The next president of the United States is a...cyclist



On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:16:00 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High
Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:

>
>"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> You don't think U.S. troops murdered civilians in Vietnam?
>
>Not as an everyday thing done by everyone, the way Kerry seemed to portray it.

Well, of course not. There was no requirement in Vietnam that every American there kill one civilian
every day. It's most likely an unprovable assertion, but I bet there weren't very many days in that
war where a civilian wasn't wrongly killed by American action.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no Kerry fan. I find his hypocrisy about Vietnam sickening. When he came
back, he opposed the war and made political gains from that; and he was right to oppose the war.
Now, he's playing the war hero card trying to make political headway against Bush. Well, how can you
be a hero in an immoral war?

--
[email protected]
A line has two sides.
11
 
"Rocketman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hzMYb.214432$U%5.1242949@attbi_s03...
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >
> > > You don't think U.S. troops murdered civilians in Vietnam?
> >
> > Not as an everyday thing done by everyone, the way Kerry seemed to
portray
> > it.
>
> So he was justified in protesting the war. That's all we needed to know.

If that's all the info you need to know about Kerry, I have a bridge for you.

Justified? Anyone in this country can protest anything they want. That's one of the things the
military protects. You don't need 'justification'.

But I'd put a big, huge caveat behind Kerry actions. An awful lot of verterans, Vietnam era and
otherwise, feel very betrayed by Kerry.

-Volunteer and go off to war. OK -Come back early. Maybe OK. He was wounded (supposedly very minor-
no lost days) -Protest the war? OK. That one of the things he (and everyone else in the military) is
and was fighting for, the right to speak your mind -Make a very public showing of tossing 'his'
medals over the Capitol fence. Well, they're his. He can do what he wants. -Display those same
medals on his office wall. hmm..Don't reap the recognoition if you didn't want them before -
Associate with Hanoi Jane. Taking a leadership position in an organization funded by her. Sorry...I
canNOT get behind this. No way, no how. -Accuse the entire military of various war crimes. Nope. -
Use statements by fake veterans in his cause. Nope -Speeches about wanting to put the military under
UN control. Can't get behind this one either. The UN has it's place, but I'd rather not have Syria
and Libya having a say in what the US military does or does not do. -Now, he wants to portray
himself as a decorated war veteran. I thought he tossed his decorations away. -Voting to back the
president in going to war, and now berating him for doing so. Which is it?

Protesting the Vietnam War is one thing. Breaking the bond with your 'brothers', people upon whom
you depended for day to day survival, is something else completely. Accusing those same 'brothers',
*all* of them, of "war crimes" is beyond the pale.

Granted, some of these things took place long ago. People change, times change. But since we can't
get into his mind, we can only go on what he has said. And from what I've seen, it don't look good.

Lest you think i'm rabidly pro-Bush, let me absolve you of that thought. Rather, I'm anti-idiot.
Basically, of the (assumed) two choices we will have, who will do the 'least worst' job. And I can't
determine WTF Kerry is all about!

One of the things I've seen and heard is not so much that Kerry (or
Dean/Lieberman/Edwards/Sharpton/Kucinich) is the best choice to be president. Rather a large segment
of the population wants "anyone but Bush". Overheard the other day - "I'd rather have an illegal
immigrant than GWB. Anyone, no matter how well or unqualified".

To me....that's just plain silly.

Pete
 
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:53 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High
Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:

>Protesting the Vietnam War is one thing. Breaking the bond with your 'brothers', people upon whom
>you depended for day to day survival, is something else completely. Accusing those same 'brothers',
>*all* of them, of "war crimes" is beyond the pale.

Newsflash: the entire Vietnam War was a crime.

--
[email protected]
The most important thing is the thing most easily forgotten.
79
 
"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:53 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner
High
> Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:
>
> >Protesting the Vietnam War is one thing. Breaking the bond with your 'brothers', people upon whom
> >you depended for day to day survival, is something else completely. Accusing those same
> >'brothers', *all* of them,
of
> >"war crimes" is beyond the pale.
>
> Newsflash: the entire Vietnam War was a crime.

That may be. However, not everyone who went there, at evey level of command, was guilty of My Lai
level crimes, as Kerry has said.

Pete
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:18:29 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High
Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:

>
>"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:53 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner
>High
>> Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> >Protesting the Vietnam War is one thing. Breaking the bond with your 'brothers', people upon
>> >whom you depended for day to day survival, is something else completely. Accusing those same
>> >'brothers', *all* of them,
>of
>> >"war crimes" is beyond the pale.
>>
>> Newsflash: the entire Vietnam War was a crime.
>
>That may be. However, not everyone who went there, at evey level of command, was guilty of My Lai
>level crimes, as Kerry has said.

Except Kerry didn't saY that. Who would? I mean, if even _I_ can see how bad an overgeneralization
it is -- and you know how I love overgeneralizations -- then why would Kerry make such a
ridiculous claim?

Are you talking about his Congressional testimony or what?

