeless
in waiting." They were clueless and homeless in waiting when
they enlisted.
And you'd know this how, exactly?
You speak with the conviction that's born of experience and
first-hand observation. So tell us: when and where did you
serve, Timbo?
Didn't think so.
Geoff
--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of heir parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
Tim probably never felt the need o serve

it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-22 15:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Myal
Post by Geoff Miller
Post by Tim May
Fact is, a lot of those who go into the military are "homeless
in waiting." They were clueless and homeless in waiting when
they enlisted.
And you'd know this how, exactly?
You speak with the conviction that's born of experience and
first-hand observation. So tell us: when and where did you
serve, Timbo?
Didn't think so.
Geoff
--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of heir parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.

Lg
Tim May
2008-01-22 16:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.

Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.

The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.


--Tim May
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-22 17:02:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:12:22 -0800, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
--Tim May
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.

He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.

It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls. Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.

VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.

Lg
Gunner Asch
2008-01-19 03:54:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:02:02 -0600, Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:12:22 -0800, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
--Tim May
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls. Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
Lg
Yet by the time I went in, the draft was over and a bunch of us went
voluntarily.

ALL war is a meat grinder, for one or both sides. Always has been,
always will be.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-22 17:41:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:24:49 +0530, Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:02:02 -0600, Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:12:22 -0800, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
--Tim May
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls. Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
Lg
Yet by the time I went in, the draft was over and a bunch of us went
voluntarily.
ALL war is a meat grinder, for one or both sides. Always has been,
always will be.
Gunner
Right, but who is on the shit end of the stick in Iraq and Ag? Not
the US troops if you want to go by body counts.

Look at the losses of US Military Personnel during Viet Nam years, and
compare to losses of US MP _now_. Of course, the Iraqis and AG tangos
are getting the shit kicked out of them THIS TIME. Because of all the
sophisticated weaponry the US has now that didn't exist back when Nam
was on the burner.

Lg
Gunner Asch
2008-01-19 08:45:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:41:48 -0600, Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:24:49 +0530, Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:02:02 -0600, Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:12:22 -0800, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
--Tim May
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls. Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
Lg
Yet by the time I went in, the draft was over and a bunch of us went
voluntarily.
ALL war is a meat grinder, for one or both sides. Always has been,
always will be.
Gunner
Right, but who is on the shit end of the stick in Iraq and Ag? Not
the US troops if you want to go by body counts.
Look at the losses of US Military Personnel during Viet Nam years, and
compare to losses of US MP _now_. Of course, the Iraqis and AG tangos
are getting the shit kicked out of them THIS TIME. Because of all the
sophisticated weaponry the US has now that didn't exist back when Nam
was on the burner.
Lg
Indeed. I recall the thread where it was proven beyond any shadow of a
doubt it was safer for an American kid to go to Iraq or Afghanistan
than to stay a normal civilian in the US.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-22 18:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:12:22 -0800, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
--Tim May
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't.
Yes, even during Vietnam volunteers were welcome.
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls. Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
Yup, just as Iraq is today.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-22 18:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:12:22 -0800, Tim May
...
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Tim May
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
--Tim May
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls. Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
I turned 18 in 1969, registered at the Selective Service office in my
county, was not draftable that year (still in high school), received a
lottery number (181), and was classified 1A in 1971, my first year of
age-mandated potential drafting (as I recall, 20-year-olds were those
drafted, at least at that time and under that policy).

They got as high as around 125 in the draft that year, so I was not
drafted.

When 1972 arrived, and I had not been drafted, I was essentially
home-free. (The draft would have had to go to 365 in 1972, then go back
to the 1971 numbers and pick up from 125 and reach my number. That
obviously didn't happen. In fact, I recall that in 1972 the number
reached was even lower than 125, as the military was winding down in
Nam; the draft was suspended in around 1973, as I recall.)

My father was a U.S. Navy officer and he STRONGLY advised AGAINST
anyone in our family going into the Army, Marines, Navy, or Air Force.
He had seen what the bloat and "full time standing army" (which the
Founders were worried about, rightly so) was doing to the U.S. He
agreed with Ike's parting warning about the dangers of the
military-industrial complex.

(While some of us like to tweak you and others about "the Zionists,"
the problem is mainly one of the full-time war machine. In the past
generation the military-industrial complex has done the bidding of the
NeoCon Zionistas in office and in the think tanks and policy advisor
councils. The "Israel first, Israel ahead of U.S. interests" complex is
very culpable for the whole mess in the Mideast. The Straussian milieu
of Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger, Edward, Luttwak, Dov Zakheim, Douglas
Feith, and others lobbied for the Zionists, in some cases spied for the
Zionists, and constantly pushed for war against Israel's putative
enemies. Many of them are traitors in the strongest sense.)

Back in my high school days, none of the best and the brightest [SIC]
went directly into the military. A few (even friends of mine) became
officers after college (after Viet Nam was over with, perhaps not
coincidentally). One friend even became a Captain in the Navy, in the
JAG Corps (lawyers, what the t.v. show of a while back was based on).

These are not the "walking wounded," the "Spare some change for a vet?"
bums we saw in the 1970s, the drug-addled drifters and "thousand yard
stare" beggars who sat in front of Wal-Mart with their begging cups so
they could buy some dope or some booze and fall asleep in the bushes.

The only excuse, now, long after the draft has effectively ended (it's
still on the books, and 18-year-old males are still supposed to
register) for anyone to become a grunt in the Army is that they
volunteered. Or were called up as part of the National Guard, which
many of them had joined simply as a way to supplement their low
salaries out in Podunk, Oklahoma or Liceville, Ohio. These "weekend
warriors" never expected to actually serve in combat--when was the last
time Oklahoma or Ohio got invaded by a foreign army?--and so it came as
quite the surprise when they found their arms and legs being blown off
by Iraqis attempting to expel the foreign soldiers on their land.

(The Iraqi version of "Red Dawn.")

And when a lot of them get home, they find their wives have moved on,
technology has moved on, their employers may have downsized or moved to
another state, or that they can no longer do a normal 9-5 job.

And those who directly volunteered for the Army were often marginally
qualified to do anything _but_ be a Private (helping to fight Israel's
enemies).

And so here we are. Vets are coming up with missing limbs, in record
numbers. The VA hospitals are filling up. Sad. (Sad because modern
medical technology is saving more of them from dying, but not from
losing their face to an IED, or their hands, or both legs and both
arms....in some ways it was better in the old days. The "Born on the
Fourth of July" (Tom Cruise movie) done for the Iraq war will feature a
torso strapped to a chair, moving it by blowing through a pipe. That's
the legacy of our misguided "foreign wars."

Which, like Ike's warning in 1960, was part of the farewell warning of
another President.

Iraq was not part of the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not part of the Cole
attacks, or the bombings in Kenya, or the attack on the U.S. barracks
in Lebanon. In fact, Saddam Hussein was treated as an enemy of Al Qaeda
(a construct of CIA Covert Ops, when they were trained to fight the
Russians in Afghanistan....this is not some conspiracy theory, this is
black letter reality, not even disputed).

A slightly better case can be made for taking out the Taliban, though
their apparent crime was in "giving safe haven to" Bin Laden. Fine,
assassinate their leaders.

But, instead, we occupy Afghanistan today, 6 years after the invasion.
And we are losing more soldiers, and more body parts of soldiers, every
month. And the Taliban is resurging. (They _also_ have their version,
in Farsi, of "Red Dawn").

And in Iraq, a country which never attacked us and which we didn't even
the balls to declare war on (that little part of the Constitution which
says that Congress shall have the power to declare war, such as was
done on December 8th, 1941, and not since, not in Korea, not in
Vietnam, not in Iraq....), is now occupied by hundreds of thousands of
U.S. soldiers. And hated by the Iraqis, not surprisingly.

And their underground, their Resistance, their partisans, their
"Freedom Fighters," are doing to the U.S. what we so proudly urged the
undergrouns, the Resistance, the partisans, the Freedom Fighters in so
many countries which found themselves occupied by foreign powers.

Oh, the irony.

Which is why I laugh when I see the merriment being inflicted on the
foreign invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan (and coming soon, in Pakistan,
Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Boratastan, and all of the other "evil
doers").

So fucking hilarious.


--Tim May
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-22 19:15:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:21:32 -0800, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:12:22 -0800, Tim May
...
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Tim May
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
--Tim May
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls. Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
I turned 18 in 1969, registered at the Selective Service office in my
county, was not draftable that year (still in high school), received a
lottery number (181), and was classified 1A in 1971, my first year of
age-mandated potential drafting (as I recall, 20-year-olds were those
drafted, at least at that time and under that policy).
They got as high as around 125 in the draft that year, so I was not
drafted.
When 1972 arrived, and I had not been drafted, I was essentially
home-free. (The draft would have had to go to 365 in 1972, then go back
to the 1971 numbers and pick up from 125 and reach my number. That
obviously didn't happen. In fact, I recall that in 1972 the number
reached was even lower than 125, as the military was winding down in
Nam; the draft was suspended in around 1973, as I recall.)
My father was a U.S. Navy officer and he STRONGLY advised AGAINST
anyone in our family going into the Army, Marines, Navy, or Air Force.
He had seen what the bloat and "full time standing army" (which the
Founders were worried about, rightly so) was doing to the U.S. He
agreed with Ike's parting warning about the dangers of the
military-industrial complex.
(While some of us like to tweak you and others about "the Zionists,"
the problem is mainly one of the full-time war machine. In the past
generation the military-industrial complex has done the bidding of the
NeoCon Zionistas in office and in the think tanks and policy advisor
councils. The "Israel first, Israel ahead of U.S. interests" complex is
very culpable for the whole mess in the Mideast. The Straussian milieu
of Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger, Edward, Luttwak, Dov Zakheim, Douglas
Feith, and others lobbied for the Zionists, in some cases spied for the
Zionists, and constantly pushed for war against Israel's putative
enemies. Many of them are traitors in the strongest sense.)
Back in my high school days, none of the best and the brightest [SIC]
went directly into the military. A few (even friends of mine) became
officers after college (after Viet Nam was over with, perhaps not
coincidentally). One friend even became a Captain in the Navy, in the
JAG Corps (lawyers, what the t.v. show of a while back was based on).
These are not the "walking wounded," the "Spare some change for a vet?"
bums we saw in the 1970s, the drug-addled drifters and "thousand yard
stare" beggars who sat in front of Wal-Mart with their begging cups so
they could buy some dope or some booze and fall asleep in the bushes.
The only excuse, now, long after the draft has effectively ended (it's
still on the books, and 18-year-old males are still supposed to
register) for anyone to become a grunt in the Army is that they
volunteered. Or were called up as part of the National Guard, which
many of them had joined simply as a way to supplement their low
salaries out in Podunk, Oklahoma or Liceville, Ohio. These "weekend
warriors" never expected to actually serve in combat--when was the last
time Oklahoma or Ohio got invaded by a foreign army?--and so it came as
quite the surprise when they found their arms and legs being blown off
by Iraqis attempting to expel the foreign soldiers on their land.
(The Iraqi version of "Red Dawn.")
And when a lot of them get home, they find their wives have moved on,
technology has moved on, their employers may have downsized or moved to
another state, or that they can no longer do a normal 9-5 job.
And those who directly volunteered for the Army were often marginally
qualified to do anything _but_ be a Private (helping to fight Israel's
enemies).
And so here we are. Vets are coming up with missing limbs, in record
numbers. The VA hospitals are filling up. Sad. (Sad because modern
medical technology is saving more of them from dying, but not from
losing their face to an IED, or their hands, or both legs and both
arms....in some ways it was better in the old days. The "Born on the
Fourth of July" (Tom Cruise movie) done for the Iraq war will feature a
torso strapped to a chair, moving it by blowing through a pipe. That's
the legacy of our misguided "foreign wars."
Which, like Ike's warning in 1960, was part of the farewell warning of
another President.
Iraq was not part of the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not part of the Cole
attacks, or the bombings in Kenya, or the attack on the U.S. barracks
in Lebanon. In fact, Saddam Hussein was treated as an enemy of Al Qaeda
(a construct of CIA Covert Ops, when they were trained to fight the
Russians in Afghanistan....this is not some conspiracy theory, this is
black letter reality, not even disputed).
A slightly better case can be made for taking out the Taliban, though
their apparent crime was in "giving safe haven to" Bin Laden. Fine,
assassinate their leaders.
But, instead, we occupy Afghanistan today, 6 years after the invasion.
And we are losing more soldiers, and more body parts of soldiers, every
month. And the Taliban is resurging. (They _also_ have their version,
in Farsi, of "Red Dawn").
And in Iraq, a country which never attacked us and which we didn't even
the balls to declare war on (that little part of the Constitution which
says that Congress shall have the power to declare war, such as was
done on December 8th, 1941, and not since, not in Korea, not in
Vietnam, not in Iraq....), is now occupied by hundreds of thousands of
U.S. soldiers. And hated by the Iraqis, not surprisingly.
And their underground, their Resistance, their partisans, their
"Freedom Fighters," are doing to the U.S. what we so proudly urged the
undergrouns, the Resistance, the partisans, the Freedom Fighters in so
many countries which found themselves occupied by foreign powers.
Oh, the irony.
Which is why I laugh when I see the merriment being inflicted on the
foreign invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan (and coming soon, in Pakistan,
Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Boratastan, and all of the other "evil
doers").
So fucking hilarious.
--Tim May
No, it is Tragic. I can find no fault in anything you've written
above, except this abortion of a war, brought to you by GWB, is a
stain on America that will never go away.

Horrific.

Lg
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-22 20:23:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:21:32 -0800, Tim May wrote:
-----------snip-----------
Post by Tim May
Which is why I laugh when I see the merriment being inflicted on the
foreign invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan (and coming soon, in Pakistan,
Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Boratastan, and all of the other "evil
doers").
So fucking hilarious.
--Tim May
You are of sick mind too.

Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.

When did you first find violent death humorous?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-23 00:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
-----------snip-----------
Post by Tim May
Which is why I laugh when I see the merriment being inflicted on the
foreign invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan (and coming soon, in Pakistan,
Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Boratastan, and all of the other "evil
doers").
So fucking hilarious.
--Tim May
You are of sick mind too.
Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.
You snipped my point about the irony of it all.

However, since "irony" has not been in any American dictionary
published since the Nixon Era, I can understand your failure to catch
the reference.

You really are sort of slow. I guess that explains your beliefs that
the Red Chinese were about to invade California and how your
volunteering to go kill gooks in Nam might stave off the beach
landings.

--Tim May
Julian Macassey
2008-01-23 01:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
-----------snip-----------
Post by Tim May
Which is why I laugh when I see the merriment being inflicted on the
foreign invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan (and coming soon, in Pakistan,
Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Boratastan, and all of the other "evil
doers").
So fucking hilarious.
--Tim May
You are of sick mind too.
Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.
You snipped my point about the irony of it all.
However, since "irony" has not been in any American dictionary
published since the Nixon Era, I can understand your failure to catch
the reference.
A British ambassador in Washington after WWII said that
the thing that the Americans had no sense of irony. That is still
true.
Post by Tim May
You really are sort of slow. I guess that explains your beliefs that
the Red Chinese were about to invade California and how your
volunteering to go kill gooks in Nam might stave off the beach
landings.
Recently, Senator John McCain said that if we left Iraq,
the insurgents would follow us home.

He didn't expound further on why they would rather fight
in a shithole like Iraq when they could be here now, or whether
Iraqi irregulars, AK-47 in hand, would be lining up at the
airline ticket counter as the US troops left.

But obviously enough people have bought his line of total
bullshit.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18348393/
"If we leave Iraq, there will be chaos, there will be genocide,
and they will follow us home,"
--
Iraq means chaos and Abu Ghraib rather than the triumphant export
of democracy. - Economist 20 Dec 2007
Gunner Asch
2008-01-19 13:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Tim May
You really are sort of slow. I guess that explains your beliefs that
the Red Chinese were about to invade California and how your
volunteering to go kill gooks in Nam might stave off the beach
landings.
Recently, Senator John McCain said that if we left Iraq,
the insurgents would follow us home.
He didn't expound further on why they would rather fight
in a shithole like Iraq when they could be here now, or whether
Iraqi irregulars, AK-47 in hand, would be lining up at the
airline ticket counter as the US troops left.
But obviously enough people have bought his line
Seems then that in your world, 9-11 never happened, nor did WTC-1, nor
is there any plans for the Grand Caliphate.

Ill bet you didnt believe in the reasons for the Cold War either, did
you?

Fascinating. It appears your reality check bounced.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Julian Macassey
2008-01-23 04:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Tim May
You really are sort of slow. I guess that explains your beliefs that
the Red Chinese were about to invade California and how your
volunteering to go kill gooks in Nam might stave off the beach
landings.
Recently, Senator John McCain said that if we left Iraq,
the insurgents would follow us home.
He didn't expound further on why they would rather fight
in a shithole like Iraq when they could be here now, or whether
Iraqi irregulars, AK-47 in hand, would be lining up at the
airline ticket counter as the US troops left.
But obviously enough people have bought his line
Seems then that in your world, 9-11 never happened, nor did WTC-1, nor
is there any plans for the Grand Caliphate.
Help me out here. What has 9-11 have to do with the line
about Iraqis following us home?

You thinbk they are too busy in Iraq?

You think Iraqis had anything to do wityh 9-11?

You really need to read up.

15 of the 9-11 hi-jackers were Saudis. Why haven't we
invaded Saudi Arabia?
Post by Gunner Asch
Ill bet you didnt believe in the reasons for the Cold War either, did
you?
I was pretty involved in the Cold War. I believed in a
fair amnount of it. But not the "booga booga".

I didn't believ in "Reds under the bed", or McCarthyism.
Post by Gunner Asch
Fascinating. It appears your reality check bounced.
Yea, so real that Iraqis are queueing up to come to the
US? That real?

