Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: easymo on December 08, 2000, 11:33:00 AM
-
Hanoi Jane. I saw where she donated one hundred thousand dollars to gores campaign. With him being a war hero and all, doesn't this seem a little strange?
-
The very strange doing something strange. Expected!!
-
He may be a "war hero" but has it been proven what side he REALLY fought for?
Not sure I would call him a "Hero" at any rate. "Zero" maybe but never "Hero".
Clinton/Bore have proven they will take money from anyone.
[This message has been edited by Mighty1 (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
Will someone please explain to me the issue you right-wingers have with Jane Fonda? Wasn't she exercising her rights as a concerned citizen when she went to Vietnam?
You people claim to love America but you hate Americans.
Free speech, what a squeak eh? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
she was a trendy opportunist - - - she used to clown on the gi's talking about how stupid they were when she was over there with that traveling freak show - they wanted to dumb down the humor etc -
i dont care if she is a communist, a leftist, a socialist or methodist- i can judge her based on her sheep mentality though.
just like many from her era they didnt really believe in any movement they just saw it as a chance to look important, feel snuggly about themselves, wear tie die and pretend that marijuana makes people hallucinate (yeah whatever)"....wowww maaaannn far out duuuudddeee yeah groooovy vibes maaaannn ....the colors.....wowwwwwwwww...hehe ..i'm flying maannnn....whoah ia m an ice cube now....ahhhhhh"
it was a fashion mold and she is a impressionable little rich girl that just started spouting off whatever rhetoric was fed to her....
thats why i dont like her though i imagine many people have their own *special* reason for hating her (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by mrfish (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
Nahh, that pretty much covers it mrfish (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Will someone please explain to me the issue you right-wingers have with Jane Fonda? Wasn't she exercising her rights as a concerned citizen when she went to Vietnam?
I wouldn`t piss on the squeak if she was on fire!
Regardless if the war in Vietnam was right or wrong,our soldiers deserved honor and respect.
She denied them that with her support of the Vietnamese during the conflict and shouldn`t have been allowed back into our country-or at least have been tried for treasonous activity during wartime!
[This message has been edited by jihad (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
ah...where to start on this one.
Blur, were you around when she went? If so, were you old enough to realize she broke a US law going there?
Free speech? Sure. Everyone's entitled to it in this country. She did plenty of speaking here, too. No one complained about that.
Illegally entering NV and vocally and materialy supporting their cause? Can you say "Aid and comfort to the enemy"? Big difference and people did complain about that.
Sorry, put me in the bunch that will never forgive her.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-10-2000).]
-
I just love that picture she took on that Gook Ack gun, id like to stick that up her bellybutton and THEN shoot at something. She was a media potato, and when the GI's started coming out about their being tortured she called the "lieing pigs" I hope she ends up dieing from some hellish disease she got over there that has been hiding in her bellybutton till now!
-
the war was wrong . the government knew it the people knew it, still it wasent stoped. kennedy tried to stop it and they killed him. people were going out on a limb to do anything to stop it. it isnte aiding the enemy when there is no state of war.
soldiers suffer, moviestars posture, polititians lie. children starve, monks burn. and you want to stuff a gun up some chicks bellybutton . yea that will solve it all.
my best freind cant sleep at night for 33 years cause some company wanted to sell airplains and guns. so at 20 he had to cut peoples heads off ( to get the 5th of wiskey bounty from his co for every dead gook)
it was all wrong she is trivial compaired with the other nightmares.
we still sell munitions to whoever wants to kill the stray ethinc group or make shure they stay in office ( check out turkey and comumbia) flap you jaw and make it seem true but we are imperialistic and uncaring and the world hates us for it.
-
Hi
Anyone hear of that story where Jane Fonda's actions directly led to the torture and subsequent murder of 4 US POWs?
IIRC it was something like this:
She visited a POW camp, The US POWs, believing she was only faking her support of NV to gain access to the prison and observe the conditions, slipped her some bits of paper containg various info on their status/treatment in captivity. She then immediatly turned over the papers to the Prison Guards. This led to torture of the 5 US POWs, 4 of whom subsequently died. This story was relayed by the lone survior of the 5 and largely confirmed by other inmates of the camp.
