Conference quark::mennotes

    Also former Secretary of Defense McNamera(sp).  Sent 100's of thousands
    of Americans to fight and die in Vietnam.  Now admits he knew it was a 
    mistake from the beginning and is trying to make a bundle off of a book on
    what happened.

    There are some of us that can remember when Vietnam was called 
    "McNamera's War".

    fred();

re .0

I believe that the comment about not sending our best & brightest to the war is
commenting on the educational deferment that was in place for a good portion of
the time.  This let those that had the money & intelligence for college to avoid
the draft.

Rich (who turned 18 6 months after Nixon stopped requiring men to register for
selective service.)

was donna perhaps referring to the leaders with 'not the brightest'?


andreas.

    >Now admits he knew it was a mistake from the beginning 
    
    That isn't what he's said.  He says he knows now that it was a mistake
    from the beginning.  
    
    >and is trying to make a bundle off of a book on what happened.
    
    McNamara was president of the World Bank for close to a decade.  He's
    written 5 or 6 other books.  He's over 80.  He didn't write the book
    for the money.  He wrote it to explain how such terrible mistakes came
    to be made, how he and the others involved were so blind.  He wants to
    make sure that what he has learned since about how those kinds of
    mistakes were made, is available to hopefully help future leaders avoid
    them.
    
    DougO
    

        re .4

    I suppose that next we'll be called upon to apologize to HillBilly
    for criticizing him for giving aid and comfort to the enemy while 
    Americans were rotting in "tiger cages" in 'Nam.

    fred(Lucked out in draft lottery);

RE .4
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    >and is trying to make a bundle off of a book on what happened.
    
>    McNamara was president of the World Bank for close to a decade.  He's
>    written 5 or 6 other books.  He's over 80.  He didn't write the book
>    for the money.  
>    
>    DougO
    
    
Great! Which national vet organization is he donating the procedes to...?
    
    Steve    

    Another reason not to vote for Hillbilly Clinton..... 

    > I suppose that next we'll be called upon to apologize to HillBilly for
    > criticizing him for giving aid and comfort to the enemy while Americans
    > were rotting in "tiger cages" in 'Nam.
    
    not by me you won't.  Of course, I think your exagerations are
    ridiculous; 'aid and comfort', eh?  Tell me, just how *IS* one supposed
    to inform one's government that you and hundreds of thousands of others
    can't stand its conduct of a (now, finally admittedly mistaken) war?
    
    Even McNamara admits the war was wrong.
    
    No, you don't have to apologize, Fred, but I would like to know just
    what you think people who were against the war SHOULD have done.
    
    DougO

    
>    No, you don't have to apologize, Fred, but I would like to know just
>    what you think people who were against the war SHOULD have done.
    
    I don't have so much problem with those who protested in the U.S. as I
    do those who went to London, Paris, Moscow or even Hanoi to lend aid 
    and comfort.
    
    fred();

    Protesting in London or Paris is a bit different from Moscow or Hanoi.
    
    DougO

    re .10
    
    Even given that, HillBilly _did_ go to Moscow (as well as Prague that
    I know of), and the Comunists pumped the visit for all the propaganda
    it was worth.
    
    fred();

    And when you're a nobody college student during detente, just how much
    propaganda are you worth?  I mean, really, Fred, nobody ever heard of
    Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow until twenty years afterwards.  Some
    propaganda that was worth, huh!
    
    DougO

    Wesley Pruden, the "take-no-prisoners" editor of the Washington Times,
    defends Shalala by stating she was fully aware of the true meaning of
    the term "the best and the brightest," a term which happens to be quite
    derogatory.  Pruden states that many people misread her statement and
    that she's therefore taking quite a bit of heat.
    
    I did not personally hear the remark, so I have no opinion on the
    matter, but for Pruden himself to defend Shalala points to the strong
    possibility that she was in fact misinterpreted.
    
    I'm not a liberal and basically have no use for them, but fair's fair.

        re .12

>    And when you're a nobody college student during detente, just how much
>    propaganda are you worth?  I mean, really, Fred, nobody ever heard of
>    Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow until twenty years afterwards.  Some
>    propaganda that was worth, huh!