If your reality cheque is worth anything, go to the
Middle East and report back. Then we can compare notes.
--
Iraq means chaos and Abu Ghraib rather than the triumphant export
of democracy. - Economist 20 Dec 2007
Gunner Asch
2008-01-19 15:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Tim May
You really are sort of slow. I guess that explains your beliefs that
the Red Chinese were about to invade California and how your
volunteering to go kill gooks in Nam might stave off the beach
landings.
Recently, Senator John McCain said that if we left Iraq,
the insurgents would follow us home.
He didn't expound further on why they would rather fight
in a shithole like Iraq when they could be here now, or whether
Iraqi irregulars, AK-47 in hand, would be lining up at the
airline ticket counter as the US troops left.
But obviously enough people have bought his line
Seems then that in your world, 9-11 never happened, nor did WTC-1, nor
is there any plans for the Grand Caliphate.
Help me out here. What has 9-11 have to do with the line
about Iraqis following us home?
Middle eastern terrorists.
Post by Julian Macassey
You thinbk they are too busy in Iraq?
You think Iraqis had anything to do wityh 9-11?
Not directly.
Post by Julian Macassey
You really need to read up.
15 of the 9-11 hi-jackers were Saudis. Why haven't we
invaded Saudi Arabia?
Because Saud is nominally our friend.
Iraq was not, and was in material breech of both the cease fire and UN
sanctions, and it appeared they were about to give WMD to middle
eastern terrorists.
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Ill bet you didnt believe in the reasons for the Cold War either, did
you?
I was pretty involved in the Cold War. I believed in a
fair amnount of it. But not the "booga booga".
I didn't believ in "Reds under the bed", or McCarthyism.
Bummer. Too bad McCarthy turned out to be right.
Doesnt say much about your observational powers..or your skill with a
crystal ball.
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Fascinating. It appears your reality check bounced.
Yea, so real that Iraqis are queueing up to come to the
US? That real?
Middle eastern terrorists.
Post by Julian Macassey
If your reality cheque is worth anything, go to the
Middle East and report back. Then we can compare notes.
Been there, done that.

Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Julian Macassey
2008-01-23 13:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
Help me out here. What has 9-11 have to do with the line
about Iraqis following us home?
Middle eastern terrorists.
The ones from Saudi Arabia?
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
You thinbk they are too busy in Iraq?
You think Iraqis had anything to do wityh 9-11?
Not directly.
Not at all alas. But I know you think there was an Iraqi
connection.
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
You really need to read up.
15 of the 9-11 hi-jackers were Saudis. Why haven't we
invaded Saudi Arabia?
Because Saud is nominally our friend.
You think it's OK for our friends to attack us and other
countries who have not attacjed us should be invaded?
Post by Gunner Asch
Iraq was not, and was in material breech of both the cease fire and UN
sanctions, and it appeared they were about to give WMD to middle
eastern terrorists.
It "appeared" only in the minds of the Neocons. I'm still
waiting for those WMDs to show up. There don't seem to be any in
Iraq. We know they have them in Israel and Pakistan, as well of
course in the hands of our very best friends the Saudis. Not to
mention India.

Why don't I see people like you getting all hot and
bothered about Israeli and Pakistani WMDs?
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
I was pretty involved in the Cold War. I believed in a
fair amnount of it. But not the "booga booga".
I didn't believ in "Reds under the bed", or McCarthyism.
Bummer. Too bad McCarthy turned out to be right.
He did? Then how come all those bad Commies didn;t just
take over after he was exposed?
Post by Gunner Asch
Doesnt say much about your observational powers..or your skill with a
crystal ball.
I wish the sentance above made sense. But interestingly,
what I said years ago about Iraq has been proved true. What the
Neocons and Rumsfeld said hasn't. "There is no insurgency."
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Fascinating. It appears your reality check bounced.
Yea, so real that Iraqis are queueing up to come to the
US? That real?
Middle eastern terrorists.
A broad brush, like to get specific?

Interestingly the US trained and supplied (With the help
of our very good Saudi friends), those people you call "Middle
eastern terrorists". Yes, the US made the mess.

While we are discussing terrorists, how about the Tamil
Tigers, ETA, the IRA (Still destroying property in Ulster).
People in the US have been financing the IRA for decades.
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
If your reality cheque is worth anything, go to the
Middle East and report back. Then we can compare notes.
Been there, done that.
If you have lived and travelled in the Middle East, you
would understand the local scene a little better than "Middle
eastern terrorists".

Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
--
Iraq means chaos and Abu Ghraib rather than the triumphant export
of democracy. - Economist 20 Dec 2007
Gunner Asch
2008-01-20 04:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Because Saud is nominally our friend.
You think it's OK for our friends to attack us and other
countries who have not attacjed us should be invaded?
Saudi attacked us? I thought it was fundis who were Saudi citizens?
Are you claiming it was the official policiy of the King to send those
19 individuals ?
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Iraq was not, and was in material breech of both the cease fire and UN
sanctions, and it appeared they were about to give WMD to middle
eastern terrorists.
It "appeared" only in the minds of the Neocons. I'm still
waiting for those WMDs to show up. There don't seem to be any in
Iraq. We know they have them in Israel and Pakistan, as well of
course in the hands of our very best friends the Saudis. Not to
mention India.
These neocons?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"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
Post by Julian Macassey
Why don't I see people like you getting all hot and
bothered about Israeli and Pakistani WMDs?
Because they are our friends?
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
I was pretty involved in the Cold War. I believed in a
fair amnount of it. But not the "booga booga".
I didn't believ in "Reds under the bed", or McCarthyism.
Bummer. Too bad McCarthy turned out to be right.
He did? Then how come all those bad Commies didn;t just
take over after he was exposed?
Because that wasnt the plan.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17401
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Doesnt say much about your observational powers..or your skill with a
crystal ball.
I wish the sentance above made sense. But interestingly,
what I said years ago about Iraq has been proved true. What the
Neocons and Rumsfeld said hasn't. "There is no insurgency."
bLINK BLINK..HUH?
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Fascinating. It appears your reality check bounced.
Yea, so real that Iraqis are queueing up to come to the
US? That real?
Middle eastern terrorists.
A broad brush, like to get specific?
How specific can one be when talking transnational terrorists?
Post by Julian Macassey
Interestingly the US trained and supplied (With the help
of our very good Saudi friends), those people you call "Middle
eastern terrorists". Yes, the US made the mess.
Some they did indeed.
Post by Julian Macassey
While we are discussing terrorists, how about the Tamil
Tigers, ETA, the IRA (Still destroying property in Ulster).
People in the US have been financing the IRA for decades.
So the US official policiy has been to finance the IRA?
Post by Julian Macassey
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Julian Macassey
If your reality cheque is worth anything, go to the
Middle East and report back. Then we can compare notes.
Been there, done that.
If you have lived and travelled in the Middle East, you
would understand the local scene a little better than "Middle
eastern terrorists".
Yes, I do. But I try to keep things simply for ignorant fucktards like
you.
Post by Julian Macassey
Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
h***@hotmail.com
2008-01-24 03:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Because Saud is nominally our friend.
   You think it's OK for our friends to attack us and other
countries who have not attacjed us should be invaded?
Saudi attacked us?  I thought it was fundis who were Saudi citizens?
Are you claiming it was the official policiy of the King to send those
19 individuals ?
I'm real interested in that claim. Who is this guy, Julian? Maybe he
needs to talk to the CIA.
Post by Gunner Asch
Iraq was not, and was in material breech of both the cease fire and UN
sanctions, and it appeared they were about to give WMD to middle
eastern terrorists.
   It "appeared" only in the minds of the Neocons. I'm still
waiting for those WMDs to show up.
What do you plan to do when they get here??
There don't seem to be any in
Iraq. We know they have them in Israel and Pakistan,
You can thank the Brits for giving the technology to Israel. 1966
timeframe.

Thanks "The" Rifleman.
as well of
course in the hands of our very best friends the Saudis. Not to
mention India.
These neocons?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"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
Yep. Those neocons.
   Why don't I see people like you getting all hot and
bothered about Israeli and Pakistani WMDs?
Because they are our friends?
The Pakis have killed more Taliban than Julian Day.
Post by Gunner Asch
   I was pretty involved in the Cold War. I believed in a
fair amnount of it. But not the "booga booga".
   I didn't believ in "Reds under the bed", or McCarthyism.
Bummer. Too bad McCarthy turned out to be right.
   He did? Then how come all those bad Commies didn;t just
take over after he was exposed?
Because that wasnt the plan.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17401http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
You know, there's no reason to even engage these worthless POS.
Post by Gunner Asch
Doesnt say much about your observational powers..or your skill with a
crystal ball.
   I wish the sentance above made sense. But interestingly,
what I said years ago about Iraq has been proved true. What the
Neocons and Rumsfeld said hasn't. "There is no insurgency."
bLINK BLINK..HUH?      
Yikes. No wonder McCarthy was "wrong." WTF?
Post by Gunner Asch
Fascinating.  It appears your reality check bounced.
   Yea, so real that Iraqis are queueing up to come to the
US? That real?
Middle eastern terrorists.
   A broad brush, like to get specific?
How specific can one be when talking transnational terrorists?
He wants their Township...
   Interestingly the US trained and supplied (With the help
of our very good Saudi friends), those people you call "Middle
eastern terrorists". Yes, the US made the mess.
Some they did indeed.
Some USA County Airports even taught them how to fly, but not land....
   While we are discussing terrorists, how about the Tamil
Tigers, ETA, the IRA (Still destroying property in Ulster).
People in the US have been financing the IRA for decades.
So the US official policiy has been to finance the IRA?
And the -Official- UK policy has been to deny self rule.
Post by Gunner Asch
   If your reality cheque is worth anything, go to the
Middle East and report back. Then we can compare notes.
Been there, done that.
   If you have lived and travelled in the Middle East, you
would understand the local scene a little better than "Middle
eastern terrorists".
Yes, I do. But I try to keep things simply for ignorant fucktards like
you.
Yikes!!! Do you think Julian carries the Downs gene?
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Gunner
Gunner
2008-01-24 07:28:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:09:24 -0800 (PST),
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
Yes, I do. But I try to keep things simply for ignorant fucktards like
you.
Yikes!!! Do you think Julian carries the Downs gene?
Poster Child caliber
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
If he had been in Panama..Id have killed..er...somone would have
killed him.

For some reason..Shining Path is rare in Panama. Shrug
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-24 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Not too hot on geography, eh? El Sendero Luminoso is in Peru.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-24 12:53:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:33:09 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Not too hot on geography, eh? El Sendero Luminoso is in Peru.
-- Regards, Curly
I have a shining path leading from my garage door to my street. I
think it will probably remain there at least until the end of March or
the beginning of April.

Lg
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-24 13:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:33:09 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Not too hot on geography, eh? El Sendero Luminoso is in Peru.
-- Regards, Curly
I have a shining path leading from my garage door to my street. I
think it will probably remain there at least until the end of March or
the beginning of April.
Lg
Heh. I met a donkey caravan of El Sendero Luminoso soldiers at about
11,000 feet in the Andes in 1986 carrying wooden crates with Chinese
markings that they said they'd picked up on the coast. I'm still not sure
who was more surprised when I came flying around an extinct volcano on a
high tech mountain bike overtaking them from behind.

It was one of those moments where time seems to stand still. They were
armed to the teeth and I was alone, unarmed and white. Discretion
suggested that I not inquire as to the contents. I think that the only
thing that saved my ass were photos of my family that I carried to
share. We shared a campfire, dinner and breakfast the next morning of
toasted corn, bread and coca tea. They continued South toward Cuzco while
I went North toward Ecuador.

I wonder if HH&C understands the situation which created El Sendero
Luminoso...

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-24 15:18:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:06:48 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:33:09 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Not too hot on geography, eh? El Sendero Luminoso is in Peru.
-- Regards, Curly
I have a shining path leading from my garage door to my street. I
think it will probably remain there at least until the end of March or
the beginning of April.
Lg
Heh. I met a donkey caravan of El Sendero Luminoso soldiers at about
11,000 feet in the Andes in 1986 carrying wooden crates with Chinese
markings that they said they'd picked up on the coast. I'm still not sure
who was more surprised when I came flying around an extinct volcano on a
high tech mountain bike overtaking them from behind.
It was one of those moments where time seems to stand still. They were
armed to the teeth and I was alone, unarmed and white. Discretion
suggested that I not inquire as to the contents. I think that the only
thing that saved my ass were photos of my family that I carried to
share. We shared a campfire, dinner and breakfast the next morning of
toasted corn, bread and coca tea. They continued South toward Cuzco while
I went North toward Ecuador.
I wonder if HH&C understands the situation which created El Sendero
Luminoso...
-- Regards, Curly
There are so many warring political factions and tribes in the world,
that it is almost impossible to name them all.

Millions die in the name of political ambitions and just plain hatred.

Millions of dead. 5.4 million in Central Africa alone last year IIRC.
Many deaths are cause by diseases like malaria, diarrhea, cholera. All
the diseases that are wiped out in developed nations still fester in
these remote and prehistoric cultures. Maybe up to 50% of the deaths
are from diseases, and the other 50% from machetes and bullets.
Whichever way you look at it, *hell on earth* are the words that come
to mind.

Poverty and ignorance fuel the flames, while the Leaders steal
Billions from the National coffers. And apparently get away with it.

Think of places you already know about: Dafur, the Sudan, Kenya. The
Democratic Republic of Congo. It is the tip of the iceberg.

Lg
h***@hotmail.com
2008-01-24 22:35:35 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 24, 11:18 am, Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:06:48 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:33:09 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Not too hot on geography, eh?  El Sendero Luminoso is in Peru.
-- Regards, Curly
I have a shining path leading from my garage door to my street.  I
think it will probably remain there at least until the end of March or
the beginning of April.
Lg
Heh.  I met a donkey caravan of El Sendero Luminoso soldiers at about
11,000 feet in the Andes in 1986 carrying wooden crates with Chinese
markings that they said they'd picked up on the coast. I'm still not sure
who was more surprised when I came flying around an extinct volcano on a
high tech mountain bike overtaking them from behind.
It was one of those moments where time seems to stand still.  They were
armed to the teeth and I was alone, unarmed and white.  Discretion
suggested that I not inquire as to the contents.  I think that the only
thing that saved my ass were photos of my family that I carried to
share.  We shared a campfire, dinner and breakfast the next morning of
toasted corn, bread and coca tea. They continued South toward Cuzco while
I went North toward Ecuador.
I wonder if HH&C understands the situation which created El Sendero
Luminoso...
-- Regards, Curly
There are so many warring political factions and tribes in the world,
that it is almost impossible to name them all.
Millions die in the name of political ambitions and just plain hatred.
Millions of dead.  5.4 million in Central Africa alone last year IIRC.
Many deaths are cause by diseases like malaria, diarrhea, cholera. All
the diseases that are wiped out in developed nations still fester in
these remote and prehistoric cultures.  Maybe up to 50% of the deaths
are from diseases, and the other 50% from machetes and bullets.
Whichever way you look at it, *hell on earth* are the words that come
to mind.
Poverty and ignorance fuel the flames, while the Leaders steal
Billions from the National coffers.  And apparently get away with it.
Think of places you already know about: Dafur, the Sudan, Kenya.  The
Democratic Republic of Congo.  It is the tip of the iceberg.
Lg
President Clinton sent us to so many of those places that I'd like to
forget.

I used to think that the Brits generally left a location with a decent
government, unlike the French, the Spanish, and the Italians. But
something has gone terribly wrong in Kenya.

Perhaps our UK audience would care to comment.
h***@hotmail.com
2008-01-24 22:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:33:09 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Not too hot on geography, eh?  El Sendero Luminoso is in Peru.
-- Regards, Curly
I have a shining path leading from my garage door to my street.  I
think it will probably remain there at least until the end of March or
the beginning of April.
Lg
Heh.  I met a donkey caravan of El Sendero Luminoso soldiers at about
11,000 feet in the Andes in 1986 carrying wooden crates with Chinese
markings that they said they'd picked up on the coast. I'm still not sure
who was more surprised when I came flying around an extinct volcano on a
high tech mountain bike overtaking them from behind.
It was one of those moments where time seems to stand still.  They were
armed to the teeth and I was alone, unarmed and white.  Discretion
suggested that I not inquire as to the contents.  I think that the only
thing that saved my ass were photos of my family that I carried to
share.  We shared a campfire, dinner and breakfast the next morning of
toasted corn, bread and coca tea. They continued South toward Cuzco while
I went North toward Ecuador.
I wonder if HH&C understands the situation which created El Sendero
Luminoso...
-- Regards, Curly
Disgruntled citizens with too much time on their hands (i.e.,
unemployment), and a copy of the communist manifesto?
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-25 03:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:33:09 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner Asch
   Just as if you had travelled around in Basque country you
would understand the ETA situation.
I havent.
This turd is probably Shining Path in argentina.
Not too hot on geography, eh?  El Sendero Luminoso is in Peru.
-- Regards, Curly
I have a shining path leading from my garage door to my street.  I
think it will probably remain there at least until the end of March or
the beginning of April.
Lg
Heh.  I met a donkey caravan of El Sendero Luminoso soldiers at about
11,000 feet in the Andes in 1986 carrying wooden crates with Chinese
markings that they said they'd picked up on the coast. I'm still not sure
who was more surprised when I came flying around an extinct volcano on a
high tech mountain bike overtaking them from behind.
It was one of those moments where time seems to stand still.  They were
armed to the teeth and I was alone, unarmed and white.  Discretion
suggested that I not inquire as to the contents.  I think that the only
thing that saved my ass were photos of my family that I carried to
share.  We shared a campfire, dinner and breakfast the next morning of
toasted corn, bread and coca tea. They continued South toward Cuzco while
I went North toward Ecuador.
I wonder if HH&C understands the situation which created El Sendero
Luminoso...
-- Regards, Curly
Disgruntled citizens with too much time on their hands (i.e.,
unemployment), and a copy of the communist manifesto?
Nope, United States intervention into the internal workings of a soverign
nation. While the US talks about democracy and free markets the major
export of Peru was villified, outlawed, criminalized. The US sent in huge
bribes to government officials, weapons, credits and training to eradicate
a naturally growing plant.

Note that the US puppet governmnet during Bush41 has been put back into
office and bent over for Bush43 relinquishing sovereignty once again.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
h***@hotmail.com
2008-01-24 02:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Tim May
You really are sort of slow. I guess that explains your beliefs that
the Red Chinese were about to invade California and how your
volunteering to go kill gooks in Nam might stave off the beach
landings.
   Recently, Senator John McCain said that if we left Iraq,
the insurgents would follow us home.
   He didn't expound further on why they would rather fight
in a shithole like Iraq when they could be here now, or whether
Iraqi irregulars, AK-47 in hand, would be lining up at the
airline ticket counter as the US troops left.
   But obviously enough people have bought his line
Seems then that in your world, 9-11 never happened, nor did WTC-1, nor
is there any plans for the Grand Caliphate.
   Help me out here. What has 9-11 have to do with the line
about Iraqis following us home?
Middle eastern terrorists.
   You thinbk they are too busy in Iraq?
   You think Iraqis had anything to do wityh 9-11?
Not directly.
   You really need to read up.
   15 of the 9-11 hi-jackers were Saudis. Why haven't we
invaded Saudi Arabia?
Because Saud is nominally our friend.
Iraq was not, and was in material breech of both the cease fire and UN
sanctions, and it appeared they were about to give WMD to middle
eastern terrorists.
Completely immaterial until the white house goes up in smoke!!!
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Gunner Asch
Ill bet you didnt believe in the reasons for the Cold War either, did
you?
   I was pretty involved in the Cold War. I believed in a
fair amnount of it. But not the "booga booga".
   I didn't believ in "Reds under the bed", or McCarthyism.
Bummer. Too bad McCarthy turned out to be right.
Beyond any reasonable doubt.
Post by Gunner Asch
Doesnt say much about your observational powers..or your skill with a
crystal ball.
Merlin was pretty good with the crystal ball. These guys aren't
Merlin. Neither are The Bobs.
Bob Brock
2008-01-24 03:21:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:54:01 -0800 (PST),
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Merlin was pretty good with the crystal ball. These guys aren't
Merlin. Neither are The Bobs.
You have no idea how warm it makes me feel inside to know that you
have not only fixated on me, but you have decided to put anyone who
disagrees with you in a special group and name it after me.