Anyone else come accros this account?
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
the war was wrong . the government knew it the people knew it, still it wasn't stopped. Kennedy tried to stop it and they killed him.
Don't think that was why JFK was killed. I think it was because of his father's, Joe, connections with the mob and JFK's action after he gained office, with mob help,ie union votes, fraudulent votes and money, against the mob. Same reason Robert bought it too. Notice Ted hasn't ever said anything about the Mafia? Just my 2 cents. Didn't mean to hijack your thread.
As for Jane, she was just another misguided stupid squeak for her actions during the Vietnam war.
At least she gave us Barbarella......
Eagler
-
(http://vikingphoenix.com/public/CelebrityFiles/TurnerandFonda/JaneFonda/fondagun.gif)
The hag is a traitor.
Ugly too.
-
Blur and Towd, <S>
No matter what your personal feelings are about the legitimacy of the Vietnam War, real, live American men were being drafted and ordered to fight it.
We are talking about young people who either could not get draft deferments or to whom draft dodging was not an option.
I don't know how you could condone Fonda's conduct knowing that our boys were fighting and dying with the same people who gave Fonda her photo opportunity.
The idea that "it isn't really aiding the enemy when there is no state of war" is so disegenuine. It reminds me of Clinton questioning the definition of "is", and Gore's "No controlling legal authority".
Towd, I don't believe that your friend "had" to cut heads off. Are you really suggesting that someone else, other than your friend, is to responsible for his conduct? Blaming someone or something else for your personal conduct seems to be the liberal standard operating procedure.
Blur, you stated:
"Will someone please explain to me the issue you right-wingers have with Jane Fonda? Wasn't she exercising her rights as a concerned citizen when she went to Vietnam?"
Blur, I'm not a right winger, but I'm a concerned, conservative American. My issue with Fonda is that not that she may have exercised her civil rights. Or that she may have violated laws. My brother and four of my close school friends were fighting over there. Fonda aided the enemy, politically and perhaps matierially, and thereby hurt the chances of my brother and our friends of getting home alive. It is that simple. It should be as plain as the nose on your face.
Gunthr
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
kennedy tried to stop it and they killed him.
How I do love revisionist history; it's so much more entertaining and amusing than what actually happened.
Let's all try to guess which US President FIRST sent US "military advisors" to VietNam.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-11-2000).]
-
Actually, it may have been Johnson(VP-Dem) who got Kennedy killed, he certainly didn't want the war to end, his wife had a substantial amount of money tied up in stocks of companies that made war materials. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) So much for that theory, Towd. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Toad,
Don't know if this the answer you're looking for but here goes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) In 1944 (late I think) the O.S.S. sent a group into French Indo-China, occupied by the Japanese, to work with the local guerrillas in aiding downed Allied air personnel. One of the locals was none other than Ho Chi Minh. The history I've read stated that Ho (tho a dedicated Communist) had proposed a Constitution based upon ours, whether this was just a political ploy on his part to gain our support I have no idea. FDR was pressuring both the Brits and the French to give up their colonial assets supposedly. Wonder how things would have evolved in SEA if FDR had completed his 4th term. Rambling mode off now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
JFK was killed by an SAS soldier using secret ricochet shooting techniques to save the queen.
That's one of my takes on it.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
Well, I was actually thinking of the post-WW2 American involvement in VietNam.
From:http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm
12 Feb 55 - President Eisenhower's administration sends the first U.S. advisers to South Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese Army
From:http://members.tripod.com/paulrparker/namhist/
July 8, 1959 - Two U.S. military advisors, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, are killed by Viet Minh guerrillas at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. They are the first American deaths in the Second Indochina War which Americans will come to know simply as The Vietnam War.
May 1961 - President Kennedy sends 400 American Green Beret 'Special Advisors' to South Vietnam to train South Vietnamese soldiers in methods of 'counter-insurgency' in the fight against Viet Cong guerrillas.
October 24, 1961 - On the sixth anniversary of the Republic of South Vietnam, President Kennedy sends a letter to President Diem and pledges "the United States is determined to help Vietnam preserve its independence..."
