Lift Up The Rock....

Tom Kunich

Bill, you hit the nail on the head. We have seen nothing of the like of the
attacks on George Bush from the same people who have yet to discuss:

1) 5 million plus civilians starved to death by Lenin and then Stalin. After
Stalin took poewr he murdered perhapos another 40 MILLION PEOPLE! During the
time of the cold war I NEVER saw Liberals have a bad word for Communism and
especially Russian Communism.

2) The Chinese have killed millions of their own people and certainly
hundreds of thousands if not millions of Tibetans.

3) The exodus of the USA from South East Asia led to the local Communists
siezing control in the entire region. The results of that were
a) Cambodia murdered between 1.7 and 4 million almost entirely civilians
for such horrible crimes as being ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese or Khymer.
b) Vietnam murdered some 3.8 million people. Almost a third of them were
children. Most were from the south and for no other reason than they were
citizens of South Vietnam. Not a PEEP from the left.
c) Laos murdered perhaps a million or more of their own but you can find
more information on the CIA assassinating brutals monsters in Laos than what
those same monsters were doing.

4) Actual figures for democide in North Korea are completely unavailable but
some estimates have run to perhaps 5 million people! Surely tens of
thousands of people were thought to have starved to death while North Korea
refused offered FREE food aid from the outside world.

It is almost impossible to find the reasons ANYWHERE that describe the true
reasons that the USA entered Vietnam but you can see a million articles
blaming Nixon while ignoring the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as if it never
existed.

I often wonder about the myopia of those who cry about our use of oil while
Saddam was dropping children into paper shredders in front of their parents.


"TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040502165150.11380.00000794@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >From: Stewart Fleming stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz
>
> It would be extraordinarily unlikely that someone like George Bush could
> be elected, or a similar administration established in the New Zealand
> system. Trust me, that's not why I'm opposed to current US foreign
policy.
> Then tell me why you don't show the same outrage towards Indonesia, China
in
> Tibet, Vietnam wiping out the Montagnards etc???
> I haven't heard a peep? How about the mess in the Congo that France is
in up
> to it's ears, or how about the reports out of the investigation into
Rhwanda
> which strongly link french businesses and troops with supplying, and
protecting
> the people who comitted the genocide there?
> If you believe this type of behavior is wrong why do you ignore countless
> other examples and focus only on one?
> Bill C

Tom Kunich

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-2651F2.23145101052004@netnews.comcast.net...

You know, Howard, no one is trying to excuse anyone who perpetrated such
acts. NO ONE. But you are trying to equate these acts to torture and murder
of hundreds of thousands. And you can't tell the difference.

Tom Kunich

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-2814A7.21541901052004@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article <x8_kc.2416$Hs1.2182@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>
> You know, that's actually a pretty reasonable assumption. Why didn't
you
> just say so the first time through? What you did say would lead one to
> think you believe that liberals are the only ones at fault for that mess.
> (Note: it's that last sentence which gives it that particular spin
angle...)
>
>> Left wingers don't really give a damn about who suffers for their
ideals."

You mean the part where the California Greenies all stood up and said that
no matter that MTBE was a carcenogen, we should keep it in the gasoline?

Steven L. Sheffield

On 05/02/2004 09:27 PM, in article
R_ilc.3453$Hs1.464@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:


> It is almost impossible to find the reasons ANYWHERE that describe the true
> reasons that the USA entered Vietnam but you can see a million articles
> blaming Nixon while ignoring the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as if it never
> existed.



The true reasons? JFK was trying to contain communism pursuant to the
Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty and committed troops after the
French pulled out.

LBJ escalated ...

Nixon pulled us out of a war we couldn't win ... one of the many GOOD
foreign policy accomplishments he had that was overshadowed by his terrible
domestic policy and Watergate.

And yes, TK, I'm still a Liberal.



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

Howard Kveck

In article <20040502102926.11274.00000275@mb-m20.aol.com>,
tritonrider@aol.com (TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: Stewart Fleming stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz
>
> >Documentation will be hard to come by, given the secrecy of the current
> >US regime, but rumor indicates that W himself ordered the collective
> >punsihment of Falluja.
>
> You can try as hard as you want to make Bush a criminal of the proportions
> of Hiler, Stalin, and Pol Pot all you want, the facts do not support the
> case.

Well, Bill, he is quoted as saying:
"I want heads to roll," US President George W. Bush told top US
officials here last week following the murder of four and mutilation of two
American contractors in Fallujah." (From the Jerusalem Post, fwiw:
<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...cle/ShowFull&ci
d=1081577940272>

Of course that isn't the kind of thing that would elevate him to the
level of the guys you listed. Nobody here has gone that far, though there
are some who do (not like that didn't happen to the Clintons, of course...).