Thank you so much.
h***@hotmail.com
2008-01-24 03:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:54:01 -0800 (PST),
Merlin was pretty good with the crystal ball.  These guys aren't
Merlin.  Neither are The Bobs.
You have no idea how warm it makes me feel inside to know that you
have not only fixated on me, but you have decided to put anyone who
disagrees with you in a special group and name it after me.
Thank you so much.
Who are you?
Too_Many_Tools
2008-01-24 20:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:54:01 -0800 (PST),
Merlin was pretty good with the crystal ball.  These guys aren't
Merlin.  Neither are The Bobs.
You have no idea how warm it makes me feel inside to know that you
have not only fixated on me, but you have decided to put anyone who
disagrees with you in a special group and name it after me.
Thank you so much.
Damn it Bob...why do you get to be immortalized forever in history and
not me!

Can I at least sacrifice conservatives at your altar?

I promise to make them scream long and loud.

TMT
h***@hotmail.com
2008-01-26 01:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:54:01 -0800 (PST),
Merlin was pretty good with the crystal ball.  These guys aren't
Merlin.  Neither are The Bobs.
You have no idea how warm it makes me feel inside to know that you
have not only fixated on me, but you have decided to put anyone who
disagrees with you in a special group and name it after me.
Thank you so much.
Damn it Bob...why do you get to be immortalized forever in history and
not me!
Can I at least sacrifice conservatives at your altar?
I promise to make them scream long and loud.
TMT
And you're against torture, right?

beebs
2008-01-23 08:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.
If the war is wrong, why doesn't Bu$h end it? He wants to wave
a magic wand, declare Iraq and Afghanistan "democracies" and
have peace with honor? He could do this tomorrow.

beebs
Gunner Asch
2008-01-19 21:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by beebs
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.
If the war is wrong, why doesn't Bu$h end it? He wants to wave
a magic wand, declare Iraq and Afghanistan "democracies" and
have peace with honor? He could do this tomorrow.
beebs
Because its NOT wrong. And to prove it..the Democrats agree and keep
funding it.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Too_Many_Tools
2008-01-23 13:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by beebs
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.
If the war is wrong, why doesn't Bu$h end it? He wants to wave
a magic wand, declare Iraq and Afghanistan "democracies" and
have peace with honor? He could do this tomorrow.
beebs
Because its NOT wrong. And to prove it..the Democrats agree and keep
funding it.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont  kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat."  Gunner
Get back to us in a few months and see if that is still true.

With the economy in a freefall, reality is changing priorities as we
speak.

TMT
Too_Many_Tools
2008-01-23 13:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by beebs
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.
If the war is wrong, why doesn't Bu$h end it? He wants to wave
a magic wand, declare Iraq and Afghanistan "democracies" and
have peace with honor? He could do this tomorrow.
beebs
What hasn't been said is that the freefall of America's economy has
likely ended the war in Iraq.

You can save the economy or Iraq...guess which one the American voter
is going to choose.

TMT
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-23 23:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by beebs
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Enjoying the death and destruction of failed foreign policy is insane.
Yes, the war in Iraq is hideously wrong, yes the Bush Administration is
full of traitors and criminals, but to take glee from the young who are
dying is sick.
If the war is wrong, why doesn't Bu$h end it? He wants to wave
a magic wand, declare Iraq and Afghanistan "democracies" and
have peace with honor? He could do this tomorrow.
Sure, that doesn't make it true and what's one more lie to Bush?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d***@yahoo.com
2008-01-23 05:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
I turned 18 in 1969, registered at the Selective Service office in my
county, was not draftable that year (still in high school), received a
lottery number (181), and was classified 1A in 1971, my first year of
age-mandated potential drafting (as I recall, 20-year-olds were those
drafted, at least at that time and under that policy).
You should bring an 18 year old girlfriend to your next high school
reunion :)
Robert Sturgeon
2008-01-22 23:56:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:02:02 -0600, Lawrence Gllickman
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

(snips)
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls.
Not entirely. I knew a classmate who simply never bothered
to register. Nothing ever came of it. So far as "they"
knew, he just didn't exist. Another man I know went to
Canada. He later came back - no probs. Others refused to
take the oath -- as they had every right to do. They spent
a short time in prison, which was a much better option than
going into the military.
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
That was a Bad Thing, but they really could have avoided it,
if they wanted to badly enough. It's too bad more didn't
refuse -- the government would have seen the folly of their
policy sooner than they eventually did. Patriotism and
conformity are the great killers of young men -- along with
downright stupidity.
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
Which is usually true of war, which is why the U.S. should
avoid offensive war, and why individuals should avoid
military service until our politicians regain their basic
common sense -- something I don't see happening any time
soon.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
strabo
2008-01-25 00:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:02:02 -0600, Lawrence Gllickman
(snips)
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Tim, I am just trying to bring Myal up to speed on the way the
Military gets personnel.
He thinks it is voluntary service. Not when I was 18 it wasn't. I
presume you are just a *tad* younger than I am, so when I was 21 or 22
you were getting your "Greetings & Salutations" letter from the Draft
Board.
It wasn't a choice for =us=. They had us by the balls.
Not entirely. I knew a classmate who simply never bothered
to register. Nothing ever came of it. So far as "they"
knew, he just didn't exist. Another man I know went to
Canada. He later came back - no probs. Others refused to
take the oath -- as they had every right to do. They spent
a short time in prison, which was a much better option than
going into the military.
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Some of us
survived the experience. 50 thousand something Americans did NOT.
That was a Bad Thing, but they really could have avoided it,
if they wanted to badly enough. It's too bad more didn't
refuse -- the government would have seen the folly of their
policy sooner than they eventually did. Patriotism and
conformity are the great killers of young men -- along with
downright stupidity.
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
VietNam was a MEATGRINDER. Put people in one end...dog food comes out
the other.
Which is usually true of war, which is why the U.S. should
avoid offensive war, and why individuals should avoid
military service until our politicians regain their basic
common sense -- something I don't see happening any time
soon.
That's right.

1. The US is not supposed to interfere with foreign governments or start
wars. It is to respond militarily only when physically attacked by
an organized foreign force.

2. American men should fight their wars, not mercenaries or foreigners.

3. If 1 and 2 were heeded there would be no need for a draft, most
American men would volunteer for it would be their lives and property
at stake.
Post by Gunner Asch
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-22 18:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
Don't be insulting. _I_ was one of the volunteers.

At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.

Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous levels
of atmospheric radiation. Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars
were being fought across the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing
sides. Vietnam was but one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese
Communists were going to invade the West Coast next.

Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin attack
was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and perhaps even
the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in hindsight is easy.

Do not blame the brave youngsters volunteering to defend our once-great
nation, they've truly saved our collective asses in the past. Enlistees
are not "losers" or "gung-ho nitwits".

Trashing good people will not convince people of your platform.
Post by Tim May
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, these are incredibly brave soldiers. Blame the decision makers, not
the grunts.
Post by Tim May
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
War does that to people. Help them, don't punish them for their inherent
goodness.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-22 18:44:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:07:27 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
Don't be insulting. _I_ was one of the volunteers.
At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.
Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous levels
of atmospheric radiation. Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars
were being fought across the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing
sides. Vietnam was but one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese
Communists were going to invade the West Coast next.
Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin attack
was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and perhaps even
the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in hindsight is easy.
Do not blame the brave youngsters volunteering to defend our once-great
nation, they've truly saved our collective asses in the past. Enlistees
are not "losers" or "gung-ho nitwits".
Trashing good people will not convince people of your platform.
Post by Tim May
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, these are incredibly brave soldiers. Blame the decision makers, not
the grunts.
Post by Tim May
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
War does that to people. Help them, don't punish them for their inherent
goodness.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly,

I admire your intelligence, good manners, and seemingly impeccable
character. However, let me say that today, it is becoming next to
impossible for the Military to find recruits who have even a high
school diploma.

How can anyone expect people who never made it past the 9th grade in
High School, to run the sophisticated weapons systems the modern
battlefield of today requires?

The US is in trouble in the Military personnel department. It is
going to reach crisis proportions soon, if it hasn't already, as
troops have been rotated BACK to the sand box so many times, that they
are worn down and worn out, and unfit for any further combat.

The *Draft* was a much more equitable way to get meat for the machine.
It took college grads, college students, and other people with higher
education and injected them into the system.

Now, we are in a position of just throwing *raw meat* at the enemy,
and this is NO WAY to win a war.

Regards,

Lg
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-22 20:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:07:27 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
I was 1A, "available for service," in my draft year.
Being cannon fodder in "Nam" was for losers and only gung-ho nitwits
and military school space cadets _volunteered_ to go to Nam.
Don't be insulting. _I_ was one of the volunteers.
At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.
Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous levels
of atmospheric radiation. Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars
were being fought across the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing
sides. Vietnam was but one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese
Communists were going to invade the West Coast next.
Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin attack
was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and perhaps even
the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in hindsight is easy.
Do not blame the brave youngsters volunteering to defend our once-great
nation, they've truly saved our collective asses in the past. Enlistees
are not "losers" or "gung-ho nitwits".
Trashing good people will not convince people of your platform.
Post by Tim May
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, these are incredibly brave soldiers. Blame the decision makers, not
the grunts.
Post by Tim May
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
War does that to people. Help them, don't punish them for their inherent
goodness.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly,
I admire your intelligence, good manners, and seemingly impeccable
character. However, let me say that today, it is becoming next to
impossible for the Military to find recruits who have even a high
school diploma.
How can anyone expect people who never made it past the 9th grade in
High School, to run the sophisticated weapons systems the modern
battlefield of today requires?
The US is in trouble in the Military personnel department. It is
going to reach crisis proportions soon, if it hasn't already, as
troops have been rotated BACK to the sand box so many times, that they
are worn down and worn out, and unfit for any further combat.
The *Draft* was a much more equitable way to get meat for the machine.
It took college grads, college students, and other people with higher
education and injected them into the system.
Now, we are in a position of just throwing *raw meat* at the enemy,
and this is NO WAY to win a war.
Regards,
Lg
No argument to anything you added above. However this topic moved to
trashing soldiers for Bush Administration policies which I am adamantly
against.

As you said, enlisted men are ignorant, young, and undereducated. They
trust the government. You and I know that to be bad policy but enlistees
are still children in a man's body trying their best to do the right thing.

Don't trash our soldiers. Rant, abuse, holler, fume, hate, dispute,
argue, malign, punish the policy makers but not our soldiers. The only
way to prevent a re-occurance is education. Speaking ill of the military
prevents the message from being heard.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-22 19:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Don't be insulting. _I_ was one of the volunteers.
At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.
Some facts. The largest H-bomb ever detonated was 54-MT bomb, in
around 1962. And since the volume of material "sucked into a fireball"
goes as the cube root of the yield, that 54-MT bomb was only about 4
times more fallout-producing as a run-of-the-mil [SIC] small nuke in
the low MT range.

(The number of radioistopes generated inside the bomb itself, as
opposed to from dirt and trees sucked in and converted to
short-half-life radioistopes, slightly increases this, as it scales
linearly with MT, not as the square root or cube root, as other effects
do. Doesn't mean much, though.)

As for the Japanese hiding indoors, well, they do tend to run and hide
a lot in their post-war years. Oh, and the Kamchatka Peninsula and
other Far North testing areas was not upstream of Japan. The Jet Stream
matters.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous levels
of atmospheric radiation.
Nonsense. You bought the scare stories.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars
were being fought across the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing
sides. Vietnam was but one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese
Communists were going to invade the West Coast next.
Those who believed this fairy tale about the Chinese invading
California would've been the kind to volunteer to go to Nam to kill
Commies. Oh, I see at least two Californias here did exactly that. You
drank the Kool-Aid.

Myself, as a San Diegan when these nuclear tests were common (they
ended shortly after I moved to Virginia), I started studying physics. I
wrote a 100-page report when I was in the 7th grade about how atomic
and hydrogen bombs worked. (I had good physics intuition, so the
articles in encyclopedias and books on science made complete sense to
me...I didn't have the calculus to compute shock wave details, but I
had the gist.)

Unlike so many others who were "askeert of them atom things," I found
nuclear science fascinating. And so later, in college, that's what I
majored in. Physics, that is. Paid off pretty damned well, too.

(Arguably, had I wanted to fight the Godless Jew Commies and Thwart
Their Plans for the Invasion of California, studying physics was a
whole helluva lot more productive than having my ass blown off in some
rice paddy while fighting people who just wanted the French, then the
Americans, out of their country and off their farms.)
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin attack
was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and perhaps even
the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in hindsight is easy.
You forget that many millions knew about the Gulf of Tonkin charade as
early as 1966. You forget that Pentagon analysts knew the casus belli
was a charade. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the full story to the press in
1971.

(Confirming what the anti-Vietnam War folks had been saying for several
years.)

Anyone who volunteered for Nam after 1971 was surely delusional, or
just too poorly read to have seen what was laid out in the Pentagon
Papers. Or had drunk the Kool-Aid. Or was waiting for the imminent
invasion of California by the Red Horde.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Do not blame the brave youngsters volunteering to defend our once-great
nation, they've truly saved our collective asses in the past. Enlistees
are not "losers" or "gung-ho nitwits".
Enlistees for foreign wars, especially wars in which the foreign nation
has not attacked U.S. soil, are indeed gung-ho nitwits.

We went to war in Korea to "defend" one side against another side. Even
if we had a "mutual defense treaty" with one side, such treaties are
one-sided, excuses for interventionism. Honestly, would South Korea
have come to the defense of the U.S., sent troops here, if the U.S. had
been invaded? Ditto for the puppet regime installed in Saigon...would
their "treaty" or "deal" with us have involved their coming to _our_
defense in a war? Not hardly. Ditto for the oil sheiks in Kuwait, who
called for their asses to be bailout out after our Ambassatrix in Iraq
had given Saddam the scuttlebutt that the U.S. would not be "too" much
against Iraq taking disputed oilfields back. April Whatshername screwed
the pooch on that one. But, in any case, just what caused the U.S. to
go to war to fight some other country's war for it?

(Other interests, that's what. Oil. Zion.)

Mega-dittos for the whole clusterfuck in the former Yugoslavia. We had
troops on the ground in Bosnia, Kosovo, and were launching bombing
raids on Serbia. _We_ were fighting so many different factions we
didn't even know the backstory on who our "allies" were.

Hell, even EUROPE, even countries right next door to Yugoslavia,
weren't jumping in to help one faction or another. Where was Italy in
that clusterfuck? Where was Austria? Where was Germany? Where was
France? Where was Greece?

The U.S. used to have a policy of "We don't start wars." And "no
foreign entanglements." This was decried by the NeoCons and the
Globalists as "isolationism." Well, it kept us out of a lot of the wars
raging through Europe, at least until we got sucked into the Great War
by a globalist named Wilson in a war fought over weird family royal
connections (England and France and elements of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire, and triggered by a lowly assassionation in, you guessed it,
Sarajevo, part of that same "balkanized" (the origin of the term)
region later known as Yugoslavia).

American men died, allegedly, so that some inbred royals in England
could tell their inbred cousins on the Continent that they had fought
the good fight.

And so on. Foreign wars.

And after WW II, America was sitting astride the world. Any countries
that didn't like our role were called "Commies."

When Ho approached the U.S. about our helping to get the French out of
"French Indochina," our late 1940s policy planners decided to rebuff
him, pushing him and his nascent freedom fighters into the arms of
China and Russia.

And so we ended up fighting for one bunch of crooks--the crooks and
drug runners in Saigon--in their war against another bunch of crooks.

Real smart. And everything Washington and Eisenhower warned us about.

We hated the Commies so much we gave Redeye missiles to Muslims in
Afghanistan (which had committed the common error of thinking they
could occupy Afghanistan....something many empires and nations have
learned cannot be done). The CIA funded Bin Laden. The DIA provided
covert military support.

We hated the Commies so much, even after China was our new friend and
even as communismm was falling in the former USSR, that we took the
side of whichever group in the disintegrating Yugoslavia would fight
the former Communists in Belgrade. In some cases, we set up Muslim
undergrounds to fight the Serbs. Some of those undergrounds became part
of The Base.

Once again, we sent our boys to die in other people's wars. And some
gung-ho nitwits could always be counted on to chug the Kool-Aid.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Trashing good people will not convince people of your platform.
Post by Tim May
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, these are incredibly brave soldiers. Blame the decision makers, not
the grunts.
I'm sure the Russian soldiers in "Red Dawn" and in actual, real
invasions were incredibly brave soldiers. So?

Ditto for soldiers on all sides. Nevertheless, unless one's actual home
or family or local poltical region is under serious and plausible and
tangible threat, one is a fool to volunteer to go fight on the other
side of the planet for the interest of the British Royal Family or
Zapata Petroleum or Halliburton.

(Even George Bush, Jr. wasn't dumb enough to let himself get sent into
combat. Nor did Cheney ever serve. Nor most of the NeoCon/Israel First
lobby now active in planning the invasion of Iran.)
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
War does that to people. Help them, don't punish them for their inherent
goodness.
They cannot be helped. Giving them handouts only makes their dependency
worse. We can't undo the damage to their minds, their willpower, their
willingness to work a real job.

Best to just write them off and learn the important lesson: avoid
foreign wars.

And get rid of the full-time standing army. When you've got a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. When you've got a full-time standing
army, everything looks like a war.