President Kennedy then sends additional military advisors along with American helicopter units to transport and direct South Vietnamese troops in battle, thus involving Americans in combat operations. Kennedy justifies the expanding U.S. military role as a means "...to prevent a Communist takeover of Vietnam which is in accordance with a policy our government has followed since 1954." The number of military advisors sent by Kennedy will eventually surpass 16,000.
December 1961 - Viet Cong guerrillas now control much of the countryside in South Vietnam and frequently ambush South Vietnamese troops. The cost to America of maintaining South Vietnam's sagging 200,000 man army and managing the overall conflict in Vietnam rises to a million dollars per day.
Now, towd...maybe I missed something in your post. Kennedy tried to get us OUT of VietNam?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Let's not even talk about Lyndon!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-11-2000).]
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
my best freind cant sleep at night for 33 years cause some company wanted to sell airplains and guns. so at 20 he had to cut peoples heads off ( to get the 5th of wiskey bounty from his co for every dead gook)
Understand this....never have I seen this during my almost 5 years in country. The worst I ever saw was the removal of the left ear to support a bodycount. If this <beheading> happened <by our troops and sanctioned by their CO> at all it was an isolated incident but I seriously doubt it. The prize of a fifth of whiskey would have taken second place to a sixpack of ice cold beer.
'nother thing....stay away from the racial slurs. They were soldiers and civilians fighting for what they thought was right....as were we.
Your friend would benefit from the support groups located at every VA hospital. I had nightmares for almost 10 years 'till I attended one. in 4 sessions over 4 weeks I finally got rid of them...and made some good friends that I could "talk" to.
Lars
-
Toad, Toads right.. JFK started airlifting the advisers out in the summer of '63
Its a fact..
10Bears
-
10Bears...
I can't find any mention of withdrawal of troops under Kennedy. Can you provide a link?
I did find this at the same place:
September 2, 1963 - During a TV news interview with Walter Cronkite, President Kennedy describes Diem as "out of touch with the people" and adds that South Vietnam's government might regain popular support "with changes in policy and perhaps in personnel."
Also during the interview, Kennedy comments on America's commitment to Vietnam "If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, would go..."
October 5, 1963 - Lodge informs President Kennedy that the coup against Diem appears to be on again.
The rebel generals, led by Duong Van "Big" Minh, first ask for assurances that U.S. aid to South Vietnam will continue after Diem's removal and that the U.S. will not interfere with the actual coup. This scenario suits the White House well, in that the generals will appear to acting on their own without any direct U.S. involvement. President Kennedy gives his approval. The CIA in Saigon then signals the conspirators that the United States will not interfere with the overthrow of President Diem.
November 2, 1963 - At 3 a.m., one of Diem's aides betrays his location to the generals. The hunt for Diem and Nhu now begins. At 6 a.m., Diem telephones the generals. Realizing the situation is hopeless, Diem and Nhu offer to surrender from inside a Catholic church. Diem and Nhu are then taken into custody by rebel officers and placed in the back of an armored personnel carrier. While traveling to Saigon, the vehicle stops and Diem and Nhu are assassinated.
At the White House, a meeting is interrupted with the news of Diem's death. According to witnesses, President Kennedy's face turns a ghostly shade of white and he immediately leaves the room. Later, the President records in his private diary, "I feel that we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it."
November 22, 1963 - President John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas. Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn in as the 36th U.S. President. He is the fourth President coping with Vietnam and will oversee massive escalation of the war while utilizing many of the same policy advisors who served Kennedy.
November 24, 1963 - President Johnson declares he will not "lose Vietnam" during a meeting with Ambassador Lodge in Washington.
-
I wondered if towd would get away with that particular fairy tale. Guess not (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Kennedy loved warfare. Read any number of biographys. He was the first head of state in centuries to personally design a military uniform.
The Democrats may have killed him (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). According to Harry Truman. His dad outright bought the democratic nomination to President for him.
