HP3000-L Archives

April 2003, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
fred White <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
fred White <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:26:08 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 08:27 AM, Dave Swanson wrote:

> And this Ladies and Gentlemen is why Vietnam vets are called
> "Baby-killers".
> Because morally superior sanctimonious you-know-whats, running armchair
> diplomacy make statements to the effect that a man trades in his
> integrity
> when he dons the uniform of his nation.

Ooops, name calling. I have never called any vets "Baby Killers" even
though others did. Every (wo)man trades in some of her/his integrity
whenever (s)he joins any LARGE organization (political, religious,
business or whatever). That's not even news. That just 'goes with the
territory'.

I traded in my integrity when I joined the Marine reserve in 1942 to
avoid the possibility of being drafted into a LARGER organization. I
was called to active duty in 1943 and served 30 months in WWII emerging
as a 2nd Lt. with excellent fitness reports. I was recalled to active
duty in 1950 and served in the Korean conflict for 32 months emerging
as a Capt., again with excellent fitness reports.

All of us make compromises to save our asses. That doesn't mean we do a
lousy job for the group we (temporarily, in my case) join.

By the way, Cheney avoided service in the Vietnam war. I like my
compromise better than his (and others, like Clinton).

> I really don't care if that is what you intended to say or not Fred.

Apparently.

> The slope of your comments is slippery and ends with a disenfranchised
> veteran
> from an unpopular war who in the eyes of his nation is nothing more
> than a
> mindless killing machine.

Not "in the eyes of his nation". Only "in the eyes of the mindless
people of the world".

> Anyways, I simply wished to point out to Wirt that if he supported
> Powell in
> the past then there is no reason not to continue to support him now,
> he is
> the same person he was before the war.

Wirt "supported Powell in the past" because, in the past, Powell
espoused a calm, thoughtful approach to the Iraq problem.

When Powell switched to his CIC's position, Wirt could no longer
support him.

Yes, Powell is "the same person he was before the war" and Wirt should
have known that, as a loyal military man, Powell would ultimately
support his CIC.

FW

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2