--Tim May
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-22 19:46:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:14:21 -0800, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Don't be insulting. _I_ was one of the volunteers.
At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.
Some facts. The largest H-bomb ever detonated was 54-MT bomb, in
around 1962. And since the volume of material "sucked into a fireball"
goes as the cube root of the yield, that 54-MT bomb was only about 4
times more fallout-producing as a run-of-the-mil [SIC] small nuke in
the low MT range.
(The number of radioistopes generated inside the bomb itself, as
opposed to from dirt and trees sucked in and converted to
short-half-life radioistopes, slightly increases this, as it scales
linearly with MT, not as the square root or cube root, as other effects
do. Doesn't mean much, though.)
As for the Japanese hiding indoors, well, they do tend to run and hide
a lot in their post-war years. Oh, and the Kamchatka Peninsula and
other Far North testing areas was not upstream of Japan. The Jet Stream
matters.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous levels
of atmospheric radiation.
Nonsense. You bought the scare stories.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars
were being fought across the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing
sides. Vietnam was but one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese
Communists were going to invade the West Coast next.
Those who believed this fairy tale about the Chinese invading
California would've been the kind to volunteer to go to Nam to kill
Commies. Oh, I see at least two Californias here did exactly that. You
drank the Kool-Aid.
Myself, as a San Diegan when these nuclear tests were common (they
ended shortly after I moved to Virginia), I started studying physics. I
wrote a 100-page report when I was in the 7th grade about how atomic
and hydrogen bombs worked. (I had good physics intuition, so the
articles in encyclopedias and books on science made complete sense to
me...I didn't have the calculus to compute shock wave details, but I
had the gist.)
Unlike so many others who were "askeert of them atom things," I found
nuclear science fascinating. And so later, in college, that's what I
majored in. Physics, that is. Paid off pretty damned well, too.
(Arguably, had I wanted to fight the Godless Jew Commies and Thwart
Their Plans for the Invasion of California, studying physics was a
whole helluva lot more productive than having my ass blown off in some
rice paddy while fighting people who just wanted the French, then the
Americans, out of their country and off their farms.)
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin attack
was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and perhaps even
the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in hindsight is easy.
You forget that many millions knew about the Gulf of Tonkin charade as
early as 1966. You forget that Pentagon analysts knew the casus belli
was a charade. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the full story to the press in
1971.
(Confirming what the anti-Vietnam War folks had been saying for several
years.)
Anyone who volunteered for Nam after 1971 was surely delusional, or
just too poorly read to have seen what was laid out in the Pentagon
Papers. Or had drunk the Kool-Aid. Or was waiting for the imminent
invasion of California by the Red Horde.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Do not blame the brave youngsters volunteering to defend our once-great
nation, they've truly saved our collective asses in the past. Enlistees
are not "losers" or "gung-ho nitwits".
Enlistees for foreign wars, especially wars in which the foreign nation
has not attacked U.S. soil, are indeed gung-ho nitwits.
We went to war in Korea to "defend" one side against another side. Even
if we had a "mutual defense treaty" with one side, such treaties are
one-sided, excuses for interventionism. Honestly, would South Korea
have come to the defense of the U.S., sent troops here, if the U.S. had
been invaded? Ditto for the puppet regime installed in Saigon...would
their "treaty" or "deal" with us have involved their coming to _our_
defense in a war? Not hardly. Ditto for the oil sheiks in Kuwait, who
called for their asses to be bailout out after our Ambassatrix in Iraq
had given Saddam the scuttlebutt that the U.S. would not be "too" much
against Iraq taking disputed oilfields back. April Whatshername screwed
the pooch on that one. But, in any case, just what caused the U.S. to
go to war to fight some other country's war for it?
(Other interests, that's what. Oil. Zion.)
Mega-dittos for the whole clusterfuck in the former Yugoslavia. We had
troops on the ground in Bosnia, Kosovo, and were launching bombing
raids on Serbia. _We_ were fighting so many different factions we
didn't even know the backstory on who our "allies" were.
Hell, even EUROPE, even countries right next door to Yugoslavia,
weren't jumping in to help one faction or another. Where was Italy in
that clusterfuck? Where was Austria? Where was Germany? Where was
France? Where was Greece?
The U.S. used to have a policy of "We don't start wars." And "no
foreign entanglements." This was decried by the NeoCons and the
Globalists as "isolationism." Well, it kept us out of a lot of the wars
raging through Europe, at least until we got sucked into the Great War
by a globalist named Wilson in a war fought over weird family royal
connections (England and France and elements of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire, and triggered by a lowly assassionation in, you guessed it,
Sarajevo, part of that same "balkanized" (the origin of the term)
region later known as Yugoslavia).
American men died, allegedly, so that some inbred royals in England
could tell their inbred cousins on the Continent that they had fought
the good fight.
And so on. Foreign wars.
And after WW II, America was sitting astride the world. Any countries
that didn't like our role were called "Commies."
When Ho approached the U.S. about our helping to get the French out of
"French Indochina," our late 1940s policy planners decided to rebuff
him, pushing him and his nascent freedom fighters into the arms of
China and Russia.
And so we ended up fighting for one bunch of crooks--the crooks and
drug runners in Saigon--in their war against another bunch of crooks.
Real smart. And everything Washington and Eisenhower warned us about.
We hated the Commies so much we gave Redeye missiles to Muslims in
Afghanistan (which had committed the common error of thinking they
could occupy Afghanistan....something many empires and nations have
learned cannot be done). The CIA funded Bin Laden. The DIA provided
covert military support.
We hated the Commies so much, even after China was our new friend and
even as communismm was falling in the former USSR, that we took the
side of whichever group in the disintegrating Yugoslavia would fight
the former Communists in Belgrade. In some cases, we set up Muslim
undergrounds to fight the Serbs. Some of those undergrounds became part
of The Base.
Once again, we sent our boys to die in other people's wars. And some
gung-ho nitwits could always be counted on to chug the Kool-Aid.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Trashing good people will not convince people of your platform.
Post by Tim May
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, these are incredibly brave soldiers. Blame the decision makers, not
the grunts.
I'm sure the Russian soldiers in "Red Dawn" and in actual, real
invasions were incredibly brave soldiers. So?
Ditto for soldiers on all sides. Nevertheless, unless one's actual home
or family or local poltical region is under serious and plausible and
tangible threat, one is a fool to volunteer to go fight on the other
side of the planet for the interest of the British Royal Family or
Zapata Petroleum or Halliburton.
(Even George Bush, Jr. wasn't dumb enough to let himself get sent into
combat. Nor did Cheney ever serve. Nor most of the NeoCon/Israel First
lobby now active in planning the invasion of Iran.)
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
War does that to people. Help them, don't punish them for their inherent
goodness.
They cannot be helped. Giving them handouts only makes their dependency
worse. We can't undo the damage to their minds, their willpower, their
willingness to work a real job.
Best to just write them off and learn the important lesson: avoid
foreign wars.
And get rid of the full-time standing army. When you've got a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. When you've got a full-time standing
army, everything looks like a war.
--Tim May
STANDING OVATION
Bravo Tim May !!!! Bravisimo !

Lg
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-22 20:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
STANDING OVATION
Bravo Tim May !!!! Bravisimo !
Lg
You too? I thought you had more spine than to trash the military.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Gllickman
2008-01-22 20:36:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:17:35 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
STANDING OVATION
Bravo Tim May !!!! Bravisimo !
Lg
You too? I thought you had more spine than to trash the military.
Unfortunately for Planet Earth, my mother had a son born with a brain.
It turns out, after many years of research, that I am that son.

The Military turns people into machines, because the Military IS a
machine. It trains the body to kill. The problem is...it does
nothing about reconciling the psychic conflict that follows upon that
bloodshed. Instead, you find yourself *out the door and on the
street* with PTSD. Or to use the current euphamism, Gulf War
Syndrome.

The US Military does not support our troops; it USES them, like
chattel.

When the Military starts treating them like human beings, I will
gladly follow suit. They tell you you're an individual. An Army of
One. And then they treat you like you're just another round in the
ammo magazine. ==expendable==

If they don't respect their own, don't expect tears from me.

Lg
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-22 20:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Don't be insulting. _I_ was one of the volunteers.
At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.
Some facts. The largest H-bomb ever detonated was 54-MT bomb, in
around 1962. And since the volume of material "sucked into a fireball"
goes as the cube root of the yield, that 54-MT bomb was only about 4
times more fallout-producing as a run-of-the-mil [SIC] small nuke in
the low MT range.
It was advertised as a 100megaton device. In fact the Tsar Bomba was,
indeed, 100megaton although some sites claim that the test version was
detuned.
Post by Tim May
(The number of radioistopes generated inside the bomb itself, as opposed
to from dirt and trees sucked in and converted to short-half-life
radioistopes, slightly increases this, as it scales linearly with MT,
not as the square root or cube root, as other effects do. Doesn't mean
much, though.)
As for the Japanese hiding indoors, well, they do tend to run and hide a
lot in their post-war years. Oh, and the Kamchatka Peninsula and other
Far North testing areas was not upstream of Japan. The Jet Stream
matters.
Look at events, not opinion.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous
levels of atmospheric radiation.
Nonsense. You bought the scare stories.
Your contradiction is less than convincing.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars were being fought across
the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing sides. Vietnam was but
one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese Communists were going
to invade the West Coast next.
Those who believed this fairy tale about the Chinese invading California
would've been the kind to volunteer to go to Nam to kill Commies. Oh, I
see at least two Californias here did exactly that. You drank the
Kool-Aid.
Which, again, does nothing to rebut my points. We are speaking of young
people enlisting, not your arrogance of knowledge.
Post by Tim May
Myself, as a San Diegan when these nuclear tests were common (they ended
a 100-page report when I was in the 7th grade about how atomic and
hydrogen bombs worked. (I had good physics intuition, so the articles in
encyclopedias and books on science made complete sense to me...I didn't
have the calculus to compute shock wave details, but I had the gist.)
Unlike so many others who were "askeert of them atom things," I
found nuclear science fascinating. And so later, in college, that's what
I majored in. Physics, that is. Paid off pretty damned well, too.
(Arguably, had I wanted to fight the Godless Jew Commies and Thwart
Their Plans for the Invasion of California, studying physics was a whole
helluva lot more productive than having my ass blown off in some rice
paddy while fighting people who just wanted the French, then the
Americans, out of their country and off their farms.)
Again, we are not speaking of you, your knowledge, or arrogance but the
United States, lying politicans, society in the 1960's and trusting,
honest, brave people who volunteered. The world does not revolve around
you.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin
attack was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and
perhaps even the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in
hindsight is easy.
You forget that many millions knew about the Gulf of Tonkin charade as
early as 1966. You forget that Pentagon analysts knew the casus belli
was a charade. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the full story to the press in
1971.
I do? How do you know what I know or forget? No, don't answer that, it's
just another distraction.
Post by Tim May
(Confirming what the anti-Vietnam War folks had been saying for several
years.)
Anyone who volunteered for Nam after 1971 was surely delusional, or just
too poorly read to have seen what was laid out in the Pentagon Papers.
Or had drunk the Kool-Aid. Or was waiting for the imminent invasion of
California by the Red Horde.
Damn, you are an arrogant asshole. Yes, most people knew by then but that
doesn't make enlistees "delusional."
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Do not blame the brave youngsters volunteering to defend our once-great
nation, they've truly saved our collective asses in the past. Enlistees
are not "losers" or "gung-ho nitwits".
Enlistees for foreign wars, especially wars in which the foreign nation
has not attacked U.S. soil, are indeed gung-ho nitwits.
And you are an asshole. Everybody has opinions, you've changed mine about
you.
Post by Tim May
We went to war in Korea to "defend" one side against another side. Even
if we had a "mutual defense treaty" with one side, such treaties are
one-sided, excuses for interventionism. Honestly, would South Korea have
come to the defense of the U.S., sent troops here, if the U.S. had been
invaded? Ditto for the puppet regime installed in Saigon...would their
"treaty" or "deal" with us have involved their coming to _our_ defense
in a war? Not hardly. Ditto for the oil sheiks in Kuwait, who called for
their asses to be bailout out after our Ambassatrix in Iraq had given
Saddam the scuttlebutt that the U.S. would not be "too" much against
Iraq taking disputed oilfields back. April Whatshername screwed the
pooch on that one. But, in any case, just what caused the U.S. to go to
war to fight some other country's war for it?
(Other interests, that's what. Oil. Zion.)
Mega-dittos for the whole clusterfuck in the former Yugoslavia. We had
troops on the ground in Bosnia, Kosovo, and were launching bombing raids
on Serbia. _We_ were fighting so many different factions we didn't even
know the backstory on who our "allies" were.
Hell, even EUROPE, even countries right next door to Yugoslavia, weren't
jumping in to help one faction or another. Where was Italy in that
clusterfuck? Where was Austria? Where was Germany? Where was France?
Where was Greece?
The U.S. used to have a policy of "We don't start wars." And "no foreign
entanglements." This was decried by the NeoCons and the Globalists as
"isolationism." Well, it kept us out of a lot of the wars raging through
Europe, at least until we got sucked into the Great War by a globalist
named Wilson in a war fought over weird family royal connections
(England and France and elements of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and
triggered by a lowly assassionation in, you guessed it, Sarajevo, part
of that same "balkanized" (the origin of the term) region later known as
Yugoslavia).
American men died, allegedly, so that some inbred royals in England
could tell their inbred cousins on the Continent that they had fought
the good fight.
And so on. Foreign wars.
And after WW II, America was sitting astride the world. Any countries
that didn't like our role were called "Commies."
When Ho approached the U.S. about our helping to get the French out of
"French Indochina," our late 1940s policy planners decided to rebuff
him, pushing him and his nascent freedom fighters into the arms of China
and Russia.
And so we ended up fighting for one bunch of crooks--the crooks and drug
runners in Saigon--in their war against another bunch of crooks.
Real smart. And everything Washington and Eisenhower warned us about.
We hated the Commies so much we gave Redeye missiles to Muslims in
Afghanistan (which had committed the common error of thinking they could
occupy Afghanistan....something many empires and nations have learned
cannot be done). The CIA funded Bin Laden. The DIA provided covert
military support.
We hated the Commies so much, even after China was our new friend and
even as communismm was falling in the former USSR, that we took the side
of whichever group in the disintegrating Yugoslavia would fight the
former Communists in Belgrade. In some cases, we set up Muslim
undergrounds to fight the Serbs. Some of those undergrounds became part
of The Base.
Once again, we sent our boys to die in other people's wars. And some
gung-ho nitwits could always be counted on to chug the Kool-Aid.
I, too, am against using our military for foreign policy but you seem more
intent on trashing the good people America desperately need for defense.

Blame the policy makers, not the grunts.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Trashing good people will not convince people of your platform.
Post by Tim May
The same applies to the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, these are incredibly brave soldiers. Blame the decision makers,
not the grunts.
I'm sure the Russian soldiers in "Red Dawn" and in actual, real
invasions were incredibly brave soldiers. So?
So you are an asshole for demeaning and denigrating good people. This is
not the way to push your dispute with policy, you've alienated those who
might otherwise support you.
Post by Tim May
Ditto for soldiers on all sides. Nevertheless, unless one's actual home
or family or local poltical region is under serious and plausible and
tangible threat, one is a fool to volunteer to go fight on the other
side of the planet for the interest of the British Royal Family or
Zapata Petroleum or Halliburton.
And who, precisely, went to war volunteering their life for those
corporations? None, you are projecting.
Post by Tim May
(Even George Bush, Jr. wasn't dumb enough to let himself get sent into
combat. Nor did Cheney ever serve. Nor most of the NeoCon/Israel First
lobby now active in planning the invasion of Iran.)
No shit? This is what I mean, you've shot yourself in the foot by being
an asshole. Most people here are aware of the chickenhawks and equally,
or even more, opposed to their policies but disgusted with your trashing
good soldiers and distance themselves from your arguments.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
And the same crazy and unemployable people are coming back from those
clusterfucks.
War does that to people. Help them, don't punish them for their
inherent goodness.
They cannot be helped. Giving them handouts only makes their dependency
worse. We can't undo the damage to their minds, their willpower, their
willingness to work a real job.
Wrong, they can be helped. That you write off human lives with a wave of
your hand makes you just as inhuman as those who made the policies
creating this nightmare.
Post by Tim May
Best to just write them off and learn the important lesson: avoid
foreign wars.
And get rid of the full-time standing army. When you've got a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. When you've got a full-time standing army,
everything looks like a war.
Same story, many people believe in many of the same issues you do but have
an iota of humanity. Dissing good people submarines our argument. If you
can't convince even those who believe similarly then how do you expect to
convince those who believe otherwise?

If you want the message against the Bush Administration and fascism to
succeed then you'd do better to just shut up and let people with a heart
carry the message.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-23 00:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Some facts. The largest H-bomb ever detonated was 54-MT bomb, in
around 1962. And since the volume of material "sucked into a fireball"
goes as the cube root of the yield, that 54-MT bomb was only about 4
times more fallout-producing as a run-of-the-mil [SIC] small nuke in
the low MT range.
It was advertised as a 100megaton device. In fact the Tsar Bomba was,
indeed, 100megaton although some sites claim that the test version was
detuned.
Who the fuck cares what it was "advertised" as? I vividly remember
reading the headlines in the "Washington Star" newspaper. It ranged
between 50 and 54 MT, according to estimates _then_ and more refined
estimances _since_.

But since you feel advertisements count for more than actual data, I'll
bear that in mind in future arguments with you.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
As for the Japanese hiding indoors, well, they do tend to run and hide a
lot in their post-war years. Oh, and the Kamchatka Peninsula and other
Far North testing areas was not upstream of Japan. The Jet Stream
matters.
Look at events, not opinion.
No, look at _geography_. Nova Zemlya Island is well inside the Arctic
Circle. And very much _east_ of Japan.

I have no idea what your "Look at events, not opinion" can possibly
parse to and still make sense when the facts, the geography, made it
impossible for fallout to drift_westward_ and _southward_ against the
jet stream. (Which arises because of the direction the planet is
rotating.)
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous
levels of atmospheric radiation.
Nonsense. You bought the scare stories.
Your contradiction is less than convincing.
Cite the actual measurements that show dangerous levels of "atmospheric
radiation."
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars were being fought across
the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing sides. Vietnam was but
one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese Communists were going
to invade the West Coast next.
Those who believed this fairy tale about the Chinese invading California
would've been the kind to volunteer to go to Nam to kill Commies. Oh, I
see at least two Californias here did exactly that. You drank the
Kool-Aid.
Which, again, does nothing to rebut my points. We are speaking of young
people enlisting, not your arrogance of knowledge.
Yes, we are talking about gung ho nitwits enlisting because they wanted
to kill Commies. My point exactly.
...
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
(Arguably, had I wanted to fight the Godless Jew Commies and Thwart
Their Plans for the Invasion of California, studying physics was a whole
helluva lot more productive than having my ass blown off in some rice
paddy while fighting people who just wanted the French, then the
Americans, out of their country and off their farms.)
Again, we are not speaking of you, your knowledge, or arrogance but the
United States, lying politicans, society in the 1960's and trusting,
honest, brave people who volunteered. The world does not revolve around
you.
Vietnam and other meatgrinder wars serve as an intelligence filter.
Those who buy the fairy tales and volunteer are those who get fed into
the meatgrinder.