-
always thought the Vietnam problem was an internal civil war turned external by "helping" foreign powers.
as for Kennedy, his group informed my grandfather, Michael V. DiSalle, that it would be in his best political interest if he were to withdraw his name from the list of Democratic nominees in 1960. http://politicalgraveyard.com/parties/D/1960/index.html (http://politicalgraveyard.com/parties/D/1960/index.html) It's my understanding he was not the only one pressured to withdraw. It's also my understanding that Nixon would have won that election if the election was not rigged in various ways for Kennedy to win. Daddy Joe throwing around his money and help from his influential "friends". Another democrat playing their game. Deja Vu ?
How bout that Jesse Jackson, gotta love him (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Originally posted by ah1g:
Don't know if this the answer you're looking for but here goes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) In 1944 (late I think) the O.S.S. sent a group into French Indo-China, occupied by the Japanese, to work with the local guerrillas in aiding downed Allied air personnel. One of the locals was none other than Ho Chi Minh. The history I've read stated that Ho (tho a dedicated Communist) had proposed a Constitution based upon ours, whether this was just a political ploy on his part to gain our support I have no idea. FDR was pressuring both the Brits and the French to give up their colonial assets supposedly. Wonder how things would have evolved in SEA if FDR had completed his 4th term. Rambling mode off now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I won't answer myself :
America financed and advised Ho until late 1945, when Truman betrayed him and gave Indochina back to the French. The United States financed and advised the French until 1954--when we betrayed them and gave Indochina to Diem.
From Our Ho - Fact and Fiction by Alan Trustman
You know now why I can't stand Truman ...
-
Straffo,
I'm not clear on your reason for hating Truman.
Do you hate him because he would not support Ho as the President of the Democratic Republic of VietNam (announced 2 Sep 45)?
Or do you hate him because he authorized $15 million to the French in their fight against the Viet Minh (26 July 1950)?
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Straffo,
I'm not clear on your reason for hating Truman.
Do you hate him because he would not support Ho as the President of the Democratic Republic of VietNam (announced 2 Sep 45)?
Or do you hate him because he authorized $15 million to the French in their fight against the Viet Minh (26 July 1950)?
$15 million dollars? What's that about 15 cruise missles? 15 of those could have save 10's of 1000's of American boys if we had them then. Just a thought.
Eagler
-
Well, here's more of the bad news that was in that timeline. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
"July 26, 1950 - United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French.
American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French."
************
Root Cause? Colonialism remained alive and well as an idea among the major powers at the end of WW2.
************
"July 1945 - Following the defeat of Nazi Germany, World War II Allies including the U.S., Britain, and Soviet Union, hold the Potsdam Conference in Germany to plan the post-war world. Vietnam is considered a minor item on the agenda.
In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.
During the conference, representatives from France request the return of all French pre-war colonies in Southeast Asia (Indochina). Their request is granted. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will once again become French colonies following the removal of the Japanese."
...and so it began.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-12-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Straffo,
I'm not clear on your reason for hating Truman.
Do you hate him because he would not support Ho as the President of the Democratic Republic of VietNam (announced 2 Sep 45)?
Or do you hate him because he authorized $15 million to the French in their fight against the Viet Minh (26 July 1950)?
Simple answer : both .
To me (a born 1970 french) Indonesia war was stupid. And Truman 1st helping uncle HO for stopping few month after to help french governement fight in Indonesia instead of rebuilding France was the next stupid act.
If the french governement was not so stupid in 1945/6 I'm pretty sure we will have good relation with our former Colonie (look Tunisia for exemple)
the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French.
France as used all the fund of the US Marshall (sp?) plan to colonialist war (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
During that time my familly was starving the situation was worst than during the war (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Root Cause? Colonialism remained alive and well as an idea among the major powers at the end of WW2.
too bad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
...and so it began.
Yep but I don't think that geo politic is simple... you cannot reduce it to french started it all (if it is your point)
-
I really wasn't making that point.
However, the major points in your post seem to say that you find France at fault.
"instead of rebuilding France was the next stupid act."
I'm fairly sure that a review of the Marshall Plan spending and other aid would show that the US helped France "rebuild". Probably more aid than most other European countries received, in fact.
"If the french governement was not so stupid in 1945/6 I'm pretty sure we will have good
"
Well, blame De Gaulle then, not Truman.
"France as used all the fund of the US Marshall (sp?) plan to colonialist war"
Once again, this would not be the fault of the US President.