--
[email protected]
Cascades.
88
 
Pete wrote:

> However, not everyone who went there, at evey level of command, was guilty of My Lai level crimes,
> as Kerry has said.

Kerry claimed that *everyone* who served in Vietnam was guilty? Come now, that seems so outrageous
that it demands a backup quotation. I couldn't find anything even close to that in his 1971
testimony:

VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE,
APRIL 22, 1971

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

That's the first time I've read it, and it's an impressive and articulate statement from such a
young man.

If I can find it, I would like to read his position paper on rim anodizing.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
 
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:25:27 -0800, Terry Morse <[email protected]> from We
wrote:

>If I can find it, I would like to read his position paper on rim anodizing.

Kerry, like a certain Surly hub, flip flops on the issue.

--
[email protected]
Bridges - build - burn.
38
 
"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> Except Kerry didn't saY that. Who would? I mean, if even _I_ can see how
bad an
> overgeneralization it is -- and you know how I love overgeneralizations --
then
> why would Kerry make such a ridiculous claim?
>
> Are you talking about his Congressional testimony or what?

Yes. To the Senate CFR " These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day
basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

"...we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of
free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the
torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. "

Notwithstanding the fact that some of these "winter soldiers" were not soldiers at all, but
just ringers.

Did those things happen? Yes! War is a nasty, ugly business. And sometimes people get out of
control. Dehumanize a shadowy enemy. Accidentally or on purpose.

But you know as well as I do that soldiers/airmen/squids are usually just regular people. In a war,
regular people trying to survive.

How many in your old unit would perform acts like that? Not many. At a platoon level, how many
would try to stop it if one of their platoon members were to go off? I know I would. And you would
have as well.

As I said before, this happened a long time ago. Times change, people change. I still don't like
the guy...:)

Pete
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:34:22 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High
Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:

>> Are you talking about his Congressional testimony or what?
>
>Yes. To the Senate CFR " These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day
>basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Well, if you look at what has been revealed about Tiger Force, that's pretty much verification of
Kerry's statement.

>"...we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of
>free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the
>torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. "
>
>Notwithstanding the fact that some of these "winter soldiers" were not soldiers at all, but
>just ringers.
>
>Did those things happen? Yes! War is a nasty, ugly business. And sometimes people get out of
>control. Dehumanize a shadowy enemy. Accidentally or on purpose.

You're trying to justify war crimes. Just so you know.

>But you know as well as I do that soldiers/airmen/squids are usually just regular people. In a war,
>regular people trying to survive.

Will you apply that to the other side, too? Are the Vietnamese torturers working over downed pilots
absolved because they were just regular people trying to survive?

>How many in your old unit would perform acts like that? Not many. At a platoon level, how many
>would try to stop it if one of their platoon members were to go off? I know I would. And you would
>have as well.

In my old unit, there were some Vietnam vets. They weren't REMFs. They were front line grunts. If
half of the stuff they told me is true, then all of them performed at least one war crime either on
their own or as part of a unit. They offered their stories as lessons what not to do, and as an
object lesson of how war can turn men into animals.

I was, fortunately, never in combat, so I can say that, yes, I would stop members of my unit from
committing war crimes. But what if it had been my commander, a Lt. Col., with me an E4, not even an
NCO? Who would get the benefit of the doubt in that one? But, who knows, really? Like you said, war
dehumanizes. I don't think I'd be immune to its dehumanizing effects. Truthfully, I can only hope
that my conscience would have been strong enough to resist. Although, also truthfully, my unit was a
field hospital, and I was essentially a medic who carried stretchers and drove ambulances, so it's
not like we were bad asses or anything.

>As I said before, this happened a long time ago. Times change, people change. I still don't like
>the guy...:)

I don't like him either.

The war was a long time ago. It's still taking real human lives today. Their are regions over there
so contaminated with PCBs from Agent Orange that the cancer rate is astronomical. And UXO,
particularly land mines, is still a big problem, too.

Personally, I think it is time for a complete rapprochement with Vietnam and the beginnings of
reparation payments and demining and environmental cleanup aid.

--
[email protected]
Use filters.
51
 
"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> You're trying to justify war crimes. Just so you know.
>

No, not justifying it. Realizing that, as humans, some of us are not above doing that sort of thing.
We have not evolved beyond that. Yet.

And it's not right when *anyone* does it.

Pete
 
>What kind of bikes do you imagine the Secret Service riding?

Trek MTBs. That's what they ride now, the uniformed division at least.

When they're not looking at their feet.

But I imagine a bicycling President, especially a roadie, would get the same motorcade level
protection as if he/she travelled by car.

More likely the USSS wouldn't let it happen.

They'd have to ride a cruiser inside the WH like Clinton did.

It's all on the Web.

If some future President chose to ride it wouldn't be in DC, IMHO.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:48:54 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High
Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:

>"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> You're trying to justify war crimes. Just so you know.
>>
>
>No, not justifying it. Realizing that, as humans, some of us are not above doing that sort of
>thing. We have not evolved beyond that. Yet.