The facts were very well-publicized even as early as 1966, and
especially in 1968. Johnson knew it was over, and decided not to even
run again. After an extensive policy review, the Nixonistas knew the
war was lost and in 1969 said that America's chief goal was to get out
as best it could. (Essentially, the tens of thousands who died after
the die was cast, so to speak, died for absolutely nothing. They were
just fed into the meatgrinder. But Kissinger was able to share the
Nobel Peace Prize with his buddy, the chief North Vietnamese negotiator
for the "peace talks," so I guess those 25,000 or so deaths were not in
vain. Yuk yuk yuk.)

Had you kept current on such things, as many of us did, you might have
been spared your ordeal. You now say we were lied to, blah blah, and
yet you talk as if this was some big recent surprise. Earth to Curly:
the story about the two boats in the Gulf of Tonkin and the set-up all
broke when I was still in high school.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin
attack was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and
perhaps even the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in
hindsight is easy.
You forget that many millions knew about the Gulf of Tonkin charade as
early as 1966. You forget that Pentagon analysts knew the casus belli
was a charade. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the full story to the press in
1971.
I do? How do you know what I know or forget? No, don't answer that, it's
just another distraction.
You present it as "Today we see the lies more clearly...", when, in
fact, they were even more convincingly described, and publicized,
precisely when the Pentagon Papers were published. Didn't you ever see
that big fat white paperback being passed around and around?

Didn't you follow Watergate, beginning the following summer, and the
revelations about how Nixon knew the war was lost and only wanted his
legacy protected?
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
(Confirming what the anti-Vietnam War folks had been saying for several
years.)
Anyone who volunteered for Nam after 1971 was surely delusional, or just
too poorly read to have seen what was laid out in the Pentagon Papers.
Or had drunk the Kool-Aid. Or was waiting for the imminent invasion of
California by the Red Horde.
Damn, you are an arrogant asshole. Yes, most people knew by then but that
doesn't make enlistees "delusional."
Like I said, volunteers for a meatgrinder flunked the intelligence
test. A lot of them won the Darwin Award.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Once again, we sent our boys to die in other people's wars. And some
gung-ho nitwits could always be counted on to chug the Kool-Aid.
I, too, am against using our military for foreign policy but you seem more
intent on trashing the good people America desperately need for defense.
Blame the policy makers, not the grunts.
When a war is pointless, people should not be volunteering for it.
Period.

That's as effective a way to discourage pointless wars as anything is.

You seem to think that "trashing" volunteers somehow reaches back in
time, causally, and harms those volunteers.

You value their "honor" more than you value thinking about what
strategy might actually _put an end_ to the bad wars and bad decisions
of the policy makers.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
I'm sure the Russian soldiers in "Red Dawn" and in actual, real
invasions were incredibly brave soldiers. So?
So you are an asshole for demeaning and denigrating good people. This is
not the way to push your dispute with policy, you've alienated those who
might otherwise support you.
News flash: I am not writing here to get your "support." I am writing
to state what is patently obvious to nearly everyone, but not to those
who flunked the intelligence test four decades ago.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Ditto for soldiers on all sides. Nevertheless, unless one's actual home
or family or local poltical region is under serious and plausible and
tangible threat, one is a fool to volunteer to go fight on the other
side of the planet for the interest of the British Royal Family or
Zapata Petroleum or Halliburton.
And who, precisely, went to war volunteering their life for those
corporations? None, you are projecting.
Because they were too fucking stupid to see that these wars were being
fought for oil, or for the British Royal Family and its inbreeding with
the royals in Europe.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
They cannot be helped. Giving them handouts only makes their dependency
worse. We can't undo the damage to their minds, their willpower, their
willingness to work a real job.
Wrong, they can be helped. That you write off human lives with a wave of
your hand makes you just as inhuman as those who made the policies
creating this nightmare.
They cannot be helped. My wishing it were otherwise will not make it
so.

You seem to believe in what professionals call "magical thinking."

You believe that "trashing" those who volunteered for pointless
meatgrinder wars some reaches back and time and hurts them. (If they
survived the war and are around today, then surely my mere opinion of
them cannot do damage to them, actual damage, that is. If it could,
then I presume you are calling for limitations on speech. This would
not surprise me one bit.)

And you believe magical thinking about how saying the drooling vets is
a "wave of my hand" that makes something happen.

Well, tell you what. You are free to spend _your_ money setting up
homeless shelters, soup kitchens, needle exchange programs, and all the
rest of what constitutes "helping" these alcoholics, addicts, and
moochers.

As I said, many of them were marginally equipped to enter the working
world BEFORE they volunteered....not surprisingly, they return from a
few tours in Iraq even less equipped to get up at O dark thirty, put on
a "Hot Dog on a Stick" uniform, ride the bus to the mall, and serve hot
dogs on sticks to girls who see them for what they are.

And they sure as hell ain't gonna be engineers and doctors and lawyers.

Thus, hundreds of thousands of "delayed stress syndrome" cases, the new
excuse name for "Don't want no shit job!" disease.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Same story, many people believe in many of the same issues you do but have
an iota of humanity. Dissing good people submarines our argument.
Again with your magical thinking instead of thinking about the deeper
issues.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you want the message against the Bush Administration and fascism to
succeed then you'd do better to just shut up and let people with a heart
carry the message.
"People with a heart"!

What an airhead.


--Tim May
David Arnstein
2008-01-23 01:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
The facts were very well-publicized even as early as 1966, and
especially in 1968. Johnson knew it was over, and decided not to even
run again. After an extensive policy review, the Nixonistas knew the
war was lost and in 1969 said that America's chief goal was to get out
as best it could. (Essentially, the tens of thousands who died after
the die was cast, so to speak, died for absolutely nothing. They were
just fed into the meatgrinder. But Kissinger was able to share the
Nobel Peace Prize with his buddy, the chief North Vietnamese negotiator
for the "peace talks," so I guess those 25,000 or so deaths were not in
vain. Yuk yuk yuk.)
This was the time of maximum dishonor in America's prosecution of the
Vietnam war. The leaders knew that the war was lost. Or more precisely,
they knew that the USA was unwilling to accept the expense, the loss of
life, and the brutality that would be required to defeat the enemy.

And yet, the American war machine rolled on. I will accept your figure
of 25,000 additional deaths, I don't have the heart to look it up for
myself. That would be 25,000 dead, entirely for the purpose of protecting
the careers of American leaders. No other benefits of the war effort
were expected by these leaders. That was the time of maximum dishonor.

I suspect that we are now in the period of maximum dishonor for the
Iraqi invasion. How many more deaths in vain? How much treasure yet to
squander?
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstein+***@pobox.com {{ }}
^^
Tim May
2008-01-23 02:28:26 UTC
Permalink
....
Post by David Arnstein
Post by Tim May
the die was cast, so to speak, died for absolutely nothing. They were
just fed into the meatgrinder. But Kissinger was able to share the
Nobel Peace Prize with his buddy, the chief North Vietnamese negotiator
for the "peace talks," so I guess those 25,000 or so deaths were not in
vain. Yuk yuk yuk.)
This was the time of maximum dishonor in America's prosecution of the
Vietnam war. The leaders knew that the war was lost. Or more precisely,
they knew that the USA was unwilling to accept the expense, the loss of
life, and the brutality that would be required to defeat the enemy.
And yet, the American war machine rolled on. I will accept your figure
of 25,000 additional deaths, I don't have the heart to look it up for
myself. That would be 25,000 dead, entirely for the purpose of protecting
the careers of American leaders. No other benefits of the war effort
were expected by these leaders. That was the time of maximum dishonor.
I was just making a ballpark estimate, knowing that 1968 was the peak
year and that about 5 more years of American involvement lay ahead. Out
of curiousity, I just Googled for American war deaths by months, and
found a number of good charts. One of them is at:

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month
/

It basically confirms that just about half the total number of war
deaths (58,000+) happened after about the 1968 period (the 7th year of
the war, in the chart, starting in 1961, at a very low level).

So the actual number after all the politicians knew it was over was
probably closer to 30,000.

And of course this is not counting the South or North Vietnamese who
died so that "American honor" could be upheld. (Many in the South
presumably would have preferred the South to win, but not enough to
actually win the war themselves. "Vietnamization" never really worked,
and within 18 months of the main departure of U.S. troops, the South
fell.)

Interestingly, in my short Googling for this, I spotted a lot of people
making points about Vietnam and Iraq similar to mine (not
surprisingly), even some speculating that politicians on both sides of
the aisle will soon start speaking of "peace with honor" and "secret
plans to end the war."

This Iraq clusterfuck--pardon my French, but the term originated in the
Vietnam war--is far, far, far worse than the Vietnam version. We know
what happened after that one. Not a whole lot. Even some few good
things, such as when the Vietnamese sent troops into Cambodia in
1978-79 to remove Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. No dominos falling, no
Vietnamese following us back to our shores for revenge (as Julian M.
just quoted McCain as saying about Iraq). The Vietnamese followed us
back to our shores for other reasons, of course.

And, of course, even the hated Commies in Vietnam look like teddy bears
compared to Muslims who believe exploding themselves in crowded markets
sends them to Paradise. The good news is that this probably means
Condoleeza Rice or her successor in the next administration won't be
splitting a Nobel Peace Prize with some Taliban or Al Qaeda "peace with
honor" negotiator.

The reason the Iraq clusterfuck will be so bad has many facets:

-- the 9/11 gang will now have the better part of an entire _country_
to work from, stocked with weaponry and highly experienced in IED
construction and use

-- the entire region, including nuclear Pakistan, is highly destabilized

-- and much of that part of the world, and even Europe, hates us...for
understandable reasons

-- oil is pushing $100 a barrel, for various reasons, but Iraq is part
of it

(I don't believe the primary reason for going to war in Iraq is oil,
though this is part of it. But for sure the real reason wasn't to get
"cheap oil" from Iraq....in fact, creating massive instability in that
region is really, really good for anyone who has oil wells ELSEWHERE.
Russia and Venezuela are major beneficiaries of the instability in Iraq
and nearby regions. So are a lot of American oil companies. To the
extent the war in Iraq was about oil it was probably about ensuring the
cessation of oil production there.)


Fact is, I'm not a believer in "democracry" as it is practiced even in
the U.S. and Europe. No time tonight to explain why, but it has to do
with past warnings about the long term implications of people being
able to vote goodies for themselves by taxing others, about mob rule,
etc.

But in any case, democracy forced onto countries that have NEVER had
any tradition of democracy, who have had strongman rule by kings or
dictators or juntas or just The Wealthy Families will not suddenly
learn democracry. Except in rare cases. It sort of worked in Japan,
partly because we had so massively pounded them so that a "reboot" was
possible. And also because Japan has a peculiar ability to reinvent
themselves, as in the 1860s, as in the early 20th century, and as they
recovered from the devastation of the war.

Democracy has not been successfully imposed in most of Africa, or in
the former Yugoslavia (Tito held things together....as Saddam Hussein
did in Iraq), or, seemingly, in Russia (where Putin is becoming a new
Tsar).

Actually, a strongman like Hussein was probably best for U.S. interests
in the region. And he wasn't even involved in 9/11 or Taliban or Al
Qaeda doings. (Despite the gung-ho nitwits who volunteered after 9/11
to "go kick some raghead butt in Iraq.")

Even America's insistence that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass
destruction," despite being doubted by nearly everyone except those who
stovepiped the false information up the chain of command, was silly.
After all, one country over there was actually doing nothing to stop Al
Qaeda operations in its region. And that same country had nuclear
weapons. And that same country had the "madras" schools where many of
Al Qaeda's members were trained. And that same country was selling,
through its top officials, nuclear weapons knowhow to other countries.

What country was that? Why, Pakistan.

So, a country known to have WMDs. A country harboring Al Qaeda.

And yet we did nothing to them. Except ship more billions in money to
their government, most of which is probably even now in offshore bank
accounts. (Same thing happened in South Vietnam, by the way. When the
leaders fled, they had sizable bank accounts waiting to be accessed.
This does more to destabilize things than most people realize. The
leadership has an escape hatch already planned. No "skin in the game,
" so to speak...and much to be gained by fleeing in a chopper and
retiring to the beach.)

So, Pakistan had WMDs, Iraq did not. "Iraq must be stopped!"

Duh.

Probably the real reason for attacking Iraq was that our planners
thought it would be a cakewalk, a quick "shock and awe" exercise to
teach other countries a lesson. And they knew they could not defeat
Pakistan....too many people. And the oil. Pakistan has none, so nothing
to be either grabbed, or, just as usefully, taken off the world market
through destruction of the production and transport facilities.

The Panama strategy...attack little countries.

Except things didn't work out quite so well. Obviously.

Now we have a country that is likely to be one giant training camp,
with a lot more hatred of America, and with nothing we can do about it.

And, as in the aftermath of Vietnam, the likely result will be a 10-15
year period of extreme American pacifism. Which won't be exactly bad,
in my opinion, but it sure will be the worst nightmare for all the
militarists and Israel First! hotheads.

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that this could end up costing
Israel its very existence. After the shellacking America takes over
Iraq, there will little heart for getting into a war with those
attacking Israel. And with a couple of small nukes from the
Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan Co-Prosperity Sphere of 2012, could be
lights out for Tel Aviv. Israel will of course strike back, or may
strike first. But the effect will be the same. A lot of instense gamma
ray and thermal sources for the evening news to show. The U.S. will
cluck, rave on at the U.N., and claim that "the Iraqi war protesters
lost us that war!" "Who lost Iraq?" may lead to "Who lost Israel?"


If so, this will be poetic justice, considering that it was the Israel
First! lobby which pushed for the invasion of Iraq.


--Tim May
Gunner Asch
2008-01-19 13:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Arnstein
Post by Tim May
The facts were very well-publicized even as early as 1966, and
especially in 1968. Johnson knew it was over, and decided not to even
run again. After an extensive policy review, the Nixonistas knew the
war was lost and in 1969 said that America's chief goal was to get out
as best it could. (Essentially, the tens of thousands who died after
the die was cast, so to speak, died for absolutely nothing. They were
just fed into the meatgrinder. But Kissinger was able to share the
Nobel Peace Prize with his buddy, the chief North Vietnamese negotiator
for the "peace talks," so I guess those 25,000 or so deaths were not in
vain. Yuk yuk yuk.)
This was the time of maximum dishonor in America's prosecution of the
Vietnam war. The leaders knew that the war was lost. Or more precisely,
they knew that the USA was unwilling to accept the expense, the loss of
life, and the brutality that would be required to defeat the enemy.
And yet, the American war machine rolled on. I will accept your figure
of 25,000 additional deaths, I don't have the heart to look it up for
myself. That would be 25,000 dead, entirely for the purpose of protecting
the careers of American leaders. No other benefits of the war effort
were expected by these leaders. That was the time of maximum dishonor.
I suspect that we are now in the period of maximum dishonor for the
Iraqi invasion. How many more deaths in vain? How much treasure yet to
squander?
Odd that General Giap and his aid, Colonel Tin both disagree with both
of you shitbirds.