To me, the bottom line is colonialism. Had the THREE "great powers" (Britain, US, Soviet Union) denied the claims of ALL nations to restore their "former colonies" we'd have all been better off.
-
It's really hard to have a discution with my bad english ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I really wasn't making that point.
so I've understand right.great (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
However, the major points in your post seem to say that you find France at fault.
Sure ! btw not the nation (the people) but the governement.
I'm fairly sure that a review of the Marshall Plan spending and other aid would show that the US helped France "rebuild". Probably more aid than most other European countries received, in fact.
I live in Normandie we from time to time find allied/axis bombs,mines, dead body and wreck 45 year after the war.
The town in wich I live got destructed at 95% (Evreux) my former locations were Brest/Caen/Nantes/StNazaire (in StNazaire the german have surrender after the 8 May 1945 imagine the landscape) just check on the web the picture of those town after the war.
Don't forget also that in France almost all railroad and communication nodes (sp?) where destroyed either by bombing or sabotage, lot of plant got destroyed too ,it has a cost !
I know it was the same for Germany ...
"If the french governement was not so stupid in 1945/6 I'm pretty sure we will have good "
Well, blame De Gaulle then, not Truman.
Wrong he was not any more in the goverment (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but you cannot know french history like me that's normal (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"France as used all the fund of the US Marshall (sp?) plan to colonialist war"
Once again, this would not be the fault of the US President.
For me it was his responsability to force the French governement to have good usage of this money.
When you have the money you have the power !
To me, the bottom line is colonialism. Had the THREE "great powers" (Britain, US, Soviet Union) denied the claims of ALL nations to restore their "former colonies" we'd have all been better off.
Don't know it's now history
[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 12-12-2000).]
-
From: http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,36912+2+36216,00.html (http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,36912+2+36216,00.html)
"De Gaulle's successful campaign to edge Giraud out gave the world proof of his skill in political maneuver. On Sept. 9, 1944, he and his shadow government returned from Algiers to Paris. He headed two successive provisional governments but, on Jan. 20, 1946, abruptly resigned, apparently owing to irritation with the political parties forming the coalition government."
From: http://members.tripod.com/paulrparker/namhist/ (http://members.tripod.com/paulrparker/namhist/)
September 22, 1945 - In South Vietnam, 1400 French soldiers released by the British from former Japanese internment camps enter Saigon and go on a deadly rampage, attacking Viet Minh and killing innocent civilians including children, aided by French civilians who joined the rampage. An estimated 20,000 French civilians live in Saigon.
September 24, 1945 - In Saigon, Viet Minh successfully organize a general strike shutting down all commerce along with electricity and water supplies. In a suburb of Saigon, members of Binh Xuyen, a Vietnamese criminal organization, massacre 150 French and Eurasian civilians, including children. General Phillipe LeClerc is named Commander of French Forces(Foreign Legion).
October 1945 - 35,000 French soldiers under the command of World War II General Jacques Philippe Leclerc arrive in South Vietnam to restore French rule. Viet Minh immediately begin a guerrilla campaign to harass them. The French then succeed in expelling the Viet Minh from Saigon. The Viet Minh attack the French in the North."
Straffo, I am sure you have a better grasp of French history than I. However, it does seem that DeGaulle was head of the provisional French government when France sent LeClerc and 35,000 troops to VietNam in October of 1945. That sort of stands, in my mind, as the real beginning of the armed conflict against the VietMinh. The philosophical lines were drawn and troops committed.
DeGaulle, as provisional President of the government, had to be a part of that decision. Most likely, he himself made the final decision "to restore French rule".
After DeGaulle resigned, the assembly chose the Socialist Félix Gouin to immediately replace him. Shortly thereafter, in January of '47 another Socialist, Vincent Auriol, became President and he lasted until 1954. Of course, in 1954, the French finally withdrew from VietNam.
So, it appears to me that DeGaulle made the initial decision to commit French troops and to reclaim VietNam as a French colony. The Socialists continued on this course and prosecuted the war to it's unsuccessful conclusion.
As for the rest, if you find the French Government at fault, how do you exonerate the nation (people)? Are not the people the ones that elect the Government? Is not the Government an extension of the people's will (theoretically (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
As far as France being destroyed by the war...yes, it suffered heavily. Are you saying that somehow the US should have been solely responsible for rebuilding all the damage?