> As for Falujua they chose to support, harbor and aid people who comitted
> acts much more heinous than those being comitted in that prison and you seem
> to be supporting them. How are even more brutal actions by the miltants OK,
> but much lesser actions by US troops world shaking?

There's never been any doubt that what happened in Fallujah was
amazingly wrong, and no one I've seen writing of it has been in any way
supportive of it. The problem is that in the ever-changing line-up of
reasons to go to war with Iraq, the abuses that went on at that prison
eventually turned up. So when there is photographic evidence like what we
have seen, it does make the US look kind of hypocritical. No, what has gone
on with the US there and the British at another facility doesn't approach
the level of what seems to have gone on under Saddam (there are only two
deaths that we know of). But I think it would be a very serious mistake to
underestimate how much bad will those pictures will generate worldwide, and
in the Muslim world, in particular. It really looks like the kind of
behavior that a conquering power might engage in: treating the people of
that country/state as less than human.

Interesting quote from Col. John Warden (who was one of the architects
of the air campaign in Gulf War I):

"The plan is probably one of the most risky in our history as it
launches us off into terra incognita for the U.S.: our first preemptive or
preventive war; our first attempt to democratize an Islamic state; and
establishment of a very narrow beachhead in the midst of a billion
undefeated Muslims," he said.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Nev Shea

"Steven L. Sheffield" <stevens@veloworks.com> wrote in
news:BCBB1DD6.2F68B%stevens@veloworks.com:

>
> The true reasons? JFK was trying to contain communism pursuant to the
> Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty and committed troops after
> the French pulled out.

Didn't that start with Eisenhower? And then Kennedy ramped it up, and then .
.. .

> LBJ escalated ... Nixon pulled us out of a war we couldn't win

uh huh. But I don't recall Nixon being the "peacemaker" until it came to his
re-election campaign. So it took him a couple of years to realize he was no
better at winning it than his predecessors.

NS

Howard Kveck

In article <03jlc.3471$Hs1.302@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-2651F2.23145101052004@netnews.comcast.net...
>
> You know, Howard, no one is trying to excuse anyone who perpetrated such
> acts. NO ONE. But you are trying to equate these acts to torture and murder
> of hundreds of thousands. And you can't tell the difference.


I answered this in a reply to Bill, but here it is again:

"The problem is that in the ever-changing line-up of reasons to go to
war with Iraq, the abuses that went on at that prison eventually turned up.
So when there is photographic evidence like what we have seen, it does make
the US look kind of hypocritical. No, what has gone on with the US there
and the British at another facility doesn't approach the level of what
seems to have gone on under Saddam (there are only two deaths that we know
of). But I think it would be a very serious mistake to underestimate how
much bad will those pictures will generate worldwide, and in the Muslim
world, in particular. It really looks like the kind of behavior that a
conquering power might engage in: treating the people of that country/state
as less than human."

When you say:
"So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?", it
would tend to make it seem that you don't think it's a big deal at all that
it went on.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Henry Etta

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:03jlc.3471$Hs1.302@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-2651F2.23145101052004@netnews.comcast.net...
>
> You know, Howard, no one is trying to excuse anyone who perpetrated such
> acts. NO ONE. But you are trying to equate these acts to torture and
> murder
> of hundreds of thousands. And you can't tell the difference.

Tom don't let the facts influence your arguement. Provide some evidence for
your claims of children being thrown into "paper shredders" by Saddam's
regime.

Bush said "Mission Accomplished", the torture chambers and rape rooms have
been closed.

The Iraqi prisoners said "huh".

Henry Etta

TritonRider

>From: Howard Kveck YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com

> When you say:
>"So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?", it
>would tend to make it seem that you don't think it's a big deal at all that
>it went on.
>
>--
> tanx,
> Howard
>

Unfortunately the response seems to be just what Iwas afraid it was going to
be from experience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3680025.stm
A real quick whitewash and a slap on the wrist compared to what could've and
very well maybe should've been done. Wait a few more days and watch the lower
enlisted involved get hammered as several should, but definitely not by
themselves.
Anybody who has dobne any serious military time can give you literally dozens
of examples like this.
The ones I always loved were the ones with an officer having an affair with an
enlisted type. The officer, unless they were a leutenant, would get a
reprimand, while in almost every case the enlistted would get hammered and
usually discharged.
Bill C