But hey...we really shouldnt let historical facts interfer with your
America hating self hating self rightious rants.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-23 07:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Some facts. The largest H-bomb ever detonated was 54-MT bomb, in
around 1962. And since the volume of material "sucked into a fireball"
goes as the cube root of the yield, that 54-MT bomb was only about 4
times more fallout-producing as a run-of-the-mil [SIC] small nuke in
the low MT range.
It was advertised as a 100megaton device. In fact the Tsar Bomba was,
indeed, 100megaton although some sites claim that the test version was
detuned.
Who the fuck cares what it was "advertised" as? I vividly remember
reading the headlines in the "Washington Star" newspaper. It ranged
between 50 and 54 MT, according to estimates _then_ and more refined
estimances _since_.
But since you feel advertisements count for more than actual data, I'll
bear that in mind in future arguments with you.
Actual history:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soviet+%22100+megaton%22&btnG=Google+Search
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
As for the Japanese hiding indoors, well, they do tend to run and
hide a lot in their post-war years. Oh, and the Kamchatka Peninsula
and other Far North testing areas was not upstream of Japan. The Jet
Stream matters.
Look at events, not opinion.
No, look at _geography_. Nova Zemlya Island is well inside the Arctic
Circle. And very much _east_ of Japan.
I don't care where Nova Zemlya is, I care about the fallout which hit
Japan dangerously and California heavily. Besides, most of the tests were
in Kazakhstan. Take your distractions elsewhere, the topic is about our
soldiers.
Post by Tim May
I have no idea what your "Look at events, not opinion" can possibly
parse to and still make sense when the facts, the geography, made it
impossible for fallout to drift_westward_ and _southward_ against the
jet stream. (Which arises because of the direction the planet is
rotating.)
I will not be distracted into weather, the fact is that Japan had
dangerous levels of fallout from Russian nuclear testing and that you are
trashing our soldiers for being brave.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Even in California we had high levels of Strontium-90 and dangerous
levels of atmospheric radiation.
Nonsense. You bought the scare stories.
Your contradiction is less than convincing.
Cite the actual measurements that show dangerous levels of "atmospheric
radiation."
I'm not going to play your game of distractions or do your research any
longer. I'm sorry that I allowed you to distract the conversation, the
issue here is your trashing our soldiers.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Kruchev was threatening annihilation and wars were being fought
across the globe by puppet armies backed by opposing sides. Vietnam
was but one and we were told unequivocably that Chinese Communists
were going to invade the West Coast next.
Those who believed this fairy tale about the Chinese invading
California would've been the kind to volunteer to go to Nam to kill
Commies. Oh, I see at least two Californias here did exactly that.
You drank the Kool-Aid.
Which, again, does nothing to rebut my points. We are speaking of
young people enlisting, not your arrogance of knowledge.
Yes, we are talking about gung ho nitwits enlisting because they wanted
to kill Commies. My point exactly.
Nope, we are speaking of brave young people who you find convenient
scapegoats. Go after the policy makers, not the grunts.
Post by Tim May
...
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
(Arguably, had I wanted to fight the Godless Jew Commies and Thwart
Their Plans for the Invasion of California, studying physics was a
whole helluva lot more productive than having my ass blown off in
some rice paddy while fighting people who just wanted the French,
then the Americans, out of their country and off their farms.)
Again, we are not speaking of you, your knowledge, or arrogance but
the United States, lying politicans, society in the 1960's and
trusting, honest, brave people who volunteered. The world does not
revolve around you.
Vietnam and other meatgrinder wars serve as an intelligence filter.
Those who buy the fairy tales and volunteer are those who get fed into
the meatgrinder.
The facts were very well-publicized even as early as 1966, and
especially in 1968.
A lot of us enlisted prior to 1966, a lot of ignorant young enlisted after
1966. That's a distraction, you're dumping on good people when you should
be after the leaders and policy makers.
Post by Tim May
Johnson knew it was over, and decided not to even
run again. After an extensive policy review, the Nixonistas knew the war
was lost and in 1969 said that America's chief goal was to get out as
best it could. (Essentially, the tens of thousands who died after the
die was cast, so to speak, died for absolutely nothing. They were just
fed into the meatgrinder. But Kissinger was able to share the Nobel
Peace Prize with his buddy, the chief North Vietnamese negotiator for
the "peace talks," so I guess those 25,000 or so deaths were not in
vain. Yuk yuk yuk.)
I do not find death humorous.
Post by Tim May
Had you kept current on such things, as many of us did, you might have
been spared your ordeal. You now say we were lied to, blah blah, and yet
you talk as if this was some big recent surprise. Earth to Curly: the
story about the two boats in the Gulf of Tonkin and the set-up all broke
when I was still in high school.
Might. You are younger than I, and a lot less humane. The soldiers who
died deserve respect, not your bile.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Today we see the lies more clearly, we know that the Gulf of Tonkin
attack was a lie, that the reasons for invading Iraq was a lie and
perhaps even the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. 20-20 vision in
hindsight is easy.
You forget that many millions knew about the Gulf of Tonkin charade
as early as 1966. You forget that Pentagon analysts knew the casus
belli was a charade. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the full story to the
press in 1971.
I do? How do you know what I know or forget? No, don't answer that,
it's just another distraction.
You present it as "Today we see the lies more clearly...", when, in
fact, they were even more convincingly described, and publicized,
precisely when the Pentagon Papers were published. Didn't you ever see
that big fat white paperback being passed around and around?
Didn't you follow Watergate, beginning the following summer, and the
revelations about how Nixon knew the war was lost and only wanted his
legacy protected?
My service began before any of those issues yet you seem to think later
events justify the deaths of our soldiers. You're mentally ill.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
(Confirming what the anti-Vietnam War folks had been saying for
several years.)
Anyone who volunteered for Nam after 1971 was surely delusional, or
just too poorly read to have seen what was laid out in the Pentagon
Papers. Or had drunk the Kool-Aid. Or was waiting for the imminent
invasion of California by the Red Horde.
Damn, you are an arrogant asshole. Yes, most people knew by then but
that doesn't make enlistees "delusional."
Like I said, volunteers for a meatgrinder flunked the intelligence test.
A lot of them won the Darwin Award.
You do not deserve my prior consideration either. Dishonoring our troops
makes you scum in my opinion.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Once again, we sent our boys to die in other people's wars. And some
gung-ho nitwits could always be counted on to chug the Kool-Aid.
I, too, am against using our military for foreign policy but you seem
more intent on trashing the good people America desperately need for
defense.
Blame the policy makers, not the grunts.
When a war is pointless, people should not be volunteering for it.
Period.
That's as effective a way to discourage pointless wars as anything is.
You seem to think that "trashing" volunteers somehow reaches back in
time, causally, and harms those volunteers.
You value their "honor" more than you value thinking about what strategy
might actually _put an end_ to the bad wars and bad decisions of the
policy makers.
And you have a sick mind to be trashing those who offered their very
lives for our nation. Even if later events proved that the leaders lied
it does not justify your visciousness.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
I'm sure the Russian soldiers in "Red Dawn" and in actual, real
invasions were incredibly brave soldiers. So?
So you are an asshole for demeaning and denigrating good people. This
is not the way to push your dispute with policy, you've alienated those
who might otherwise support you.
News flash: I am not writing here to get your "support." I am writing to
state what is patently obvious to nearly everyone, but not to those who
flunked the intelligence test four decades ago.
I have no idea why you demean our soldiers other than mental illness. Nor
do I wish to speculate or diagnose, it is sufficient that I am dealing
with a sociopath. Now I'll go wash my hands, they feel unclean after this.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Ditto for soldiers on all sides. Nevertheless, unless one's actual
home or family or local poltical region is under serious and
plausible and tangible threat, one is a fool to volunteer to go fight
on the other side of the planet for the interest of the British Royal
Family or Zapata Petroleum or Halliburton.
And who, precisely, went to war volunteering their life for those
corporations? None, you are projecting.
Because they were too fucking stupid to see that these wars were being
fought for oil, or for the British Royal Family and its inbreeding with
the royals in Europe.
Using hindsight to impugn soldiers is unwarranted. Putting your
unrealistic standards on others is disgusting.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
They cannot be helped. Giving them handouts only makes their
dependency worse. We can't undo the damage to their minds, their
willpower, their willingness to work a real job.
Wrong, they can be helped. That you write off human lives with a wave
of your hand makes you just as inhuman as those who made the policies
creating this nightmare.
They cannot be helped. My wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
You seem to believe in what professionals call "magical thinking."
You believe that "trashing" those who volunteered for pointless
meatgrinder wars some reaches back and time and hurts them. (If they
survived the war and are around today, then surely my mere opinion of
them cannot do damage to them, actual damage, that is. If it could, then
I presume you are calling for limitations on speech. This would not
surprise me one bit.)
And you believe magical thinking about how saying the drooling vets is a
"wave of my hand" that makes something happen.
Well, tell you what. You are free to spend _your_ money setting up
homeless shelters, soup kitchens, needle exchange programs, and all the
rest of what constitutes "helping" these alcoholics, addicts, and
moochers.
As I said, many of them were marginally equipped to enter the working
world BEFORE they volunteered....not surprisingly, they return from a
few tours in Iraq even less equipped to get up at O dark thirty, put on
a "Hot Dog on a Stick" uniform, ride the bus to the mall, and serve hot
dogs on sticks to girls who see them for what they are.
And they sure as hell ain't gonna be engineers and doctors and lawyers.
Thus, hundreds of thousands of "delayed stress syndrome" cases, the new
excuse name for "Don't want no shit job!" disease.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Same story, many people believe in many of the same issues you do but
have an iota of humanity. Dissing good people submarines our argument.
Again with your magical thinking instead of thinking about the deeper
issues.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
If you want the message against the Bush Administration and fascism to
succeed then you'd do better to just shut up and let people with a
heart carry the message.
"People with a heart"!
What an airhead.
What a heartless bastard you are.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-23 07:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
No, look at _geography_. Nova Zemlya Island is well inside the Arctic
Circle. And very much _east_ of Japan.
I don't care where Nova Zemlya is, I care about the fallout which hit
Japan dangerously and California heavily. Besides, most of the tests were
in Kazakhstan. Take your distractions elsewhere, the topic is about our
soldiers.
Idiot. You claimed the 54-MT test, which you claimed was 100-MT because
it was "advertised" as 100 MT, contaminated Japan. Utter nonsense.

Look at where Nova Zemlya is relative to where Japan is.

And, as I said a couple of posts ago, look at much less significant an
airburst at 40,000 feet is than a ground burst is, considering that the
uptake of fallout input scales as the cube root of the blast
megatonnage. To wit, a 54-MT burst at 40,000 feet is hundreds of times
less fallout-productive than a routine (then) 5-MT burst at ground
level.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
I have no idea what your "Look at events, not opinion" can possibly
parse to and still make sense when the facts, the geography, made it
impossible for fallout to drift_westward_ and _southward_ against the
jet stream. (Which arises because of the direction the planet is
rotating.)
I will not be distracted into weather, the fact is that Japan had
dangerous levels of fallout from Russian nuclear testing and that you are
trashing our soldiers for being brave.
Yes, you will not be "distracted" by weather. Nor by reality. Nor by
logic. You believe in "advertising," as you indicated earlier today.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Cite the actual measurements that show dangerous levels of "atmospheric
radiation."
I'm not going to play your game of distractions or do your research any
longer.
I've done the research far better than you. Hardly surprising, given
our pasts. You, the self-admitted "gullible and ignorant" grunt, me,
the professional physicist at Intel Corporation.

Explains a lot about our finances.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
The facts were very well-publicized even as early as 1966, and
especially in 1968.
A lot of us enlisted prior to 1966, a lot of ignorant young enlisted after
1966. That's a distraction, you're dumping on good people when you should
be after the leaders and policy makers.
But the only issue here is which year YOU enlisted, volunteering to go
kill Commie gooks who had never attacked the United States in any way.

Which year was it?

Even if it was as early as 1965, you were relying on a lot of "Go to
Vietnam and kill gooks because they are Commies!" propaganda.

If it was as late as Spring, 1968, then you had truly drunk the
Kool-Aid.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
What an airhead.
What a heartless bastard you are.
Your escape from the Darwin Test was just one of those flukes.


--Tim May
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2008-01-23 00:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
It was advertised as a 100megaton device. In fact the Tsar Bomba was,
indeed, 100megaton although some sites claim that the test version was
detuned.
Yeah - Who cares about reality? I kind of sort of remember some sort of
advertisement I may once have seen, so therefore, it was a 100 megaton
bomb.

Right.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Look at events, not opinion.
I prefer to look at my misremeberings of advertisments, thankyouverymuch.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Those who believed this fairy tale about the Chinese invading California
would've been the kind to volunteer to go to Nam to kill Commies. Oh, I
see at least two Californias here did exactly that. You drank the
Kool-Aid.
Which, again, does nothing to rebut my points. We are speaking of young
people enlisting, not your arrogance of knowledge.
We were talking about gung-ho nitwits. Not the good, honest people who
resisted the lies which others swallowed, and who, at great risk to
themselves, resisted the war machine and its propoganda.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Anyone who volunteered for Nam after 1971 was surely delusional, or just
too poorly read to have seen what was laid out in the Pentagon Papers.
Or had drunk the Kool-Aid. Or was waiting for the imminent invasion of
California by the Red Horde.
Damn, you are an arrogant asshole. Yes, most people knew by then but that
doesn't make enlistees "delusional."
Read what he said. If they weren't delusional, then he left open the
possibility that they may have been ignorant or gullible. You brag that
you were both.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-23 06:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
It was advertised as a 100megaton device. In fact the Tsar Bomba was,
indeed, 100megaton although some sites claim that the test version was
detuned.
Yeah - Who cares about reality? I kind of sort of remember some sort of
advertisement I may once have seen, so therefore, it was a 100 megaton
bomb.
Right.
No need for ignorance, educate yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soviet+%22100+megaton%22&btnG=Google+Search
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Look at events, not opinion.
I prefer to look at my misremeberings of advertisments,
thankyouverymuch.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Those who believed this fairy tale about the Chinese invading
California would've been the kind to volunteer to go to Nam to kill
Commies. Oh, I see at least two Californias here did exactly that.
You drank the Kool-Aid.
Which, again, does nothing to rebut my points. We are speaking of
young people enlisting, not your arrogance of knowledge.
We were talking about gung-ho nitwits. Not the good, honest people who
resisted the lies which others swallowed, and who, at great risk to
themselves, resisted the war machine and its propoganda.
Only you were speaking in derogatory terms toward our soldiers.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Anyone who volunteered for Nam after 1971 was surely delusional, or
just too poorly read to have seen what was laid out in the Pentagon
Papers. Or had drunk the Kool-Aid. Or was waiting for the imminent
invasion of California by the Red Horde.
Damn, you are an arrogant asshole. Yes, most people knew by then but
that doesn't make enlistees "delusional."
Read what he said. If they weren't delusional, then he left open the
possibility that they may have been ignorant or gullible. You brag that
you were both.
Yes, I was both ignorant and gullible. That does not make me delusional.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-23 06:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Read what he said. If they weren't delusional, then he left open the
possibility that they may have been ignorant or gullible. You brag that
you were both.
Yes, I was both ignorant and gullible. That does not make me delusional.
Indeed, a certain fraction of the ignorant and gullible made it past
the intelligence filter. While they should not have escaped the
meatgrinder, they did. Sort of like the dribble that oozes over the
edge of the input chamber while the crank is turned.

Count yourself lucky...you are one of the Lucky Morons.

If we can convince you to sign up to go kick some Iraqi butt, to show
those ragheads that Jesus hates them, to teach them a lesson in how
good ole boys treat Muslim fags, then maybe we can fix the error in the
Darwin Lottery.

All you need to do is put your money where your mouth is and sign up
for a job with Blackhawk driving a truck from the Baghram Air Base to
the Green Zone. Survival rate on any particular run is 97%. Survival
rate on the 18 runs you need to make your first month, well, not so
good. If you make it four months, you get a good bonus! A good deal for
Blackhawk, apparently.

But that would involve some math you don't have, some of that math the
"fairies" who didn't volunteer in 1972 to "go kick gook butt in Nam"
seem to know, so we'll just leave it as "Good luck, patriot. Hoo-Rahh!"

Good luck in Baghdad, soldier!


--Tim May
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2008-01-22 23:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.
Funny, millions of young people chose to resist. What made you different?
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
War does that to people. Help them, don't punish them for their inherent
goodness.
The good people were anti-war. Both then and in 2002.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Tim May
2008-01-23 00:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
At 18 years old people are still children, perhaps less so today but in
the 60's we didn't have the vivid examples of corrupt government and were
trained to "duck and cover" from the Cold War. Everyday images of nuclear
holocaust were front and center with the Soviets setting off 100 megaton
blasts in the far North that caused Japan to hide indoors, stop drinking
milk, filter their water, wear masks and endure increasing birth defects.
Funny, millions of young people chose to resist. What made you different?
Not just that, but the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.

"You lost the war for us!" was what so many of Curly's persuasion were
saying at the time. OK, so suppose there had been no protesters after,
say, 1968.

Suppose another couple of hundred thousand American kids died. Suppose
even that the South had won. What would be so different?

Intel now has manufacturing plants in Vietnam. Perhaps had the South
won, it would've had plants there in 2000, a few years earlier.

Or perhaps the South would've put the same military junta policies in
place that nearby Burma has long had--Burma's junta very closely
resembles the ARVN/Diem/corruption model.

The point is simple: it is not America's business to go fight wars on
other people's behalf.

It used to sound a little silly, one of the slogans of the 1960s: "What
if they held a war and nobody came?"

More and more, it seems apt. The case for war in Southeast Asia was not
made compelling enough for Americans to support it. So they didn't. And
when their kids started coming home in boxes and there was no apparent
reason for us to be there, the war was realized to be over, in the
endgame stage. And this basically happened by 1969, as the Pentagon
Papers and White House transcripts made clear. Nixon and Kissinger knew
it was over. All that remained was to maintain "honor," the very thing
Curly keeps harping about.

Well, "honor" got way too many kids killed in too many wars.

And "honor" is the last refuge of.....

--Tim May
d***@yahoo.com
2008-01-24 20:50:20 UTC
Permalink
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.

When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-24 21:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff McCann
2008-01-24 21:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?
Yes, exactly. One test for the importance of a war is whether the
middle-class (much less the elites) are willing to send their sons and
daughters to fight it. It relates to the well-known philosophical and
historical observation that societies which are unwilling to fight their
own wars with their own blood and treasure are soon doomed.

This is why I am of two minds about a draft. My libertarian part
opposes involuntary servitude, but my nationalistic part sees the
necessity of it.

Jeff
Too_Many_Tools
2008-01-25 08:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down.  Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college.  This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder.  The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral".  This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?
Yes, exactly.  One test for the importance of a war is whether the
middle-class (much less the elites) are willing to send their sons and
daughters to fight it.  It relates to the well-known philosophical and
historical observation that societies which are unwilling to fight their
own wars with their own blood and treasure are soon doomed.
This is why I am of two minds about a draft.  My libertarian part
opposes involuntary servitude, but my nationalistic part sees the
necessity of it.
Jeff- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If I ran the country, military duty would be required.

And if I ran the country, the so called Commander in Chief would have
been the first soldier to be kicking in the Iraq door...with his kids
right behind him.

Making it personal insures the right decision will be made.

Behind them would be the Vice Commander in Chief...just to make that
they agreed on the course of action.

If you are the leader..then you are required to lead...not choke on a
preztel or shoot your friends in the face.

TMT
Tim May
2008-01-25 08:33:17 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Too_Many_Tools
If I ran the country, military duty would be required.
And if people like me ran the country, your kind would be transported
to processing centers and sent up the chimneys.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
And if I ran the country, the so called Commander in Chief would have
been the first soldier to be kicking in the Iraq door...with his kids
right behind him.
And if people like me ran the country, anyone kicking in the door in
Iraq would be acting as a tourist, and would likely find himself before
a firing squad.

You right-wingers are just as bad as the left-wingers.


--Tim May
Tim May
2008-01-24 21:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.

But I suppose that if you think an "advertised yield" is what matters,
not an actual, measured yield, then calling a falsity a "good insight"
is par for the course.


--Tim May
Jeff McCann
2008-01-24 22:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.
IIRC, the majority of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers, not
draftees. However, some unknown percentage "volunteered" in the face of
being highly likely to be drafted in any case. Moreover, a substantial
portion were from middle class families. Most did have high school
diplomas. They certainly weren't all, or even in majority,
lower-socioeconomic class minorities.

The draft process, in practice if not in procedure, did evolve
throughout the Vietnam war, and the demographic makeup of the Army in,
say, 1971, was quite different than it was in, say, 1967. Given the
duration of the American involvement of the war, it was not necessary
for the draft to take any increasing number or percentage of
middle-class kids to cause disillusionment in their parents. The
passage of time, and the steady flow of returned dead and wounded to
cities and towns across America was sufficient to cause it, along with
the changing reportage in the media (the favorite scapegoat of the nutty
Right for "losing" the war).