Who bears the responsibility for the rapid military collapse of France under the German blitzkrieg? Is not this collapse the basis for the later destruction of France?
I'm not sure you want to point fingers and assign liability for destruction. You eventually get to the place where you have to choose between the desire for a destructive liberation or continued occupation.
As far as Truman "forcing" the French Government to spend the money wisely, you KNOW this was impossible. The very idea of "les Americains" dictating ANYTHING to the French, particularly in that era, is laughable. No, it was the responsibility of the French people to make sure their Government spent the money properly. It was most certainly NOT the responsibility of the US!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-12-2000).]
-
I think you guys are agreeing, but it's not coming out right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)I'm sure straffo doesn't mean to blame the US for the destruction cause by WWII. I mean after all, should we have not intervened, and left the Germans in France? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
I think you guys are agreeing, but it's not coming out right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)I'm sure straffo doesn't mean to blame the US for the destruction cause by WWII. I mean after all, should we have not intervened, and left the Germans in France? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) we agree on most point (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
It's about to be completly unreadable
Quote over quote over quote over ...
"De Gaulle's successful campaign to edge Giraud out gave the world proof of his skill in political maneuver. On Sept. 9, 1944, he and his shadow government returned from Algiers to Paris. He headed two successive provisional governments but, on Jan. 20, 1946, abruptly resigned,apparently owing to irritation with the political parties forming the coalition government."
Part of the his decision was because of the former colonie treatemant reserved by the sucker who didn't learn anything during the war (the political "elite" was the same before and after the war ...)
September 22, 1945 - In South Vietnam, 1400 French soldiers released by the British from former Japanese internment camps enter Saigon and go on a deadly rampage, attacking Viet Minh and killing innocent civilians including children, aided by French civilians who joined the rampage. An estimated 20,000 French civilians live in Saigon.
It's a shame and I'm pretty aware of this "comportement de BARBARE!" (sorry havn't a dico near) french army redone this sometime after in Madagascar and in Algeria and during the campaing of Italia ...
September 24, 1945 - In Saigon, Viet Minh successfully organize a general strike shutting down all commerce along with electricity and water supplies. In a suburb of Saigon, members of Binh Xuyen, a Vietnamese criminal organization, massacre 150 French and Eurasian civilians, including children. General Phillipe LeClerc is named Commander of French Forces(Foreign Legion).
Yep but not only foreign legion, regular trops where involved too (+ colonial troops)
October 1945 - 35,000 French soldiers under the command of World War II General Jacques Philippe Leclerc arrive in South Vietnam to restore French rule. Viet Minh immediately begin a guerrilla campaign to harass them. The French then succeed in expelling the Viet Minh from Saigon. The Viet Minh attack the French in the North."
Recall something no ?
Straffo, I am sure you have a better grasp of French history than I. However, it does seem that DeGaulle was head of the provisional French government when France sent LeClerc and 35,000 troops to VietNam in October of 1945. That sort of stands, in my mind, as the real beginning of the armed conflict against the VietMinh. The philosophical lines were drawn and troops committed.
You can compare the power of the president of the IIIrd republic to the power of the Queen in England ... pretty NULL !
That's why when he was recalled in 1958 he organized a "referendum" to change the constitution (the V Républic)
DeGaulle, as provisional President of the government, had to be a part of that decision. Most likely, he himself made the final decision "to restore French rule".
Wrong see above
After DeGaulle resigned, the assembly chose the Socialist Félix Gouin a puppet !to immediately replace him. Shortly thereafter, in January of '47 another Socialist, Vincent Auriol, became President and he lasted until 1954. Of course, in 1954, the French finally withdrew from VietNam.
With dishonnor and heavy casualty
So, it appears to me that DeGaulle made the initial decision to commit French troops and to reclaim VietNam as a French colony. The Socialists continued on this course and prosecuted the war to it's unsuccessful conclusion.
The socialist will redo the same in Algeria sometime after
As for the rest, if you find the French Government at fault, how do you exonerate the nation (people)? Are not the people the ones that elect the Government? Is not the Government an extension of the people's will (theoretically (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
Don't recall a vote for this governement (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It was founded soon after the liberation of France in a hurry.