I don't think it's a matter of evolution. We're all taught right from wrong, and one of the first
wrongs we are taught is that it is wrong to harm other people. War sets that on its ear and creates
the internal conflict that leads to the acceptability of criminal behaviors as legitimate tactics.

>And it's not right when *anyone* does it.

I agree with that. However, it seems to me that U.S. forces get off scott free doing the same sorts
of things we condemn from other forces. Granted, they don't do them nearly as often, but, there
should be a zero tolerance policy for our forces committing any sort of war crime, with quick trials
and stiff punishment if guilty. Instead, the Calley case is about as far as we go.

--
[email protected]
Short circuit (example: a man eating peas with the idea that they will
improve his virility shovels them straight into his lap).
122
 
>And it's not right when *anyone* does it.

Agree with that. I've got problems, you've got problems, Kerry has problems.

But if I can't have Clark, I'll take Kerry.

W has BIG problems.

Isn't Kerry married to the catsup heiress? And catsup is big business in America. What would you
rather have, catsup or oil?

Peace or war?

Honorable service or drinks and politics at the O club?

It's a couple of patricians squaring off, Pete, you and I are just humble albeit
conservative cyclists.

You'll notice Halliburton is running "we're the bipartisan good guys" commercials lately, that's a
clear endorsement of the war that no thinking non-investor in Halliburton wanted.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> writes:

> But if I can't have Clark, I'll take Kerry.

I think Americans could go far with a President who's like Eleanor Roosevelt. She was cool.

I've heard it said that the best leaders are the ones that have to be dragged kicking & screaming to
office. Maybe a system where those elected don't even know they were nominated is called for.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
 
>>But if I can't have Clark, I'll take Kerry.

>I think Americans could go far with a President who's like Eleanor Roosevelt. She was cool.

Well, she wasn't as weird as Nancy Reagan.

>I've heard it said that the best leaders are the ones that have to be dragged kicking & screaming
>to office. Maybe a system where those elected don't even know they were nominated is called for.

Sooner or later we'll elect a President that is a paragon of virtue. In the mean time we'll have to
settle for politicians.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
>"Eric S. Sande" [email protected]

wrote:

>Sooner or later we'll elect a President that is a paragon of virtue. In the mean time we'll have to
>settle for politicians.

We've tried that at least once in my lifetime- Jimmy Carter. A good and virtuous man. A miserable
President. Given the choice between two candidates- a paragon and a pragmatist- neither of whom are
that far right or left of center, I'll take the pragmatist every time. Paragons don't compromise and
compromise is necessary sometimes.

Regards, Bob Hunt
 
[

Don't get me wrong. I'm no Kerry fan. I find his hypocrisy about Vietnam sickening. When he came
back, he opposed the war and made political gains from that; and he was right to oppose the war.
Now, he's playing the war hero card trying to make political headway against Bush. Well, how can you
be a hero in an immoral war?

That has become a popular"phrasism" but what the h*lllllll is a moral war. I would love to hear a definition.There is no morality in killing therefore all wars are immoral. Immoral or illegal war are tterms that have become catch phrases for what are unpopular wars. There again, all wars are unpopular with someone.
The winners always write the history, but to answer your question.
Say a soldier raced into a burning orphanage to save all the nuns and orphans inside, at the risk of his or her own life. Maybe his fellow soldiers set it on fire to start with but in my mind he or she would still be a hero.
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:21:24 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>What kind of bikes do you imagine the Secret Service riding?
>
>Trek MTBs. That's what they ride now, the uniformed division at least.
>
>When they're not looking at their feet.
>
>But I imagine a bicycling President, especially a roadie, would get the same motorcade level
>protection as if he/she travelled by car.
>
>More likely the USSS wouldn't let it happen.
>
>They'd have to ride a cruiser inside the WH like Clinton did.
>
>It's all on the Web.
>
>If some future President chose to ride it wouldn't be in DC, IMHO.

Motorcade-level protection might be interesting. I was riding around NOVA sometime last summer and
saw a dark official-looking car surrounded by about six Virginia State Police motorcycle outriders.
Must have been the governor.

What struck me was that those were the only motorcyclists I ever encountered who didn't wave. But
then I guess they were busy....

-Luigi
 
In article <[email protected]>, luigi12081 @cox.net says...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:39:15 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You might note that he has only voted 28% (only about one out of 4 votes!) of the time he's been
> >in the Congress and his record is even farther to the left than Kennedy.
> >
>
> Farther to the left is usually good, when riding on the public roads. Ride too far to the right
> and the SUV drivers clip you.

Or the other way around, depending on which country you are riding in <GGG>.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:39:15 +0000, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > ...and his record is even farther to the left than Kennedy.
>
> Oh, Heaven forbid! Further to the left than Kennedy! You should read some of Kennedy's speeches
> some time.

What do speeches have to do with it? Instead, look at the voting record.

> This is a new ploy, though. The terrible, awful Kennedy?

For some people, yes.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 

Similar threads

T
Replies
6
Views
576
Cycling Equipment
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Q