    There was a whole group that went.  HillBilly was only one.  The 
    propaganda was used much more widely in the Communist Block
    countries as justification for their continued support for N. Viet.,
    and V.C.  It's not surprising that we didn't see much of it here.
    No matter how much it was worth, it was too much.

    fred();

    Nonsense.  Viet Nam was wrong.  Clinton's protest was no worse than
    anyone else's in protest of an immoral and illegal American war.  Those
    who had the courage to protest it deserve just as much recognition, if
    not more, as those who went out of sense of loyalty or patriotism.  It
    doesn't matter how or where they protested - the war was wrong. 
    Period.  The expression of political opinion is what free speech is all
    about.  Suppression of that right is the most unpatriotic and
    un-American as can be.
    
    The only real cowards, IMO, are those who would censor our right to
    protest an obviously illicit government policy, which Viet Nam clearly
    was.  That's not patriotism.
    
    Those who went, and those who protested are the patriots.  Those who
    would suppress the free expression of political conviction, one way or
    the other, are the only real cowards in this instance.
    
    tim
    

MKOTS3::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa"

>> Another reason not to vote for Hillbilly Clinton.....


Something tells me you never would vote for me.


Er, I don't get it.  You say the govt let you down by sending so many
young Americans to die in Vietnam in a war that was wrong, then crucify 
Clinton for having the guts to protest that the govt was wrong accusing him 
of being un-American & un-patriotic.

Is it only us from outside that can see the slight hypocrisy in that?

    Dhaaaa.... I didn't think you were running for prez..... But, dhaaa. I
    don't know what your talking about either? So, I guess I'll go back to
    draggin my knuckles and opening beer cans on my forhead. And perhaps,
    next time they want to send us off to fight to save the lives of women
    and children. The can send the women. They want to get up front with
    the combat pay. Side, they are smarter than me....they didn't have to
    go.
    

    re .15

    In time of war, no matter what you think of the government, to go to
    the supporters of the enemy forces and provide them with propaganda
    to encourage them to keep fighting and killing American soldiers,
    is, IMNSOH, giving aid and comfort to the enemy and being at least
    the indirect cause of the death and extended imprisonment of Americans.

    Whether they do or do not have the right to do so, I have the right
    also to my opinion about what they did.  

    fred()

    re: .18
    
    a.) When you disagree on sound moral grounds with government policy,
    you have no obligation to support that policy.  In fact, if anything,
    you are obliged to protest vigorously, as many did, only to be vilified
    by the radical right-wing "my country right or wrong" dimwits.
    
    b.) Such protest is not 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'.  Indeed,
    the Vietnamese were not the enemy: the U.S. Government was.  Supporting
    the illegal activities of the U.S. Government at that time could
    thereby be considered treasonous to the American people.  Same thing
    with issues like Iran-Contra, for that matter.
    
    c.) Clinton did not give aid and comfort to the Vietnamese.  He merely
    protested, like thousands of others of us, and he was perfectly
    justified and right to do so.
    
    tim
    
    
    

   Hold on here... I am a bit uneducated in these issues...
   
   Are you saying that Clinton was part of a group that actually visited
   Vietnam during the war in support of their gov't?  Which one was it -
   him or her?  

   Fred, if you are right, you are being a bit, well, diplomatic.  I
   thought that supporting the opposition during a war was considered
   treason?  Or doesn't it count this time because technically Vietnam
   wasn't ever declared a real war?
   
   Wondering,
   
   - Tom
   

    I would like some clarification on the use of calling the U.S. activities
in Vietnam 'illegal'.  While I may not agree with the policies at the time
that had us over there, how were they illegal?    