TritonRider

>From: Howard Kveck YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com
>
>> When you say:
>>"So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?", it
>>would tend to make it seem that you don't think it's a big deal at all that
>>it went on.
>>

Sorry Howard I was so pissed at the response I didn't answer your question.
It is a big deal, but it should also be a big deal when the other side does
it.
Contrast the still ongoing recriminations about Mi Lai with what has been done
about the Hanoi Hilton and the other torture camps.
My bitch is still and pretty much always has been that the left says very
quietly "we don't think that was not the right way to handle that particular
situation" in one case, but in the other puts 50,000 demonstraters on the
street.
Clinton's escapade into Bosnia was a strictly Nato affair, it was not UN
approved and in my opinion was just as illegal and justified as this adventure.
But look at the difference in reaction.
Granted Billy boy was smarts enough to claim it was for humanitarian reasons,
and GWB still hasn't decided on a reason. My contention has always been that if
Bosnia was justified then this is even more justified as Hussein was a more
efficient murderer than Milosevic.
Bill C

Tom Paterson

>From: Howard Kveck

>It really looks like the kind of
>behavior that a conquering power might engage in: treating the people of
>that country/state as less than human.

It's one of the best reasons not to go to war.

I'll never find the quote, but there's a good one out there somewhere about how
one shouldn't be surprised if, after training a young man to kill, and putting
a loaded weapon in his hands, that he might kill someone he really wasn't
supposed to kill.
--Tom Paterson

Robert Chung

Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>> So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?
>
> <http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/international/middleeast/02ABUS.html>

Fafblog's Medium Lobster (http://fafblog.blogspot.com) observes that "Boys
will be boys, and atrocities of war will be atrocities of war:"

"Before we all get too excited about the 'torture and rape and sexual
humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners by the US military, the Medium Lobster
would like to make a few general notes about what is of course a terrible
discovery but is not to be blown out of proportion.

"--The activities that occurred at Abu Ghuraib prison are not to be
compared to those of Saddam Hussein's rape rooms and torture chambers.
After all, those were *rape rooms* and *torture chambers.* These were
merely *rooms in which rape occurred,* and *chambers in which individuals
were tortured.*"

Henry Etta

"TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040503082747.29140.00000751@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >From: Howard Kveck YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com
>>
>>> When you say:
>>>"So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?",
>>>it
>>>would tend to make it seem that you don't think it's a big deal at all
>>>that
>>>it went on.
>>>
>
> Sorry Howard I was so pissed at the response I didn't answer your
> question.
> It is a big deal, but it should also be a big deal when the other side
> does
> it.
> Contrast the still ongoing recriminations about Mi Lai with what has been
> done
> about the Hanoi Hilton and the other torture camps.
> My bitch is still and pretty much always has been that the left says very
> quietly "we don't think that was not the right way to handle that
> particular
> situation" in one case, but in the other puts 50,000 demonstraters on the
> street.
> Clinton's escapade into Bosnia was a strictly Nato affair, it was not UN
> approved and in my opinion was just as illegal and justified as this
> adventure.
> But look at the difference in reaction.
> Granted Billy boy was smarts enough to claim it was for humanitarian
> reasons,
> and GWB still hasn't decided on a reason. My contention has always been
> that if
> Bosnia was justified then this is even more justified as Hussein was a
> more
> efficient murderer than Milosevic.
> Bill C

Jeez Guy, how can you divide your loyalities into left, right, center, I'm
sure that you are able to think for yourself and owe no allegiance to any
particular view point.

You don't have to defame Clinton in order to praise Bush, try being a free
thinker instead of following, especially following a party line.

Also I am puzzled by your post about enlisted/officer affairs.

AFAIK, fraternization is a crime under the UCMJ for an officer to be friends
with, pal around with or associate with and enlisted person.

There is no such crime for an enlisted person.

But oddly enough, there are plenty of officers married to enlisted personel.

Henry Etta

Henry Etta

"Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040503090411.27424.00000344@mb-m24.aol.com...
> >From: Howard Kveck
>
>>It really looks like the kind of
>>behavior that a conquering power might engage in: treating the people of
>>that country/state as less than human.
>
> It's one of the best reasons not to go to war.
>
> I'll never find the quote, but there's a good one out there somewhere
> about how
> one shouldn't be surprised if, after training a young man to kill, and
> putting
> a loaded weapon in his hands, that he might kill someone he really wasn't
> supposed to kill.
> --Tom Paterson

I was the one that said that! <G>

But Jesus said: Matthew 10:34 "I came not to send peace but a sword".

Luke 14:26 Jesus says "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own
life also, he can not be my disciple."

Henry Etta