In article ,
says...
When you realize that Vietnam lost 1 million troops and 2 million non-
combatant civilians dead, almost all to US forces, in an illegal,
immoral, and just plain stupid war, it's really difficult to get worked
up over such "heros."


And how long were you in Vietnam?



Please explain what relevance your question has to this topic. My
opinion is valid (or not) on its own merits, and my past military
service (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

We are waiting.

--
Peter Aitken

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:55:17 -0700, -bwg wrote:


I'm thinking of making the following my .sig


"I'm sure that the vice president may have expressed an opinion ...
and he may have recused himself; I honestly don't know."
--Tony Snow

exactly what does tony snow 'honestly know'? i doubt he honestly
farts.

your pal,
helen

"PeterLucas" wrote in message
0.25...
Peter A wrote in news:MPG.20f814dcdabd0a5b989c72
@news-server.nc.rr.com:

In article ,
says...
My .sig was made for this guy............... a Hero with a capital H.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Benavidez




Unfortunately your dig:

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

does not apply at all here. Pvt Benavidez's actions were indeed
heroic,
but did not help me or any other American (or 99% of all people around
the world) to sleep "safely in their beds" because the North


I'll be back to you, and the others, in a little bit.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

Don't waste your time, Peter.

"Constructimus, Batuimus"

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:31:57 -0500, Pan Ohco wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:00:04 -0400, Peter A
wrote:

In article ,
says...
My .sig was made for this guy............... a Hero with a capital H.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Benavidez




Unfortunately your dig:

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

does not apply at all here. Pvt Benavidez's actions were indeed heroic,
but did not help me or any other American (or 99% of all people around
the world) to sleep "safely in their beds" because the North Vietnamese
and Viet Cong posed precisely zero threat to us.

When you realize that Vietnam lost 1 million troops and 2 million non-
combatant civilians dead, almost all to US forces, in an illegal,
immoral, and just plain stupid war, it's really difficult to get worked
up over such "heros."


And how long were you in Vietnam?

having been in vietnam allows you to judge the strategic value of the
war? quick, someone tell henry kissinger.

your pal,
blake

In article ,
says...
exactly what does tony snow 'honestly know'? i doubt he honestly
farts.

your pal,
helen



Snow went from lying for Fox to lying for Bush. I guess that's a step
up.

--
Peter Aitken

On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Bobo Bonobo® wrote:


In a nutshell:

"America didn't NEED defending from Viet Nam...
That was just rich people sending working class boys off
to fight for the property rights of the rich, while the sons
of the rich stayed at home, safe on college deferrments,
enjoying the hell out of getting [laid by] the leftover daughters
of the working class."


--Bryan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

During the Civil War, rich people didn't always have to send "...
working class boys off to fight for the property rights of the
rich, ....
Some rich people paid out of their own pockets the working class boys
to 'take their place.' Probably many did so gladly for most obvious
reasons. I have a couple of ancestors who did just that. There was no
draft, yet there was always enough soldiers to fight.
Would you say things have changed; have changed for the better; or
changed for the worse. It is one of those cases where "the more
things change, the more they remain the same."
Dee Dee

snip
Unfortunately your dig:

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready
in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

does not apply at all here. Pvt Benavidez's actions were indeed
heroic,
but did not help me or any other American (or 99% of all people
around
the world) to sleep "safely in their beds" because the North
Vietnamese
and Viet Cong posed precisely zero threat to us.
end snip

Its not a soldiers job to question the politics of why they are
doing their job, thats why I support the Canadian troops in Iraq
even though I dont support the reason.

Professional soldiers never question their orders.

This guy was protecting his buddies not some guy from an ivy
league university.

Good on him.

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:05:38 -0400, Peter A
wrote:

In article ,
says...
When you realize that Vietnam lost 1 million troops and 2 million non-
combatant civilians dead, almost all to US forces, in an illegal,
immoral, and just plain stupid war, it's really difficult to get worked
up over such "heros."


And how long were you in Vietnam?



Please explain what relevance your question has to this topic. My
opinion is valid (or not) on its own merits, and my past military
service (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

We are waiting.

I am also waiting for your answer.
I am looking for some indication of where you gained your expertise.

In article ,
says...
And how long were you in Vietnam?



Please explain what relevance your question has to this topic. My
opinion is valid (or not) on its own merits, and my past military
service (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

We are waiting.

I am also waiting for your answer.
I am looking for some indication of where you gained your expertise.


I gained it from doing a huge amount of reading on the causes, conduct,
and consequences of the Vietnam war. Actually fighting in the war (which
I did not do) does not give you any expertise in these matters. It's an
abysmally stupid notion that someone has to have actually fought in a
war for their opinions to be valid. I guarantee that I know more about
that war than 99% of the people who fought in it.

If you disagree with what I said about the war, then argue back with
some facts and logic. Attacking my credibility is the ignoramus's way of
"discussing" a topic.

--
Peter Aitken

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:40:16 -0400, Peter A
wrote:

In article ,
says...
And how long were you in Vietnam?



Please explain what relevance your question has to this topic. My
opinion is valid (or not) on its own merits, and my past military
service (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

We are waiting.

I am also waiting for your answer.
I am looking for some indication of where you gained your expertise.


I gained it from doing a huge amount of reading on the causes, conduct,
and consequences of the Vietnam war. Actually fighting in the war (which
I did not do) does not give you any expertise in these matters. It's an
abysmally stupid notion that someone has to have actually fought in a
war for their opinions to be valid. I guarantee that I know more about
that war than 99% of the people who fought in it.

If you disagree with what I said about the war, then argue back with
some facts and logic. Attacking my credibility is the ignoramus's way of
"discussing" a topic.

Peter
I was not attacking your credibility at all, I was looking to see what
your basis of knowledge is.
And now I know. Your have formed your opinion, on what other people
have written. And not on personal information, nor contemporaneous
information. I would be hesitant in espousing a point of view, unless
I had researched both sides of an argument, extensively.

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:40:16 -0400, Peter A
wrote:

In article ,
says...
And how long were you in Vietnam?



Please explain what relevance your question has to this topic. My
opinion is valid (or not) on its own merits, and my past military
service (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

We are waiting.

I am also waiting for your answer.
I am looking for some indication of where you gained your expertise.


I gained it from doing a huge amount of reading on the causes, conduct,
and consequences of the Vietnam war. Actually fighting in the war (which
I did not do) does not give you any expertise in these matters. It's an
abysmally stupid notion that someone has to have actually fought in a
war for their opinions to be valid. I guarantee that I know more about
that war than 99% of the people who fought in it.

If you disagree with what I said about the war, then argue back with
some facts and logic. Attacking my credibility is the ignoramus's way of
"discussing" a topic.

Peter
I was not attacking your credibility at all, I was looking to see what
your basis of knowledge is.
And now I know. Your have formed your opinion, on what other people
have written. And not on personal information, nor contemporaneous
information. I would be hesitant in espousing a point of view, unless
I had researched both sides of an argument, extensively.



If I claimed that the moon was made of rock and you claimed it was made
of green cheese, you would probably use the same "both sides" argument.

The evidence on the Vietnam war is clear and unequivocal. You have
managed to disagree with me without presenting a single fact to counter
what I have said. My guess is that you are a knee-jerk conservative who
automatically assumes that the US is right in any war it is involved in,
even in the complete absence of supporting data. Don;t you have a mind?
Don't you care about your country? Apparently not.

--
Peter Aitken