Rob

    Tom,
    
    Niether President nor Mrs. Clinton went to Viet Nam, north or south
    during the police action in VN.  The president did participate in
    protests in Europe as did many other Americans studying abroad at that
    time.  sopme people interpret this as giving aid and comfort to the
    NVN, rather than people protesting what they considered as wrongful and
    murderous acts by our own government against its own people.
    
    meg

    re .20

    Bill Clinton was a part of a group that visited Moscow, Prague, and
    other Communist Block cities during the Vietnam War to "protest" the
    war.  That visit was milked for all the propaganda it was worth to
    help keep those countries supporting N. Viet and the V.C.  He didn't
    actually visit N. Vietnam, as Jane Fonda did, but what he did was about
    as close as you can get without actually doing it.  How many American
    lives that cost no one will ever know, but even one is one too *&^%king
    many.

    fred();

    re .23
    
    Fred then go after the real culprits of the VN era, such as McNamara,
    who knew we were in an unwinnable situation, but were still willing to
    sacrifice 58,000 people, not to mention those visibly and invisibly
    injured by this police action.  While they may not have given "aid and
    comfort to the enemy, they certainly were willing to sacrifice too many
    people to this nonsense, and obviously had learned nothing from the
    history of the region.
    
    meg

    re .24
    
    See .1
    
    Nothing says I can't go after both of 'em.  Just becsause one did
    something that was wrong doesn't mean that what the other did was
    right.
    

    The main issue here is that fact that one of HillBillys buddies made a
    stupid statement. And reguardless of what happened 25 years or more ago
    is moot, execpt that there are these people who believe that these men
    who went off to war, to do what was asked, and died for the cause, are
    called stupid.
    
    

    
    
    If exercising one's constitutional rights is evyl, than I truly to fear
    for the status of this country as a free nation.

    If alienation of the country is what our beloved goverment wants.
    Alienation is what they will get. And certainly people who come forth
    and make beloved statements, and appointed by our beloved stupid
    goverment may not get re-elected by its stupid, war monger, patroits,
    who did what they were told to do.
    
    Back to knuckle dragging stuff...
    
    

    Does anyone disagree with the following:
    
    Donna Shalalla was WRONG
    Donna Shalalla was HURTFUL to all those who served.
    Donna Shalalla was STUPID for saying it
    Donna Shalalla was INSENSITIVE to all the families of the 58k+ dead
    Donna Shalalla SHOULD NOT be an appointed official of my government
    
    Robert MacNamara was WRONG about Vietnam
    Robert MacNamara is in it for the MONEY
    

Shalala.
McNamara.

NNTTM.

.23> How many American lives that cost no one will ever know, but even one 
.23> is one too *&^%king many.

just how much your current president values the lives of american soldiers
was evident in the recent haiti intervention....haiti may not have been your
knuckle dragging granada bashing style of the reagan era but it sure saved
lives.


andreas.

    Nope. He shoulda sent the all womans maaa-lish-shaaa(sp with intent of
    knuckle draggin rasputian crappie). They want to see combat pay, and
    see the action... funny them guys were wearing out govement garb too.
    Geee, what about that oddder campain, Sum-al-ia??? Did some of them
    goverment kids get shot at and had their naked bodies dragged thru the
    streets cause we were over there to help more starving women and
    children? 
    
    O.K. Three brox's cheers for Billybob the bonehead.
    
    

    >Donna Shalalla SHOULD NOT be an appointed official of my goverment
    
    She should be appointed to be the back stop for target practice.;)
    

    .32
    
    Me thinks me saw a woman dragging the dead body of our world protectors
    too. And that is anger enough to say let them eat each other.:)
           

        re .27

>    If exercising one's constitutional rights is evyl, than I truly to fear
>    for the status of this country as a free nation.

    There are times when the constitution does not guarantee the right to
    do or say just anything (protesting too close to an abortion clinic
    apparently being one of those, but that's another argument).  In this
    case, whether the American troops should or should not have been where
    they were, I do not believe that the Constitution gives one the right
    to lend aid and comfort to the enemy and further endanger those troops.

    fred();

    > Bill Clinton was a part of a group that visited Moscow, Prague, and
    > other Communist Block cities during the Vietnam War to "protest"
    > the war.  
    
