"Stinger" wrote in message . ..
Kennedy was a fascinating figure --
--basically groomed from birth by a scheming father for the presidency,
--a womanizer,
--the visionary that sent us to the moon and started the Peace Corps,
--and the sort of legend that can only be made by dying young.

However, Kennedy also gave us LBJ,
--who gave us the welfare state that has arguably destroyed the family
structure of black Americans over the last 35 years,
--who ramped up the Vietnam War,
--and didn't try to win it -- betraying the trust of our servicemen,

What do you mean didn't try to win it? You stupid sonofabitch. Where'd
you pick up that useless piece of information? Recite your little
schpeel to the thousands of GI's wounded in Nam and the thousands more
with psychological scars. They'd kick your little faggot white bread
ass back to you higher institute of learning they never got to go to
because they were forced to ship out 2 months after graduating high
school.

--and giving credence to a knee-jerk anti-war movement that persists
(though times have changed) to this day.

What in the **** are you talking about? You weren't even alive during
Nam little fella. If it wasn't for that anti war movement we would
still be pumping lives and money into Vietnam and you'd be dead right
now because as soon as you were 18 they would have shipped your ass
over there and then shipped it back in a body bag 6 months later.


JMO,

Better to keep your mouth shut then to let everyone know how clueless
you are.


-- Stinger

"CQScanman" wrote in message
"Stinger" wrote in message

snip
What do you mean didn't try to win it? You stupid sonofabitch. Where'd
you pick up that useless piece of information? Recite your little
schpeel to the thousands of GI's wounded in Nam and the thousands more
with psychological scars. They'd kick your little faggot white bread
ass back to you higher institute of learning they never got to go to
because they were forced to ship out 2 months after graduating high
school.

The men who were there know what happened!
With civilians directing the operations who were
more intent on body count that control of a territory.
Take if one day, stop, do a body count,
retake the same territory tomorrow.

My brother (a Marine) spent two terms in 'nam!
I bet him the policy was to maintain a status quo,
not victory, He argued that our military could kick
their butts. I agreed and pointed out that the Military
was not given the go ahead to act in a reasonable military manner,
it was all politics! After he returned, he bought me a steak dinner.
(I provided him a house while he finished at the University)

Your language and manners need mending sir!

--and giving credence to a knee-jerk anti-war movement that persists
(though times have changed) to this day.

What in the **** are you talking about? You weren't even alive during
Nam little fella. If it wasn't for that anti war movement we would
still be pumping lives and money into Vietnam and you'd be dead right
now because as soon as you were 18 they would have shipped your ass
over there and then shipped it back in a body bag 6 months later.

Better to keep your mouth shut then to let everyone know how clueless
you are.

You should take our own advice!

I am Not a "Little Fella" and I DO know what I am talking about!
The Anti war movement attacked the Veterans when they returned
and ridiculed them.
Demonstrators and draft dodgers were uniformly COWARDS!

No, demonstrators assured defeat, and the deaths of thousands of
Vietnamese who didn't get out!

Three men in my Brothers outfit died in the fighting.
Many more suffered from the drugs made so plentiful for them to
fight the depression of the conditions they were forced to be in.

One Marine squad on a flanking patrol destroyed an entire
Vietcong infantry company in twenty minute fire fight.
All the Marines involved were wounded, seven of the nine died of their
wounds.
I personally knew one of the survivors He is now a police officer.
That squad killed 135 of the enemy.

Politicians should never be allowed near a battle field unless in Chains!

"Roger Gt" wrote:

(snip) The Anti war movement attacked the
Veterans when they returned and ridiculed
them. (snip)


That's a myth, Roger. Soldiers heading for Vietnam flew out on military
aircraft departing from military bases and returned from Vietnam on military
aircraft landing at military bases. The soldiers returning from Vietnam were
very rarely close enough to civilian demonstrators to even be attacked or
ridiculed. I joined the military in 1970 and traveled, in uniform,
throughout the country to various training facilities that year. I was never
attacked or ridiculed. Instead, the vast majority, in all age groups, were
friendly to me and respectful of the job our military was doing. Americans
had doubts about that war, but it was not directed towards the soldiers.


(snip) Politicians should never be allowed
near a battle field unless in Chains!