As far as France being destroyed by the war...yes, it suffered heavily. Are you saying that somehow the US should have been solely responsible for rebuilding all the damage?
Nope it was a "Mal necessaire"/ a price to pay (I really have to find a dictionary (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Who bears the responsibility for the rapid military collapse of France under the German blitzkrieg? Is not this collapse the basis for the later destruction of France?
WWI who has been a great trauma so the moral was not great and the population was not motivated +diddly* strategie (well almost no strat at all)
But it could have been won with a strategie like Guderian and a better organisation for the army : Compare the renault B1Bis or the Somua to a Panzer (it's like Zeke against CHog) compare the relative strengh of the Navy ,compare the number of planes ... (btw just compare the rate of loss of the LW during the battle of France it's surprisingly high ! for a country losing the war)
but it's a whatif ...
I'm not sure you want to point fingers and assign liability for destruction. You eventually get to the place where you have to choose between the desire for a destructive liberation or continued occupation.
I'm glad to the Veteran and btw I spent some time each year in the graveyards in my region for them (and even for German, I've a great emotion when I read on the tomb the ages of the german soldat : between 13 and 63 years !).There is some graveyard in where the father and the son are in the same grave .
As far as Truman "forcing" the French Government to spend the money wisely, you KNOW this was impossible. The very idea of "les Americains" dictating ANYTHING to the French, particularly in that era, is laughable. No, it was the responsibility of the French people to make sure their Government spent the money properly. It was most certainly NOT the responsibility of the US!
I agree but it's an retro-active hope
I won't say the US are responsible of this situation.
Interresting discution anyway
Frédéric
-
Some good info guys and thanks for your input on Jane Fonda.
So, let me see if I got this:
While the U.S. was dispensing Agent Orange, napalm, iron bombs, rockets, hand grenades and machine gun bullets and was maiming and torturing the peasant population in the South, Hanoi Jane was subverting this process by opening up a dialogue with the North.
I think we should soak her in a vat of Agent Orange for a few days then stick a shotgun up her bony, defoliated bellybutton and blow her brains out!
Hmm…, wait a minute. Many have stated that she went against U.S. laws. Am I wrong or did Hitler and Stalin issue a lot of laws too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Wow...Never before have I seen someone's ignorance so summed up in just one post. Impressive.
SOB
-
What SOB said!
AKDejaVu
-
Things are real strange in teddyland these days........
Well Said SOB
Mav
-
Blur,
After we left, while the North Vietnamese were dispensing artillery, mortars, rockets, hand grenades and machine gun bullets and were maiming and torturing the peasant population in the South, just what was Hanoi Jane doing then?
At least Joan Baez admitted she was wrong about the N. Viets.
Also, help me out here. Can you provide a list of US laws we should all feel free to disobey at our personal whim?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-18-2000).]
-
Blur, I was pretty sure you were a moron. It is now confirmed. Congrats.
-
Leave blur alone. He can't help it, he had a bad childhood. It's not his fault. blur, how can the government help you?
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Toad:
<snip>
Also, help me out here. Can you provide a list of US laws we should all feel free to disobey at our personal whim?
First off I realize that law and order is dear to the heart of every conservative so I'm treading on thin ice here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I'll give you a general guideline. The laws to be observed are based on the primacy of the individual. In other words an individual should be allowed complete freedom except where his actions harm another.
Laws should not impose morality on others. Things like drug use, prostitution, gambling, homosexual acts, etc., are allowed. Also acts by the government that harm others should be defied. (Vietnam would fall under this one). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Do you see what would happen? A lot of folks working as judges, lawyers, police, civil servants and soldiers to name a few would be out of business. Everybody would have to get a "real" job.
Okay, I'm a dreamer. Government is a reflection of the will of the people and the people have chosen to give up so much of their freedom to the government that now we're being choked to death. So obviously the people have to change first.
On the left we have a flood of "feel good" social programs and litigation as no one takes responsibility for their actions anymore. On the right we have a focus on things like increased military spending and on moral issues, which lead to more jails filled with people who commit non-violent crime. Both courses will bankrupt this country unless they're stopped. We're writing checks that we can't cash anymore.