    FALSE.  He went as a student on a trip to Moscow, maybe other cities. 
    He did not do it to protest the war.  He did it as a student to see
    behind the Iron Curtain, to see the world.
    
    The story you tell is a lie, Fred.
    
    DougO

    I donno about that dhere DougO... I have seen on our beloved propaganda
    news to the same line of poopie as Fred. Guess I should watch more of
    the PBS stuff and less of that trashy, brainless, junk that spouts off
    about Kayto, and O.J. in the same breath of Billybob the boot sales
    man.
    
    

    Knuckle dragging indeed.  Such convictions, especially when based upon
    lies and misinformation about the actual actions of Mr. Clinton. 
    Watching too much Limbaugh again, no doubt.
    
    While we're discussing the constitution, let's not forget that the U.S.
    Government in the 60's and early 70's engaged in a full-fledged war
    with Viet Nam, while lying to the public in calling it a 'police
    action'.  The U.S. Constitution explicitly defines that only the
    Congress can declare war, which it never did.  Since that time, and in
    order to curtail specifically this type of illegal behavior, the
    Congress has passed the Executive War Powers Act which defines detailed
    procedures and criteria for 'police actions' vs. waging war.  Viet Nam
    was illegal, and unconstitutional.  The soldiers weren't stupid for
    going - but those who supported the 'just cause' that they bought from
    the corrupt U.S. government, and decried those of us who protested it,
    well they're another story...
    
    tim
    

MKOTS3::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa"

>>Geee, what about that oddder campain, Sum-al-ia???

Er, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it George Bush who sent American
troops into Somalia under the auspices of the UN.  Funnily enough this
was after he lost the election.  In soccer we call this a hospital pass.

    AAAhhh! But HillbillyBobthebootsalesperson actively supported it,
    mandated more troops for it, and took his sweet time to pull it out.
    And as they say in the prostution business, that was a real f**king of
    the troops.:) But then agian, I think you need to go back over that
    issue all together and really get a handle on who did what.
    
    George Bush and company didn't do to bad in the Desert Storm campain.
    Perhaps this is the kind of gun boat diplomacy that needs to continue
    to give mad bombers of the federal building and the World Trade center
    a taste of. And despite Regans poor attempts in Granadia, the showing
    wasn't to bad when we danced on Kadafis boys with an F111 raid. 
    
    But again, this is a discussipon going the down the wrong tube. And the
    woman in .0 should resign. Crap lines like that are as bad as women
    should not be in the work place. 
    
    
    Someone got somemore bandaids??? My knuckles are bleeding agian....:)
    
    

    ...another thought to the .0's broad brushing. What of the men who were
    in college or who graduated and were still responsible to serve their
    country? 
    
    And the vast majority of the forces were 18 year old kids who went to
    give of their souls to the cause. So, if you want to make a broad brush
    on that, yes, high school grads vs the populas as a whole. The
    knowledge basis might be lower. But, then again, the point is that an
    appointment should be cancled asap.
    
    

        re .38

    >    Watching too much Limbaugh again, no doubt.

    Is this supposed to be "proof" of something, Tim.  Otherwise, you
    appear to be doing exactly what you are accusing everyone else of
    doing.

    The Vietnam action _was_ approved by Congress.  Although the evidence
    provided by that fine upstanding liberal LBJ to gain the Gulf of Tonkin
    Resolution is somewhat in doubt now.

    And I know a lot of men who think it _was_ stupid to go there and
    lay their lives on the line for what they found when they returned.

    fred();

    Many returning Namies were casted as druggies, short tempered, crazoids
    who burnt villiages, shot women and children and were not capable of
    holding a job as any other fellon would have difficulty of doing. But,
    thats the past, and we are to put that poop behind us.... Execpt if you
    wish to talk about slavery, and womens rights.
    
    

    Re: .15
    
    In this earlier note you state, "Those who went, and those who
    protested are the patriots."
    
    I'm having a real problem here with that statement because of the
    actions that those who stayed visited upon their fellow "patriots",
    those that went.
    