And that sentence shows your lack of understanding of the wider
implications of that war. We had just ended a major conflict with the
Chinese in Korea just a few years earlier - a conflict we didn't win. That
same China now had nuclear weapons, an even larger military, and was not
exactly thrilled that we attacking another of it's neighbors. A major
escalation of the Vietnam war, which would have been necessary to win it,
would have certainly caused China to openly join the conflict, with
potentially devastating results for this country. Our government did the
best it could do, within the constraints of the realities of the times.

As for the soldiers, many of the things they were complaining about (the
operation tempo, shortages of food and supplies, and so on) were the result
of faults within the military, not the civilian government. And, since the
civilian government rarely selected the daily targets for patrols or
missions (the civilian government set the wider strategic goals, leaving the
daily activities to the military leaders there), many of the screw-ups in
those daily activities were the result of military leaders also. In the end,
the military just used the civilian government as a convenient scapegoat to
hide their own screw-ups and failures whenever possible.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Roger Gt" wrote:

(snip) The Anti war movement attacked the
Veterans when they returned and ridiculed
them. (snip)


That's a myth, Roger. Soldiers heading for Vietnam flew out on military
aircraft departing from military bases and returned from Vietnam on
military
aircraft landing at military bases. The soldiers returning from Vietnam
were
very rarely close enough to civilian demonstrators to even be attacked or
ridiculed. I joined the military in 1970 and traveled, in uniform,
throughout the country to various training facilities that year. I was
never
attacked or ridiculed. Instead, the vast majority, in all age groups, were
friendly to me and respectful of the job our military was doing. Americans
had doubts about that war, but it was not directed towards the soldiers.

I don't doubt that the majority were polite and respectful. It is in the
nature of most patriotic Americans to respect the Military service, with
many being drafted and understanding the nature of the task!
And I am glad you had it easy, there was no excuse for the unruly behavior.

BUT 'This' MYTH I saw myself, watched repeated and got involved in breaking
up a few or the attacks!
They did not occur at return points for the military, but at schools when
the Vets would enroll and attend, and sometimes in other groups when some
one identified a member of the military in the immediate area. Sometimes it
was verbal, but I saw at least twenty fist fights. The worst one was when a
gang of about fifty demonstrators tried to prevent an ex Marine from going
to class because the demonstration was "shutting down" the school.. It was
only heated discussion, until some jackass decided that since the Jar-Head
wouldn't do what they told him they would restrain him. He was gentle, no
fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention. NEVER JUMP a mud Marine!
The crowd scattered when he started breaking bones. Arms and Collar bones
break pretty easily and put unruly people down. Since I was older and
dressed in a suit I was identified as staff, funny, since I was only a
sophomore, but I came over to the school from work, I had to wear a suit in
my job! Because of this I helped cool off some other confrontations that
might have escalated into violence. Couldn't get the police or school
security to do anything, they got scarce at the sight of a crowd!

My brother told me that while he was flying home (civilian air lines) he
encountered people who spit on him. He avoided them. He returned to Vietnam
for another tour before he got out.

(snip) Politicians should never be allowed
near a battle field unless in Chains!

And that sentence shows your lack of understanding of the wider
implications of that war. We had just ended a major conflict with the
Chinese in Korea just a few years earlier - a conflict we didn't win. That
same China now had nuclear weapons, an even larger military, and was not
exactly thrilled that we attacking another of it's neighbors. A major
escalation of the Vietnam war, which would have been necessary to win it,
would have certainly caused China to openly join the conflict, with
potentially devastating results for this country. Our government did the
best it could do, within the constraints of the realities of the times.

Never jump to conclusions without all the facts. There may be nothing there
to land on.
The theory that China would have joined the war was never a factor, except
in the eyes of the peaceniks since the Chinese WERE FINANCING the war!!!
They also supplied most of the Munitions used! They had whole divisions in
Korea! There were Chinese Military Advisors we captured and released in the
Field. The Marines were ordered NOT to take Chinese prisoners.

BUT civilian politicos are not Generals, lacking the training and skills
required in warfare, and often have wrong headed motivations. I am very
well educated on the political scene of the time, and My job was to design
weapons systems for use in the battle, or I would have been in the military
then. I had been out ten years when the heavy fighting began. (reserves)

As for the soldiers, many of the things they were complaining about (the
operation tempo, shortages of food and supplies, and so on) were the
result
of faults within the military, not the civilian government. And, since the
civilian government rarely selected the daily targets for patrols or
missions (the civilian government set the wider strategic goals, leaving
the
daily activities to the military leaders there), many of the screw-ups in
those daily activities were the result of military leaders also. In the
end,
the military just used the civilian government as a convenient scapegoat
to
hide their own screw-ups and failures whenever possible.