Jeff
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-24 22:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.
IIRC, the majority of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers, not
draftees. However, some unknown percentage "volunteered" in the face of
being highly likely to be drafted in any case. Moreover, a substantial
portion were from middle class families. Most did have high school
diplomas. They certainly weren't all, or even in majority,
lower-socioeconomic class minorities.
The draft process, in practice if not in procedure, did evolve
throughout the Vietnam war, and the demographic makeup of the Army in,
say, 1971, was quite different than it was in, say, 1967. Given the
duration of the American involvement of the war, it was not necessary
for the draft to take any increasing number or percentage of
middle-class kids to cause disillusionment in their parents. The
passage of time, and the steady flow of returned dead and wounded to
cities and towns across America was sufficient to cause it, along with
the changing reportage in the media (the favorite scapegoat of the nutty
Right for "losing" the war).
Mostly true but that doesn't conflict with dhm's suggestion that the draft
accelerate the end of the Vietnam war. By drafting the children of voters
with financial resources it became impossible to dismiss their objections.

Note that the disasterous policies in Iraq were implemented and continued
without near the outcry as in Vietnam. This seems to substantiate dhm's
position, that drafting the children of more affluent families is a big
problem for warmongers. Bush/Cheney have skillfully evaded this problem
in the most simple manner possible, lying.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff McCann
2008-01-24 22:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.
IIRC, the majority of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers, not
draftees. However, some unknown percentage "volunteered" in the face of
being highly likely to be drafted in any case. Moreover, a substantial
portion were from middle class families. Most did have high school
diplomas. They certainly weren't all, or even in majority,
lower-socioeconomic class minorities.
The draft process, in practice if not in procedure, did evolve
throughout the Vietnam war, and the demographic makeup of the Army in,
say, 1971, was quite different than it was in, say, 1967. Given the
duration of the American involvement of the war, it was not necessary
for the draft to take any increasing number or percentage of
middle-class kids to cause disillusionment in their parents. The
passage of time, and the steady flow of returned dead and wounded to
cities and towns across America was sufficient to cause it, along with
the changing reportage in the media (the favorite scapegoat of the nutty
Right for "losing" the war).
Mostly true but that doesn't conflict with dhm's suggestion that the draft
accelerate the end of the Vietnam war. By drafting the children of voters
with financial resources it became impossible to dismiss their objections.
Note that the disasterous policies in Iraq were implemented and continued
without near the outcry as in Vietnam.
Lest we forget, the Iraq invasion enjoyed wide popular support in
America, at the beginning, anyway. Of course, we were dining on a
steady diet of propaganda and lies at the time, and still suffering the
worst of the 9/11/01 hangover, as well.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This seems to substantiate dhm's
position, that drafting the children of more affluent families is a big
problem for warmongers.
Which is, of course, the best argument for a draft.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Bush/Cheney have skillfully evaded this problem
in the most simple manner possible, lying.
"Skillfully"? Maybe in terms of the brain-dead or willfully ignorant
portion of the masses. But the rest of us already clearly see what
they've been up to, or are experiencing a dawning awareness, or at least
sense that we're being lied to steadily.

Jeff
Robert Sturgeon
2008-01-25 00:23:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:42:53 -0600, Jeff McCann
<***@nothanks.org> wrote:

(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This seems to substantiate dhm's
position, that drafting the children of more affluent families is a big
problem for warmongers.
Which is, of course, the best argument for a draft.
But it's also the best argument against aggressive foreign
wars. Since both are political decisions, and so both
subject to the popular will, why support the immoral one
(the draft) instead of the moral one (no aggressive foreign
wars)?
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Bush/Cheney have skillfully evaded this problem
in the most simple manner possible, lying.
"Skillfully"? Maybe in terms of the brain-dead or willfully ignorant
portion of the masses. But the rest of us already clearly see what
they've been up to, or are experiencing a dawning awareness, or at least
sense that we're being lied to steadily.
What? Politicians, lying? Oh gosh... Earth to Jeff --
almost all of them lie, almost all the time. The ones who
don't tell us those sweet, but obvious, lies we want to hear
don't get elected. How Ron Paul even won a House seat is a
mystery.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Jeff McCann
2008-01-25 00:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:42:53 -0600, Jeff McCann
(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This seems to substantiate dhm's
position, that drafting the children of more affluent families is a big
problem for warmongers.
Which is, of course, the best argument for a draft.
But it's also the best argument against aggressive foreign
wars. Since both are political decisions, and so both
subject to the popular will, why support the immoral one
(the draft) instead of the moral one (no aggressive foreign
wars)?
Good point. Note that I didn't say it was the winning argument.
Post by Robert Sturgeon
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Bush/Cheney have skillfully evaded this problem
in the most simple manner possible, lying.
"Skillfully"? Maybe in terms of the brain-dead or willfully ignorant
portion of the masses. But the rest of us already clearly see what
they've been up to, or are experiencing a dawning awareness, or at least
sense that we're being lied to steadily.
What? Politicians, lying? Oh gosh... Earth to Jeff --
almost all of them lie, almost all the time. The ones who
don't tell us those sweet, but obvious, lies we want to hear
don't get elected. How Ron Paul even won a House seat is a
mystery.
My comments were limited to the subject at hand, "Bush/Cheney" lies. Of
course, politicians who speak hard truths are at a huge disadvantage
against those who tell comforting lies. But we both already knew that.

Jeff
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-25 04:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:42:53 -0600, Jeff McCann
(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This seems to substantiate dhm's
position, that drafting the children of more affluent families is a big
problem for warmongers.
Which is, of course, the best argument for a draft.
But it's also the best argument against aggressive foreign
wars.
It's two mints in one!

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-25 04:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
Good insight, isn't that what Charles Rangle was trying to accomplish by
re-implementing the draft in the House of Reps?
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.
IIRC, the majority of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers, not
draftees. However, some unknown percentage "volunteered" in the face of
being highly likely to be drafted in any case. Moreover, a substantial
portion were from middle class families. Most did have high school
diplomas. They certainly weren't all, or even in majority,
lower-socioeconomic class minorities.
The draft process, in practice if not in procedure, did evolve
throughout the Vietnam war, and the demographic makeup of the Army in,
say, 1971, was quite different than it was in, say, 1967. Given the
duration of the American involvement of the war, it was not necessary
for the draft to take any increasing number or percentage of
middle-class kids to cause disillusionment in their parents. The
passage of time, and the steady flow of returned dead and wounded to
cities and towns across America was sufficient to cause it, along with
the changing reportage in the media (the favorite scapegoat of the nutty
Right for "losing" the war).
Mostly true but that doesn't conflict with dhm's suggestion that the draft
accelerate the end of the Vietnam war. By drafting the children of voters
with financial resources it became impossible to dismiss their objections.
Note that the disasterous policies in Iraq were implemented and continued
without near the outcry as in Vietnam.
Lest we forget, the Iraq invasion enjoyed wide popular support in
America, at the beginning, anyway. Of course, we were dining on a
steady diet of propaganda and lies at the time, and still suffering the
worst of the 9/11/01 hangover, as well.
It's going to get worse before it gets better too. There is still an
economic disaster unfolding, loss of international credibility, loss of
civil liberties, violation of church and state, etc. It's difficult to
accept the degree of change wrought by Bush/Cheney in such a short time.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
This seems to substantiate dhm's
position, that drafting the children of more affluent families is a big
problem for warmongers.
Which is, of course, the best argument for a draft.
Agreed.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Bush/Cheney have skillfully evaded this problem in the most simple
manner possible, lying.
"Skillfully"? Maybe in terms of the brain-dead or willfully ignorant
portion of the masses. But the rest of us already clearly see what
they've been up to, or are experiencing a dawning awareness, or at least
sense that we're being lied to steadily.
We still have those people defending the very programs destroying our
nation. In fact those same sheeple want to get more draconian and pick
even more fights and wars using hte coercion and power of our nation to
their own nefarious purposes.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-24 22:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Mostly true but that doesn't conflict with dhm's suggestion that the draft
accelerate the end of the Vietnam war. By drafting the children of voters
with financial resources it became impossible to dismiss their objections.
Reread what I wrote in response to that silly claim: the college draft
deferments DID NOT END when the lottery system was started. I know, I
was there.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Note that the disasterous policies in Iraq were implemented and continued
without near the outcry as in Vietnam. This seems to substantiate dhm's
position, that drafting the children of more affluent families is a big
problem for warmongers.
You persist in believing things that are not, were not, true. The
student deferment program did not go away when the lottery started.

You persist in not believing this. Not very bright.


--Tim May
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-25 04:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Mostly true but that doesn't conflict with dhm's suggestion that the draft
accelerate the end of the Vietnam war. By drafting the children of voters
with financial resources it became impossible to dismiss their objections.
Reread what I wrote in response to that silly claim: the college draft
deferments DID NOT END when the lottery system was started. I know, I
was there.
Not my issue. dhm's suggestion that the draft accelerated the protest
makes sense whether your issue is true or not.
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Note that the disasterous policies in Iraq were implemented and
continued without near the outcry as in Vietnam. This seems to
substantiate dhm's position, that drafting the children of more
affluent families is a big problem for warmongers.
You persist in believing things that are not, were not, true. The
student deferment program did not go away when the lottery started.
You persist in not believing this. Not very bright.
You persist in putting your assumptions upon me. Not very bright.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-25 05:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by Tim May
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Mostly true but that doesn't conflict with dhm's suggestion that the draft
accelerate the end of the Vietnam war. By drafting the children of voters
with financial resources it became impossible to dismiss their objections.
Reread what I wrote in response to that silly claim: the college draft
deferments DID NOT END when the lottery system was started. I know, I
was there.
Not my issue. dhm's suggestion that the draft accelerated the protest
makes sense whether your issue is true or not.
You're doubly an idiot for writing the above.

First, the draft was always in place during the period of active
warfare by the U.S. in Vietnam. What dhm was talking about was the
introduction of a lottery system, which served to actually _lessen_ the
percentage of kids facing being drafted.

Second, one can never draw valid conclusions from falsehead.

Dhm's "the end of student deferments caused an increase in protests
against the war" is false because the premise is false.

Student deferments did NOT end when the lottery was added in.

And, in any case, and for other reasons, the protests against the war
did NOT increase after the lottery was added in. In fact, things got
progressively quieter after peaking in 1970, and protests in 1971 and
'72 were mild compared to the earlier peaks.

Your praise for dhm's "insight" is doubly foolish.

--Tim May
Tim May
2008-01-24 22:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Tim May
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.
IIRC, the majority of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers, not
draftees. However, some unknown percentage "volunteered" in the face of
being highly likely to be drafted in any case. Moreover, a substantial
portion were from middle class families. Most did have high school
diplomas. They certainly weren't all, or even in majority,
lower-socioeconomic class minorities.
The draft process, in practice if not in procedure, did evolve
throughout the Vietnam war, and the demographic makeup of the Army in,
say, 1971, was quite different than it was in, say, 1967. Given the
duration of the American involvement of the war, it was not necessary
for the draft to take any increasing number or percentage of
middle-class kids to cause disillusionment in their parents. The
passage of time, and the steady flow of returned dead and wounded to
cities and towns across America was sufficient to cause it, along with
the changing reportage in the media (the favorite scapegoat of the nutty
Right for "losing" the war).
First, I was addressing Curly's central thesis, his "insight," that had
the lottery system ending the student deferment process. It did not. In
fact, it had zero effect on the student deferment process. Period. A
fact on the ground.

Second, on your other points, yes, most of those KIAed were volunteers.
I read rececently (while researching a recent post in this thread) that
only 34% of KIAs in Vietnam were draftees. (I don't know how this
shifted during the course of the war, percentage-wise. I would
speculate that the deaths prior to around 1968 were skewed more toward
volunteers, as the draft had not taken large numbers until the war
picked up. Meaning, a lot of those who joined in the early 60s and died
in the mid-60s were probably in the military by choice. Later, I would
think there were more draftees in the Army.

Third, the lottery probably had the effect of _lessening_ the concern
by families about their sons, a point COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what Curly
speculated about. How can this possibly be?

Because all of those protected by student deferments REMAINED
PROTECTED. It was NOT the case that those with 2-S deferments suddenly
became 1-A. College deferments condinued unchanged.

What DID happen, however, was that as the lottery numbers were rolled
out, and as they only hit 125, then less, then less, those with numbers
up in the "safe zone" could--and did--stop worrying about the draft.
They could even drop out of college, drop their student deferments,
etc. And a lot of them did.

Meanwhile, those with low numbers, in the danger zone, were
highly-motivated to get into college, get a deferment, and hope the
silly war would be over by the time they got of college.

It is not too surprising that the "peak" of the war protests, with
riots and burnings of draft offices and sit-ins and such, was 1968-70.
The Columbia takeover, the Kent State riots, the burning of the Bank of
America...all in those couple of intense years.

By the time I was in college, starting in 1970, the lottery system had
already blunted a lot of the worry about the draft. About two thirds of
us had safe numbers, in any given year.

The war was ending for other reasons, of course. As I said recently,
Johnson knew it in early 1968, said as much to his advisors and in his
memoirs, and decided in early 1968 to not run that year. Nixon knew it
as well when he started in '69, and was in the 4 year process of slowly
extracting the U.S., for "peace with honor" (and about 30,000 more U.S.
deaths).

The war did not end because of Curly's invented history in which those
with 2-S deferments were reclassified 1-A. That's such a silly version
of history I have to question his basic intelligence. But, then, he did
admit to be ignorant and naive and "lied to."


--Tim May
Jeff McCann
2008-01-24 23:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Tim May
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.
IIRC, the majority of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers, not
draftees. However, some unknown percentage "volunteered" in the face of
being highly likely to be drafted in any case. Moreover, a substantial
portion were from middle class families. Most did have high school
diplomas. They certainly weren't all, or even in majority,
lower-socioeconomic class minorities.
The draft process, in practice if not in procedure, did evolve
throughout the Vietnam war, and the demographic makeup of the Army in,
say, 1971, was quite different than it was in, say, 1967. Given the
duration of the American involvement of the war, it was not necessary
for the draft to take any increasing number or percentage of
middle-class kids to cause disillusionment in their parents. The
passage of time, and the steady flow of returned dead and wounded to
cities and towns across America was sufficient to cause it, along with
the changing reportage in the media (the favorite scapegoat of the nutty
Right for "losing" the war).
First, I was addressing Curly's central thesis, his "insight," that had
the lottery system ending the student deferment process. It did not. In
fact, it had zero effect on the student deferment process. Period. A
fact on the ground.
Second, on your other points, yes, most of those KIAed were volunteers.
I read rececently (while researching a recent post in this thread) that
only 34% of KIAs in Vietnam were draftees. (I don't know how this
shifted during the course of the war, percentage-wise. I would
speculate that the deaths prior to around 1968 were skewed more toward
volunteers, as the draft had not taken large numbers until the war
picked up. Meaning, a lot of those who joined in the early 60s and died
in the mid-60s were probably in the military by choice. Later, I would
think there were more draftees in the Army.
Third, the lottery probably had the effect of _lessening_ the concern
by families about their sons, a point COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what Curly
speculated about. How can this possibly be?
Your error reflects your pinched and distorted world-view, i.e., caring
solely and exclusively about yourself, and yourself alone. You see,
most of us are capable of sparing a bit of concern for others.

Many of the middle class American parents under discussion actually
cared, to some degree, about not just their own sons, but other people's
sons, as well. My point is that the human toll of the war, and it's
seeming lack of purpose, became steadily more apparent to them over the
years, by one means or another. This regard for others, a quality you
seem to pride yourself on for utterly lacking, activated the conscience
of many middle class Americans, including millions without any draft-age
sons or other family of their own to worry about, and led them to
actively voice opposition to the war. It will be difficult for you to
grasp the concepts of the greater good or altruism at work in this
thesis, but do try.

Jeff
Tim May
2008-01-24 23:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Your error reflects your pinched and distorted world-view, i.e., caring
solely and exclusively about yourself, and yourself alone. You see,
most of us are capable of sparing a bit of concern for others.
Many of the middle class American parents under discussion actually
cared, to some degree, about not just their own sons, but other people's
sons, as well.
I'm telling you the facts, that concern about their sons being drafted
markedly declined after the lottery was started. Sure, people may have
burbled on about the human tragedy, blah blah, but they weren't
protesting in numbers as large as earlier.

And the mood on campus was much less tense, once about 2/3 of the
students realized that flunking out of college would no longer expose
them to the draft. Indeed, some of the people I knew dropped out of
college, safe in the knowledge that their "205" or "342" or "291" had
saved them. Those with "47" or "81" were understandably still very
worried.

But the real panicky feelings of 1968-69 had mostly gone away.
Post by Jeff McCann
My point is that the human toll of the war, and it's
seeming lack of purpose, became steadily more apparent to them over the
years, by one means or another. This regard for others, a quality you
seem to pride yourself on for utterly lacking, activated the conscience
of many middle class Americans, including millions without any draft-age
sons or other family of their own to worry about, and led them to
actively voice opposition to the war.
The war was already known to be over, lost, by 1968. Both candidates
for the Presidency knew this.

The war was lost for various reasons. Your concern about "altruism" is
touching, but reality is reality, and trumps feelgoodism.


--Tim May
Jeff McCann
2008-01-24 23:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Jeff McCann
Your error reflects your pinched and distorted world-view, i.e., caring
solely and exclusively about yourself, and yourself alone. You see,
most of us are capable of sparing a bit of concern for others.
Many of the middle class American parents under discussion actually
cared, to some degree, about not just their own sons, but other people's
sons, as well.
I'm telling you the facts, that concern about their sons being drafted
markedly declined after the lottery was started. Sure, people may have
burbled on about the human tragedy, blah blah, but they weren't
protesting in numbers as large as earlier.
I knew you couldn't grasp the situation. You are correct about the fact
of a lottery and the continuance of student deferments, which I never
disputed, but you've missed the bigger picture. You dismiss opposition
to the war on moral/human cost grounds as as "blah, blah," which shows
the limits of your comprehension of the larger issues and forces in play.
Post by Tim May
And the mood on campus was much less tense, once about 2/3 of the
students realized that flunking out of college would no longer expose
them to the draft. Indeed, some of the people I knew dropped out of
college, safe in the knowledge that their "205" or "342" or "291" had
saved them. Those with "47" or "81" were understandably still very
worried.
But the real panicky feelings of 1968-69 had mostly gone away.
The subject of my comments was middle-class American opinion about the
war, not you and others of your ilk worrying about keeping your own
asses from getting drafted.
Post by Tim May
Post by Jeff McCann
My point is that the human toll of the war, and it's
seeming lack of purpose, became steadily more apparent to them over the
years, by one means or another. This regard for others, a quality you
seem to pride yourself on for utterly lacking, activated the conscience
of many middle class Americans, including millions without any draft-age
sons or other family of their own to worry about, and led them to
actively voice opposition to the war.
The war was already known to be over, lost, by 1968. Both candidates
for the Presidency knew this.
Pretty much. But until they showed some effort to get us out, middle
class opposition remained active. The Lottery may have ended your
personal, selfish worries about getting drafted, but those opposed to
the war continued their active opposition, slacking only as the
government seemed to be getting, and acting upon, the message.
Post by Tim May
The war was lost for various reasons. Your concern about "altruism" is
touching, but reality is reality, and trumps feelgoodism.
That is your key mistake, you imagine, falsely, that most people are
like you, i.e., utterly, ruthlessly self-centered. You wrongly assume
that opposition to the war by middle class Americans must have slackened
once their own sons were fairly safe from the draft, just as you stopped
worrying about it once you, personally, felt fairly safe. You can't
understand social and cultural history because you are unable to grasp
some of the basic motivations and concerns most humans share. I'm
telling you the facts. Your stunted emotional and character development
(as I infer from your posts), causing you to be unable to grasp them,
does not alter the facts.