    I remember that returning soldiers were told to remove their uniforms and 
    dress in civilian clothes to avoid being spit on, being called baby-killers
    or worse yet being physically attacked by the protestor patriots.
    
    Why would one patriot do that to another patriot? Was not the soldier
    patriot's decision to do their duty as much an expression of their
    freedom of speech as the war protestor's actions? I don't have a
    problem with protesting the actions of those (kennedy, johnson,
    mcnamara, etc.) who cause young men to go to war and later admit they
    made a mistake, especially when most of the nation kept telling them
    they were.  
    
    Yes, I have a real problem when protestors become so correct in their
    thinking and judgements to exclude everyone else's rights to think and
    take a position contrary to theirs. 
    
    I have a real problem when the Clintoons and the fondas go to a foreign
    country to give encouragement to those nations to continue their
    support of the war instead of trying to end it. Did any protestor
    ever really encourage the opposition to stop their fighting and killing of
    civilians? What would have happened if the North Vietnamese had
    withdrawn or sat at negotiations earlier in the game instead of
    constantly attacking?
    
    For the record, I believed and still believe in stopping the spread of
    dictators be they communist or any other flavor. I thought the way our
    government (as finally acknowledged by McNamara) conducted the war was
    criminal. Whether we should have been there or not is now moot, but
    once there I do believe that we should not have engaged in activities
    that put Americans at further risk than they already were. I think the
    antics of Clinton and Fonda did just that. I think the style of
    protests also contributed to a greater risk. 
    
    Truth is I think, IMHO, that many of the protestors weren't participants
    because they had a position to be stated, but that they viewed a protest
    much like a party were one could go totally out of control, impede
    others civil rights, smoke a little pot and generally damage property.
    
    
    JLB
                                                                          

>    I have a real problem when the Clintoons and the fondas go to a foreign
>    country to give encouragement to those nations to continue their
>    support of the war instead of trying to end it. Did any protestor
    
    Clinton never went to any foreign country to give encouragement to
    those nations to continue support of any way, ever.  Characterizing
    Clinton in the same light as Fonda is a total misrepresentation of the
    facts.  He participated in protests in England, as well he should have 
    - not at all the same.  Fonda was, imho, irresponsible and insensitive
    - grandstanding to get attention, and shot herself in the foot. 
    Clinton did nothing of the kind.
    
>    Truth is I think, IMHO, that many of the protestors weren't participants
>    because they had a position to be stated, but that they viewed a protest
>    much like a party were one could go totally out of control, impede
>    others civil rights, smoke a little pot and generally damage property.
    
    There are losers in every movement - those who went and slaughtered
    thousands of innocents, and those who stayed to protest just for the
    fun of it.  It's just a matter of normal demographics that a certain
    percentage of any cross-section of the population are jerks.  So what? 
    
    Are you trying to characterize the entire war protest movement
    as you have misrepresented Clintion above?  There is no corelation, in
    either instance.  Characterising all protesters as dope-smoking
    mistriants is just as unfair as characterising all veterans as
    baby-killers.  If you don't like the latter image, then don't encourage the
    former.  Neither is fair nor accurate.  Should we also discuss My Lai?
    And those partying protesters at Kent State sure had a blast, didn't
    they?  It works both ways.
    
    tim
    

        re .45

>    Clinton never went to any foreign country to give encouragement to
>    those nations to continue support of any way, ever.  Characterizing
>    Clinton in the same light as Fonda is a total misrepresentation of the
>    facts.

    If either one of them thought that the other countries would not use
    the visits for all the propaganda value they could get, they were
    both stupider than I think they were.  Clinton may not have gone to
    Hanoi, but where he did go and what he did do, IMNSHO, was a _lot_
    worse than the run-of-the-mill protester.

    The plan of the N.Viet's was to wait out the American's will to
    continue the war.  The same as they had done with France.  Clinton's
    protests helped demonstrate that that policy was working and the 
    longer they could prolong the war the better their chances of winning.

    fred();

    
    re .45

    >Should we also discuss My Lai?