There was a change of our tactics due to the change in the warfare tactics
used in Vietnam, no question! And in all wars there are screw-ups. Some of
which cause casualties. BUT interference by non military government
personal was a major factor in the length of the conflict and the level of
losses we sustained.

All Soldiers complain, even when there is nothing real to complain about.
It's the nature of the Job and the pressure on the individual.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Roger Gt" wrote:

(snip) They did not occur at return points
for the military, but at schools when the
Vets would enroll and attend, and
sometimes in other groups when some
one identified a member of the military in
the immediate area. (snip)


Sorry, I don't buy that either. I've been a veteran for 30 years and my
wife is a disabled veteran. We've attended school with many veterans, attend
veterans events throughout each year, and both have been members of veterans
organizations for at least the last 20 years. Throughout all that, we've
never met a veteran yet who has said he or she personally was spit on or
attacked. Instead, these claims most often come from those who were not
directly involved with the military at the time, and almost always involve a
third party ("I knew a guy who said..."). This is the stuff myths, not
facts, are made of.


(snip) I saw myself, watched repeated
and got involved in breaking up a few
or the attacks! The worst one was when
a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried
to prevent an ex Marine from going to class
because the demonstration was "shutting
down" the school.. It was only heated
discussion, until some jackass decided
that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what
they told him they would restrain him. He
was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for
medical attention. NEVER JUMP a
mud Marine! The crowd scattered when
he started breaking bones. (snip)


When and where was this? A violent incident like that (fifteen injured,
broken bones, and so on) should easily be verifiable through newspaper
accounts of the time.


My brother told me that while he was flying
home (civilian air lines) he encountered
people who spit on him. (snip)


Really? Which civilian airlines flew into the Vietnam war zone? Which
airlines allowed passengers to spit on other passengers?


Never jump to conclusions without all
the facts. There may be nothing there
to land on. The theory that China would
have joined the war was never a factor,
except in the eyes of the peaceniks since
the Chinese WERE FINANCING the
war!!! (snip)


The possibility of China openingly joining the conflict was a major factor
in decision making of the time. China was obviously supporting the North
Vietnamese, but that is vastly different from what I said ("an esculation of
the conflict would have caused China to *openly join* the conflict"). An
open conflict with China would have led to several million Chinese soldiers
flooding into Vietnam to fight our soldiers directly, and may have even led
to nuclear warfare between China and the USA. Only a darn fool would have
ignored that possibility (yet some military leaders did actually want to
ignore the possibility - our civilian government was wise enough not to).


BUT civilian politicos are not Generals,
lacking the training and skills required
in warfare, and often have wrong
headed motivations. (snip)

BUT interference by non military
government personal was a major factor
in the length of the conflict and the level
of losses we sustained.


And Generals lack the knowledge and skills to judge the wider political
implications of a conflict. They also don't have a mandate from the people
of this country, a Constitutional mandate, to make decisions that could
impact all Americans. The elected President is Commander in Chief of the
military and I expect that Commander to command and the soldiers (including
Generals) to obey. Anyone who has a problem with that should consider
relocating to a country controlled by a military - this country and it's
military is controlled by an elected civilian government.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Sorry, this can go no further, you CHOSE not to believe
anything you like, but I was there at the incidents described.
Perhaps it was a local phenomena, we were told otherwise.
The Media would cover Demonstrations, but never showed
the violence! I believe many demonstrations were staged! (Phony)

Your opinions are yours to hold dear.
My memories are painful reminders that it is not a perfect world.

I did not say My brother was on a civilian airline in a war zone.
That was your error!
It happened when he boarded a flight at SFO on his way to PHX!
BTW: He doesn't talk about it with strangers either, not knowing
what to expect as a reaction. You clearly have a difficulty
understanding what I have written, probably due to the wide gulf
between our experiences. I understand.