Jeff
Curly Surmudgeon
2008-01-25 04:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Jeff McCann
Your error reflects your pinched and distorted world-view, i.e., caring
solely and exclusively about yourself, and yourself alone. You see,
most of us are capable of sparing a bit of concern for others.
Many of the middle class American parents under discussion actually
cared, to some degree, about not just their own sons, but other people's
sons, as well.
I'm telling you the facts, that concern about their sons being drafted
markedly declined after the lottery was started. Sure, people may have
burbled on about the human tragedy, blah blah, but they weren't
protesting in numbers as large as earlier.
And the mood on campus was much less tense, once about 2/3 of the
students realized that flunking out of college would no longer expose
them to the draft. Indeed, some of the people I knew dropped out of
college, safe in the knowledge that their "205" or "342" or "291" had
saved them. Those with "47" or "81" were understandably still very
worried.
But the real panicky feelings of 1968-69 had mostly gone away.
You seem to be obsessed with that issue, an issue different than dhm's and
the thread topic. His, and my, point is that the draft did much to garner
support against the war from middle-class America. Stop lobbing verbal
hand grenades, you're talking apples and other oranges.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
2008-01-25 05:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
You seem to be obsessed with that issue, an issue different than dhm's and
the thread topic. His, and my, point is that the draft did much to garner
support against the war from middle-class America. Stop lobbing verbal
hand grenades, you're talking apples and other oranges.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the draft was not a factor.
Everybody agrees with that.

I disagreed with dhm's silly, and false on the face of it, claim that
the introduction of the lottery had the effect he said it did. He
stated explicitly that when the lottery was started, students were
reclassified as 1A. And that this caused an increase in protests.

False, and false.

Student deferments did NOT go away when the lottery was introduced.

Protests did not increase after students became 1A, because they did
not become 1A. And, unrelated to this, protests were actually in
decline after the peak years of 1968-70.

Personally, from what I saw, the introduction of the lottery meant that
about 2/3rds of all those facing the draft (at some point) then
breathed a sigh of relief and stopped worrying so much about the
Vietnam War, which was now no longer their problem.

McCann claims I am not "altruistic." True enough. But I call them as I
see them, and I knew a lot of anti-War protestors back then. The
lottery pretty much took the fight out of a lot of them, as they
shrugged and got on with their lives.

--Tim May
Robert Sturgeon
2008-01-25 00:29:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:43 -0600, Jeff McCann
<***@nothanks.org> wrote:

(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
altruism
Find an "altruist," and you'll almost always find someone
trying to get you to give them your stuff or do things for
others without getting paid. "Altruists" are to be avoided
like the plague.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Jeff McCann
2008-01-25 00:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:43 -0600, Jeff McCann
(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
altruism
Find an "altruist," and you'll almost always find someone
trying to get you to give them your stuff or do things for
others without getting paid. "Altruists" are to be avoided
like the plague.
My, my, Robert; such cynicism from a cheery optimist like you! ;-) But
I already know you don't spare much for other than yourself. At least
you are within what I consider the "normal" range on that, albeit far to
one end of that range.

Jeff
Robert Sturgeon
2008-01-25 02:26:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:53:24 -0600, Jeff McCann
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:43 -0600, Jeff McCann
(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
altruism
Find an "altruist," and you'll almost always find someone
trying to get you to give them your stuff or do things for
others without getting paid. "Altruists" are to be avoided
like the plague.
My, my, Robert; such cynicism from a cheery optimist like you! ;-) But
I already know you don't spare much for other than yourself. At least
you are within what I consider the "normal" range on that, albeit far to
one end of that range.
You have no idea what I do for others. It may be more than
you suspect, and it may be less. But I do such because *I*
want to -- not because some damned "altruist" says I should.
Those are dangerous people, and I stay completely away from
them as much as I possibly can.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Jeff McCann
2008-01-25 02:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:53:24 -0600, Jeff McCann
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:43 -0600, Jeff McCann
(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
altruism
Find an "altruist," and you'll almost always find someone
trying to get you to give them your stuff or do things for
others without getting paid. "Altruists" are to be avoided
like the plague.
My, my, Robert; such cynicism from a cheery optimist like you! ;-) But
I already know you don't spare much for other than yourself. At least
you are within what I consider the "normal" range on that, albeit far to
one end of that range.
You have no idea what I do for others. It may be more than
you suspect, and it may be less. But I do such because *I*
want to -- not because some damned "altruist" says I should.
Those are dangerous people, and I stay completely away from
them as much as I possibly can.
"Altruism" represents a personal choice, not a mandate from others. So
the reactionary response is misplaced. As for what you may or may not
do for others, again, that's your personal choice. You may or may not
choose to say what that may be, but I can only infer from the attitudes
and opinions you have expressed here. For example, you've expressed an
unwilling to stop and aid auto accident victims.

As I said, I don't think you are out of the ordinary, and I imagine
that, as someone more intelligent and resourceful than average, you
sometimes go out of your way to help others, out of nothing more than
altruism. You may call it "neighborliness" or some such, but it's
basically the same thing.

Jeff
Robert Sturgeon
2008-01-25 15:32:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:46:20 -0600, Jeff McCann
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:53:24 -0600, Jeff McCann
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:43 -0600, Jeff McCann
(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
altruism
Find an "altruist," and you'll almost always find someone
trying to get you to give them your stuff or do things for
others without getting paid. "Altruists" are to be avoided
like the plague.
My, my, Robert; such cynicism from a cheery optimist like you! ;-) But
I already know you don't spare much for other than yourself. At least
you are within what I consider the "normal" range on that, albeit far to
one end of that range.
You have no idea what I do for others. It may be more than
you suspect, and it may be less. But I do such because *I*
want to -- not because some damned "altruist" says I should.
Those are dangerous people, and I stay completely away from
them as much as I possibly can.
"Altruism" represents a personal choice, not a mandate from others.
I would say there are three types of altruism: the first,
which, as you say, is strictly a personal choice, and with
which I have no problem at all; the second, in which
altruists strongly urge others to also be altruists, which
offends me, but otherwise does me no harm; and the third, in
which altruists manage to get their philosophy of putting
the well-being of others over one's own enacted into law,
such as is the basis of the welfare state, definitely does
harm everyone who pays more taxes than he receives in
welfare -- as well as also harming many of the recipients
who have their personal incentive for improving themselves
reduced -- and the general welfare of the economy, which is
harmed by both the high level of taxation and the subsidized
indolence of part of the population. I oppose the last type
of altruism -- the type in which it becomes officially
institutionalized. Oddly enough, because of the business I
have, I actually do receive more welfare than I pay in
taxes, but I oppose the welfare state anyway because I know
farmers and everyone else in business would ultimately be
better off without it. Mine is a minority opinion, both
among farmers and among the general population. Again oddly
enough, very few farmers are even willing to admit that they
are welfare recipients. But then, your typical geezer,
having received FAR more from Social Security than he ever
paid in, even including a reasonable rate of interest, also
denies that he's a welfare recipient. Go figure...
Post by Jeff McCann
So
the reactionary response is misplaced. As for what you may or may not
do for others, again, that's your personal choice. You may or may not
choose to say what that may be, but I can only infer from the attitudes
and opinions you have expressed here. For example, you've expressed an
unwilling to stop and aid auto accident victims.
If so, only because of the risks the legal systems adds into
the decision mix. The topic has been covered, and I see no
reason to revisit it.
Post by Jeff McCann
As I said, I don't think you are out of the ordinary, and I imagine
that, as someone more intelligent and resourceful than average, you
sometimes go out of your way to help others, out of nothing more than
altruism. You may call it "neighborliness" or some such, but it's
basically the same thing.
I consider myself quite neighborly, but not out of any
altruism. My opinion is that being friendly with the
neighbors and cooperating with them whenever possible
enhances my own well-being, since I will be much more likely
to get along with them when/if some sort of extreme
circumstances arise. Then is far too late to start
developing good relationships with the neighbors.

Anyway, the very concept of altruism --

altruism (àl´tr¡-îz´em) noun
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

-- just sets my teeth on edge, and I want nothing to do with
it. I have found, as I previously said, that the people
pushing it are always trying to get me to give them my
stuff, or trying to get me to do things for others without
getting paid. I actually do that sort of thing
occasionally, but I certainly never listen to anyone else
who says I should.

HTH

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Tim May
2008-01-25 02:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:43 -0600, Jeff McCann
(snips)
Post by Jeff McCann
altruism
Find an "altruist," and you'll almost always find someone
trying to get you to give them your stuff or do things for
others without getting paid. "Altruists" are to be avoided
like the plague.
The word "altruism" is, fortunately, seldom used in polite company.
McCann is the first to use it here in a long while, at least that I can
recall.

A more common word, used especially commonly by politicians, politician
larvae, and that ilk is the word "service." Usually in the form of the
phrase "to be of service."

As in,

"I joined the Peace Corps so I could be of service."

"My husband entered politics to help our poverty problem and to be in
public service."

Sometimes we even see this in resumes and c.v., often just shortened in
the "Goals" section to "Service."

Not coincidentally, those here who are yammering about how trashing the
Vietnam War is trashing our "men in service" are using the same word.


Related memes include "non-profits." "More of our young people are
joining non-profits so they can be of service."

Well, gee, where I come from, on my planet, the way people are rewarded
for their "service" is by being paid. And if they work _really_, they
make a profit. This is what profits are.

Very similar to the meme of "working with others." When I was at Intel,
I sometimes went out to colleges to interview candidates for various
engineering positions. About a third of those I interviewed made a big
point about how much they "want to work with others."

If they nattered about such social politicking without making a
compelling case for being interested in physics, math, programming,
engineering, I recommended against further interviews with them.

But Intel wasn't a non-profit, so we could afford to tell the
blissninnines to go join a non-profit and do "service."


--Tim May
Too_Many_Tools
2008-01-25 08:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Tim May
Except that it's not true. Cf. my other post on this.
IIRC, the majority of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers, not
draftees.  However, some unknown percentage "volunteered" in the face of
being highly likely to be drafted in any case.  Moreover, a substantial
portion were from middle class families.  Most did have high school
diplomas.  They certainly weren't all, or even in majority,
lower-socioeconomic class minorities.
The draft process, in practice if not in procedure, did evolve
throughout the Vietnam war, and the demographic makeup of the Army in,
say, 1971, was quite different than it was in, say, 1967.  Given the
duration of the American involvement of the war, it was not necessary
for the draft to take any increasing number or percentage of
middle-class kids to cause disillusionment in their parents.  The
passage of time, and the steady flow of returned dead and wounded to
cities and towns across America was sufficient to cause it, along with
the changing reportage in the media (the favorite scapegoat of the nutty
Right for "losing" the war).
First, I was addressing Curly's central thesis, his "insight," that had
the lottery system ending the student deferment process. It did not. In
fact, it had zero effect on the student deferment process. Period. A
fact on the ground.
Second, on your other points, yes, most of those KIAed were volunteers.
I read rececently (while researching a recent post in this thread) that
only 34% of KIAs in Vietnam were draftees. (I don't know how this
shifted during the course of the war, percentage-wise. I would
speculate that the deaths prior to around 1968 were skewed more toward
volunteers, as the draft had not taken large numbers until the war
picked up. Meaning, a lot of those who joined in the early 60s and died
in the mid-60s were probably in the military by choice. Later, I would
think there were more draftees in the Army.
Third, the lottery probably had the effect of _lessening_ the concern
by families about their sons, a point COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what Curly
speculated about. How can this possibly be?
Because all of those protected by student deferments REMAINED
PROTECTED. It was NOT the case that those with 2-S deferments suddenly
became 1-A. College deferments condinued unchanged.
What DID happen, however, was that as the lottery numbers were rolled
out, and as they only hit 125, then less, then less, those with numbers
up in the "safe zone" could--and did--stop worrying about the draft.
They could even drop out of college, drop their student deferments,
etc. And a lot of them did.
Meanwhile, those with low numbers, in the danger zone, were
highly-motivated to get into college, get a deferment, and hope the
silly war would be over by the time they got of college.
It is not too surprising that the "peak" of the war protests, with
riots and burnings of draft offices and sit-ins and such, was 1968-70.
The Columbia takeover, the Kent State riots, the burning of the Bank of
America...all in those couple of intense years.
By the time I was in college, starting in 1970, the lottery system had
already blunted a lot of the worry about the draft. About two thirds of
us had safe numbers, in any given year.
The war was ending for other reasons, of course. As I said recently,
Johnson knew it in early 1968, said as much to his advisors and in his
memoirs, and decided in early 1968 to not run that year. Nixon knew it
as well when he started in '69, and was in the 4 year process of slowly
extracting the U.S., for "peace with honor" (and about 30,000 more U.S.
deaths).
The war did not end because of Curly's invented history in which those
with 2-S deferments were reclassified 1-A. That's such a silly version
of history I have to question his basic intelligence. But, then, he did
admit to be ignorant and naive and "lied to."
--Tim May- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The war was ending for other reasons, of course. As I said recently,
Johnson knew it in early 1968, said as much to his advisors and in his
memoirs, and decided in early 1968 to not run that year. Nixon knew it
as well when he started in '69, and was in the 4 year process of slowly
extracting the U.S., for "peace with honor" (and about 30,000 more U.S.
deaths).
Vietnam ended for the same reason the Iraq War is...the country is
running out of money.

Like any party when your wallet is empty and the bar won't carry your
tab any longer, you have to go home.

We are about to start having our national hangover...sit back and
watch the recession/inflation kick in.

TMT
Tim May
2008-01-24 21:44:27 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down. Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college. This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder. The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral". This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
You obviously are not in command of the facts.

The "2S" remained fully available for college students all the way to
the (effective) end of the draft, circa 1973.

Why I was "1A" in 1971 is left as an exercise for you to work out.


--Tim May
Too_Many_Tools
2008-01-25 04:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
... the pointless war was essentially stopped by those
millions of protesters.
I think it was the draft lottery system than slowed the Vietnam war
down.  Up till then, the kids like Tim were able to get 2S deferments
for enrolling in college.  This insulated the middle class from the
meat grinder.  The middle class like Tim felt that the conscripts and
enlistees were rejects anyway, as Tim has since refined his prejudices
about them.
When the middle class kids were now getting drafted and at risk, only
then did the war become "immoral".  This pushed the middle class into
the protester ranks, putting the politicians at risk.
I would agree.

And that is why there has been no draft for the latest romp in the
Iraq sandbox.

Hmm...and could someone remind again why the Bush Twins are not
serving in Iraq?

TMT
Myal
2008-01-22 23:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Gllickman
Post by Myal
Post by Geoff Miller
Post by Tim May
Fact is, a lot of those who go into the military are "homeless
in waiting." They were clueless and homeless in waiting when
they enlisted.
And you'd know this how, exactly?
You speak with the conviction that's born of experience and
first-hand observation. So tell us: when and where did you
serve, Timbo?
Didn't think so.
Geoff
--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of heir parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
Tim probably never felt the need o serve
it might have been enough for him to have seen folk go in , get fucked
up and spat out again to work it out
But back then, when Tim was eligible for the Armed Forces, the DRAFT
was in effect. IOW, it wasn't up to _him_ to decide if he wanted to
go in, it was up to the Draft Board. Conscription. Look it up.
Lg
been a good while and a good many conflicts since then tho , Im barely
1/4 of your age :) , and I seen guys go in , and come out here ... not a
good picture
Tim May
2008-01-23 07:54:43 UTC
Permalink
By the way, for all of those who have championed our invasion of
Afghanistan, our accomplisments there, our killing of ragheads, this
press item from today shows what has been accomplished:

"KABUL, Afghanistan ‹  An Afghan court on Tuesday sentenced a
23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he
printed off the Internet that three judges said violated the tenets of
Islam, an official said.

The three-judge panel sentenced Sayad Parwez Kambaksh to death for
distributing a paper that humiliated Islam, said Fazel Wahab, the chief
judge in the northern province of Balkh, where the trial took place.
Wahab did not preside over the trial.
"


Good to know so many American "patriots" have died so that Afghanistan
can once again execute students for distributing papers printed off the
Internet.


--Tim May
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'Why does Johnny come marching homeless?' (newsgroups and mailing lists)
25
replies
The Demon Enemies of Freedom for America - ABCNEWS: FBI Called off Terror Investigations - Christ Asks, THINK American: Why do you suppose this is anything else but treason involving the escape of the actual terrorists? - There is no defense for the criminal war act of attacking Iraq. It is only through censorship, that bushite enemy of Life confuse the viewer - - Can't argue with the facts against US, only to know, it wars God and Man to die everyone an evil victim to it's hatred for love and wisdom - Evidence is Everything - Al-Qaida = General Mahmoud Ahmad
started 2008-03-27 20:05:30 UTC
alt.ufc
9
replies
WWWWHHHHAAAATTTT???? the Alex Jones Show is canceling Interviews Commencing this Coming Tuesday - But why oh why oh why oh why?
started 2010-08-02 05:34:21 UTC
alt.radio
130
replies
Why does Johnny come marching homeless?
started 2008-01-20 00:07:38 UTC
misc.survivalism
5
replies
King Johnny, from Earth, has come for talks - Where are the American "TRUTHERS" or "Patriots" asking for the formal arrest of Bush for high treason? - Bushite War LIFE Itself - and - They Couldn't Care Less - 'Alpha company patrols the poppy fields.' - The Bush Administration and The New York Times v. Amnesty and Humanity
started 2009-02-22 23:22:47 UTC
alt.philosophy.zen
7
replies
SATANIC Israeli T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killing of Innocent Children - U.S. Injecting Billions Into Foreign Central Banks - 9.9 TRILLION ALREADY GONE - King Johnny for open line Coast to Coast radio Host - Vote early, and vote often!
started 2009-04-22 08:48:17 UTC
ont.politics
Loading...