    Sure.  If we can also discuss the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the
    "reeducation camps", and the other stuff that happened after Jerald
    Ford reneged on America's promise to return if the peace settlement
    of Paris didn't hold up.

    fred();

>    The plan of the N.Viet's was to wait out the American's will to
>    continue the war.  The same as they had done with France.  Clinton's
>    protests helped demonstrate that that policy was working and the 
>    longer they could prolong the war the better their chances of winning.

You're missing the point, Fred: the North Vietnamese were right.  

    re .48
    
    >You're missing the point, Fred: the North Vietnamese were right.  
    
    Were right about _WHAT_!
    
    fred();

>    Were right about _WHAT_!
    
about throwing the colonialists out.

first the french, then the americans.


andreas.

    
    re .50
    
    And imposing your political views at gunpoint?
    
    fred();

>    And imposing your political views at gunpoint?

as many liberation movements in asia, africa and south america did.

at the time, the paranoia of america towards the political views held by 
the north vietnamese was stronger than americas concern for american lives.



andreas.

    What of the Chineese? They were there before all of the above. And
    there was lotta help from them to beat us yellow-dog-capatilist out of
    their country. 
    
    

>You're missing the point, Fred: the North Vietnamese were right.  

They were right that waiting out the Americans would work.  They were also
right about what they should do with their own country, Viet Nam.  It was
none of our business, and we were dead wrong to be involved at all.

tim
    
 

    Execpt the after fact of the Paul Pot regeime. And the killing of other
    folks who worked for the US.. Ever read about how they took care of
    women who had American offspring? Or the American offspring born into
    their courty? 
    
    Its an either or situation. Either you run the gambet to the chineese
    boarder or you get the heck out. And we could not decide which end of
    our ass to stick in the air.
    
    But, Clintooon, and Hanoi Jane didn't help the peace process. But, then
    again, 'I aint me, it aint me, I'm no fortunate one....'
    
    

    
    re .52

>at the time, the paranoia of America towards the political views held by 
>the north Vietnamese was stronger than Americas concern for American lives.

    Given the slaughter that took place after we abandoned them, I would
    say _we_ were right.

    As for U.S. imperialism,  a good chunk of the world had better thank
    God that we're not what our enemies advertise us to be.

    fred();

    Then again, maybe we are...

    George, Pol Pot ruled in Cambodia, not Viet Nam.  Different country.

    As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the Vietnamese (combined,
    after the US left) were *fighting* Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Am I
    remembering that wrong? Doesn't exactly sound like a domino...

58,000 americans vs. 3,000,000 vietnamese

Most of the Vietnamese killed were from the South by the American forces.

The South has also borne the brunt of birth defects due to Agent Orange which
continue to this day.

During the war with Cambodia & Pol Pot the Vietnamese also had to fight off
an attack from China in the north.

    I didn't go either, Fred, but I didn't "luck out" in the draft lottery, 
    so I went for a 1-Y and spent two years dragging "blowups" out of 
    special-ed classes for disturbed kids (alternative service).  That's a
    whole story in itself, which I don't choose to go into.  Suffice it to say
    that there's a mutual respect between myself and my friends who did serve
    in country, even though my life wasn't at risk. 
    
    Donna does make a point that's half-valid:  Many of our best and brightest 
    volunteered to serve in Viet Nam (witness the success of Desert Storm, 
    engineered by officers baptised under fire 20-30 years ago).  However,
    the fact remains that those most vulnerable to being drafted for combat
    were the undereducated and the underprivileged.  They suffered far more 
    than their fair proportion of casualties. 
    
    I find it troubling that there are people who still insist that "aid and 
    comfort" from certain protestors was instrumental in causing us to "lose" 
    a war whose principle U.S. architect decided by 1965 that we couldn't win.  
    A far greater disservice to our casualties and to their families was done 
    by McNamara sending them there in the first place, under those 
    circumstances.  

    If we had gotten out when our then-Secretary of Defense now says he knew 
    we couldn't win, The Wall would be less than 20 percent of its current 
    size.  That speaks volumes in itself.
    
    Justin