I do not have an obligation to explain or convince you.
Also I do not care to burst your bubble.
Or to break your rose colored glasses. So I will not continue,
didn't meant to get sucked into this line of discussion anyway.
The direction this has taken is not in the topic of the radio group,
and I am leaving the group since it has produced nothing of value
or interest to me.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roger Gt" wrote:

(snip) They did not occur at return points
for the military, but at schools when the
Vets would enroll and attend, and
sometimes in other groups when some
one identified a member of the military in
the immediate area. (snip)
Sorry, I don't buy that either.
snip
I've been a veteran for 30 years

And your experience is all you know. I Understand!
That is my perspective as well!

Throughout all that, we've
never met a veteran yet who has said he or she personally was spit on or
attacked. Instead, these claims most often come from those who were not
directly involved with the military at the time, and almost always involve
a
third party ("I knew a guy who said..."). This is the stuff myths, not
facts, are made of.

I suppose we have never met, at least in person.
I was in the reserves, working in military related work, and witnessed the
events personally.
BTW: Myth = one definition, an old story where the origin is not known....
like the Bible! (No author credited)


(snip) I saw myself, watched repeated
and got involved in breaking up a few
of the attacks! The worst one was when
a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried
to prevent an ex Marine from going to class
because the demonstration was "shutting
down" the school.. It was only heated
discussion, until some jackass decided
that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what
they told him they would restrain him. He
was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for
medical attention. NEVER JUMP a
mud Marine! The crowd scattered when
he started breaking bones. (snip)

When and where was this? A violent incident like that (fifteen injured,
broken bones, and so on) should easily be verifiable through newspaper
accounts of the time.

There have been auto accidents in California with over a hundred cars
involved, you heard how many were hurt and the outcome of these accidents of
course!
I don't know where you would see it, the school handled it in their clinic
and I didn't see any press or TV about it locally. I do not know why
because I would have thought it was big news!
A broken wrist two broken collar bones, and lots of bruises and a couple of
black eyes didn't seem so big. There were more hurt in a fight after the end
of season football game!
However the Demonstration got almost a whole page! But why would you
believe the news papers, with known bias, and not an eye witness? Not to
good on jury duty to ignore direct testimony. But there is no trial. And I
decline to testify further.

My brother told me that while he was flying
home (civilian air lines) he encountered
people who spit on him. (snip)

Really? Which civilian airlines flew into the Vietnam war zone? Which
airlines allowed passengers to spit on other passengers?

See above.... I think it was Delta from SFO to PHX!

Never jump to conclusions without all
the facts. There may be nothing there
to land on. The theory that China would
have joined the war was never a factor,
except in the eyes of the peaceniks since
the Chinese WERE FINANCING the
war!!! (snip)

The possibility of China opening joining the conflict was a major factor
in decision making of the time. China was obviously supporting the North
Vietnamese, but that is vastly different from what I said ("an escalation
of
the conflict would have caused China to *openly join* the conflict"). An
open conflict with China would have led to several million Chinese
soldiers
flooding into Vietnam to fight our soldiers directly, and may have even
led
to nuclear warfare between China and the USA. Only a darn fool would have
ignored that possibility (yet some military leaders did actually want to
ignore the possibility - our civilian government was wise enough not to).

Thank you for clarifying what you meant to say, I didn't understand the
point as more than what was originally stated.
Well they didn't ignore it, did they?

BUT civilian politicos are not Generals,
lacking the training and skills required
in warfare, and often have wrong
headed motivations. (snip)

BUT interference by non military
government personal was a major factor
in the length of the conflict and the level
of losses we sustained.

And Generals lack the knowledge and skills to judge the wider political
implications of a conflict. They also don't have a mandate from the people
of this country, a Constitutional mandate, to make decisions that could
impact all Americans. The elected President is Commander in Chief of the
military and I expect that Commander to command and the soldiers
(including
Generals) to obey. Anyone who has a problem with that should consider
relocating to a country controlled by a military - this country and it's
military is controlled by an elected civilian government.

You state the obvious as if you have a problem believing it.
Why if Generals lack this magically unique knowledge
are they sometimes elected to the office of President?
Like for example, Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, etc!
I respect your opinion, though I do not agree with much of it.
Why do you believe you have the right to suggest that
a citizen of this country should leave because they disagree with you?
(Rhetorical, I AM dropping this group.)

"Roger Gt" wrote:
Sorry, this can go no further, you
CHOSE not to believe anything
you like, but I was there at the
incidents described. (snip)


Yes, I choose not to believe accusations against a significant portion of
this country's population, or accusations of incompetency against the
government of this country, without clear and convincing evidence to back it
up. Surely you don't believe your word alone is enough for such accusations,
in a public forum, to go unchallenged.


(snip) So I will not continue, didn't mean
to get sucked into this line of discussion
anyway. The direction this has taken is
not in the topic of the radio group, and I
am leaving the group since it has produced
nothing of value or interest to me. (snip)


Well, that is certainly your decision to make. However, if what you've
said is really true, I strongly urge you to follow up by reporting your
experiences to the various veterans organizations in this country. Several
have ongoing programs to gather and verify the history of veterans over the
years.


There have been auto accidents in
California with over a hundred cars
involved, you heard how many were
hurt and the outcome of these
accidents of course!


No, but there would be a written record of each of those automobile
accidents - newspaper accounts, police records, hospital records, insurance
claims, and so on. The same is true for the incident you described (fifty
demonstrators jumping a marine, with fifteen requiruing medical attention
for broken bones), which means your claim can be fairly easily verified if
true.


(snip) But why would you believe
the news papers, with known bias,
and not an eye witness? (snip)


I'm not going to "believe" anyone, including a supposed eyewitness,
without facts to back up what is said. I can ask a newspaper for the source
of it's information, or research the incident myself in the same manner as
the newspaper did. But, an eyewitness, without verification of what is said,
is the absolute least reliable source of information.


You state the obvious as if you have
a problem believing it. Why if Generals
lack this magically unique knowledge
are they sometimes... (snip)


Again, a military officer does not have a mandate from the people to make
decisions that could impact all Americans. In a democracy, we place that
authority in the hands of the elected government, not in Generals. The
elected President is Commander in Chief of the military and the soldiers
(including Generals) obey his commands. Any effort to subvert that system,
by claiming government should have no say in the actions of our military or
whatever, is, in my opinion, a direct effort to subvert the very system of
government in this country. I took an oath many years ago to defend the
people, Constitution, and government, of this country. I still consider the
ultimate goal of that oath worthwhile.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...



(snip) I saw myself, watched repeated
and got involved in breaking up a few
or the attacks! The worst one was when
a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried
to prevent an ex Marine from going to class
because the demonstration was "shutting
down" the school.. It was only heated
discussion, until some jackass decided
that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what
they told him they would restrain him. He
was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for
medical attention. NEVER JUMP a
mud Marine! The crowd scattered when
he started breaking bones. (snip)


When and where was this? A violent incident like that (fifteen injured,
broken bones, and so on) should easily be verifiable through newspaper
accounts of the time.


Not to get caught up in this, rather a comment. I can't say if/who/when/
where someone got spat upon, but I
could BELIEVE that one of those long-haired, granny-
glasses drippy-hippy could have been severely injured
if he tried such a caper. If any of those cowardly, "peace"
niks had jumped upon, or spat upon one of our Marines,
then I would supported him, encouraged him, urged him,
or HELPED him to put on an old fashioned ***whippin' that SOB would not
soon forget! And if any bones got
broken, particularly of those pot smoking, #$%^&%$#@, then all the better!






My brother told me that while he was flying
home (civilian air lines) he encountered
people who spit on him. (snip)


Really? Which civilian airlines flew into the Vietnam war zone? Which
airlines allowed passengers to spit on other passengers?

Then he'd have MY a** to whup if he pulled such a caper and spit on me,
'cause being rather a large fella
with something of a temper, I'd have stomped a mudhole
in his butt he'd not forget. The airlines wouldn't have had
to've "protected" me; I'd have attempted to take care of it myself. Now,
much older and mellower, but still in pretty good health, I'd think a bit
more about getting into an altercation. When I was 21-22? Uh-unh! I'd have
smacked hell out of him without a second thought.
Hehe! Matter of fact, I GOT into a few fights in those
days. LOL!

I don't remember hearing personally of spitting incidents,
only of vague reports of such. I only know what *I* would have done!~


73


Jerry

Never jump to conclusions without all
the facts. There may be nothing there
to land on. The theory that China would
have joined the war was never a factor,
except in the eyes of the peaceniks since
the Chinese WERE FINANCING the
war!!! (snip)


The possibility of China openingly joining the conflict was a major
factor
in decision making of the time. China was obviously supporting the North
Vietnamese, but that is vastly different from what I said ("an esculation
of
the conflict would have caused China to *openly join* the conflict"). An
open conflict with China would have led to several million Chinese
soldiers
flooding into Vietnam to fight our soldiers directly, and may have even
led
to nuclear warfare between China and the USA. Only a darn fool would have
ignored that possibility (yet some military leaders did actually want to
ignore the possibility - our civilian government was wise enough not to).



Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

As one who was there, the administration put so many "Uhh Uhh's" on the
rules of engagement that we had no chance of winning the war. Winning the
battle, and fighting with the bravest guys you ever saw, made no difference
when Macnamara and Johnson boasted that we "couldn't bomb a ****house with
out Whitehouse approval."

Battle is a fluid situation, you have to improvise. When you first have to
check back with the White House before bombing anybody you loose. Why the
hell didn't they bomb the hell out of Hanoi? This is where the Russians were
bringing in all the supplies to support Uncle Ho.

Johnson was scared we may hit a Russian ship, or bring the Chinese into the
mix. I was all for nuking the whole damn bunch.

So, the writer that stated we did not want to win is anything but a "stupid
son of a bitch" , he has an excellent handle on the realities of the
political side of the conflict.


"CQScanman" wrote in message
m...
"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Kennedy was a fascinating figure --
--basically groomed from birth by a scheming father for the
presidency,
--a womanizer,
--the visionary that sent us to the moon and started the Peace
Corps,
--and the sort of legend that can only be made by dying young.

However, Kennedy also gave us LBJ,
--who gave us the welfare state that has arguably destroyed the
family
structure of black Americans over the last 35 years,
--who ramped up the Vietnam War,
--and didn't try to win it -- betraying the trust of our servicemen,

What do you mean didn't try to win it? You stupid sonofabitch. Where'd
you pick up that useless piece of information? Recite your little
schpeel to the thousands of GI's wounded in Nam and the thousands more
with psychological scars. They'd kick your little faggot white bread
ass back to you higher institute of learning they never got to go to
because they were forced to ship out 2 months after graduating high
school.

--and giving credence to a knee-jerk anti-war movement that persists
(though times have changed) to this day.

What in the **** are you talking about? You weren't even alive during
Nam little fella. If it wasn't for that anti war movement we would
still be pumping lives and money into Vietnam and you'd be dead right
now because as soon as you were 18 they would have shipped your ass
over there and then shipped it back in a body bag 6 months later.


JMO,

Better to keep your mouth shut then to let everyone know how clueless
you are.


-- Stinger

I'll tell you what I mean, "You stupid sonofabitch."

I mean that thousands of good American soldiers were wasted as cannon
fodder, betrayed by LBJ and his cronies. I was there, jackass.

We stopped bombing Hanoi, etc. while arguing for years on the shape of the
table they would be using at the peace talks. Meanwhile my buddies were
getting killed.

-- Stinger

" wrote in message
m...
"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Kennedy was a fascinating figure --
--basically groomed from birth by a scheming father for the
presidency,
--a womanizer,
--the visionary that sent us to the moon and started the Peace
Corps,
--and the sort of legend that can only be made by dying young.

However, Kennedy also gave us LBJ,
--who gave us the welfare state that has arguably destroyed the
family
structure of black Americans over the last 35 years,
--who ramped up the Vietnam War,
--and didn't try to win it -- betraying the trust of our servicemen,

What do you mean didn't try to win it? You stupid sonofabitch. Where'd
you pick up that useless piece of information? Recite your little
schpeel to the thousands of GI's wounded in Nam and the thousands more
with psychological scars. They'd kick your little faggot white bread
ass back to you higher institute of learning they never got to go to
because they were forced to ship out 2 months after graduating high
school.

--and giving credence to a knee-jerk anti-war movement that persists
(though times have changed) to this day.

What in the **** are you talking about? You weren't even alive during
Nam little fella. If it wasn't for that anti war movement we would
still be pumping lives and money into Vietnam and you'd be dead right
now because as soon as you were 18 they would have shipped your ass
over there and then shipped it back in a body bag 6 months later.


JMO,

Better to keep your mouth shut then to let everyone know how clueless
you are.


-- Stinger