Obviously this won't be happening anytime soon, maybe in a couple of generations. Otherwise I feel an economic "adjustment" will hit and we'll have to change the hard way. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by blur:
I'll give you a general guideline. The laws to be observed are based on the primacy of the individual. In other words an individual should be allowed complete freedom except where his actions harm another.
Ah, OK then. Two of my UPT classmates were guests at the Hanoi Hilton. When Janie visited her buddies these two gentlemen, among many others, had the absolute SH*T beat out of them by the Hilton staff in celebration of the visit. The guards made a point of mentioning Janie during the beatings. The most senior of these two guys (about 6 years in the Hilton) said he never was beaten so frequently and so savagely as he was while Janie was in town.
How does that one score then? Did Janie's little illegal visit harm another?
Also acts by the government that harm others should be defied. (Vietnam would fall under this one). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Does any old armed conflict qualify under this clause? WW1? WW2? Korea? The Civil War? Or just the ones a particular individual does not happen to approve of?
Do you see what would happen?
Do you? Do you ever wonder why the human race, in all the many, many centuries of our existence has never even come close to a workable society that fits your model?
Dreaming's fine. Unfortunately the real world filled with real humans (some of them really nasty folks) usually intrudes on your dream just about the time the Swedish Bikini Team proposes a quick hand of strip poker!
-
Well, I think we should vote on it.
No, wait, we already do that. We pick the Commander and chief. And he decides where the troops are going.
I guess most Americans must have thought we belonged there. They picked the guy who sent us. And the guys who kept us there.
-
ok,ok ,ok
the war in vietnam:
Didnt want to be there, had no reason to be there, the only reason we were there was to "stem the spread of communism" or something like that
Why we did not "win" :
The military had its hands tied and was VERY VERY VERY limited on what it could do because the gov feared that china would directly support the Vietsqueak and the war would escalate.
The solders that went:
they in general didnt want to be there but they had a job to do and for the most part they served their country as was the job.
As P.O.W's
Prisoners were treated worse than animals and the Gooks came right out and told them that the gooks were "a superior race" and did not have to abide by the geniva convention.
Torture:
POW's had ther testicles cut off, had their eyelids cut off, had their finger nails pulled out by pliers, but by far the gook's favorite was to break each finger in about 6 or 7 different places and work and grind the bones around inside.
jane Fonda:
Sided with the gook's because she saw it would make here popular, when POW's were finally released and spoke of the horrors an torture She called them Liars and filthy pigs even though she knew what they were saying was true. She also had 3 or 4 solders killed when one of them managed to get close enough to her to pass her a packit containing letters form a bunch of prisoners to tell their families that they were alive and how much they missed them and other stuff. Upon recieving the letters Fonda went directly to a guard and then pointed out 3 or 4 men who looked like the one that had given her the packit. Subsiquently they were all beaten severly, 1 died from the beating itself and the other 2 died in their cells because they were not given any food as "punishment".
So given that data I believe that if there is a god in heaven, Jane Fonda will (and should) burn in hell.
-
TheWobble can you one time avoid using this kind of words : Vietsqueak,Gooks ?
So given that data I believe that if there is a god in heaven, Jane Fonda will (and should) burn in hell.
Dunno if christinism is different on your side of the Atlantic but you are reserving your own place with this kind of comment.
-
Straffo,
they WERE gook's, scurvy gook squeakes and I hate them for what they did to our boys, fighting a war is one thing, savagly torturing and murdering the enemy prisoners for no other reason than your amusement is another.
Fonda can cook, if she doesent go to hell then Im sure me or anyone else who hasnt commited genocide is pretty safe...
Yup i said Genocide, Sorry Hitler and and that itaiain guy whos name i wont attempt to spell, your still screwed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
Straffo,
they WERE gook's, scurvy gook squeakes and I hate them for what they did to our boys, fighting a war is one thing, savagly torturing and murdering the enemy prisoners for no other reason than your amusement is another.
Fonda can cook, if she doesent go to hell then Im sure me or anyone else who hasnt commited genocide is pretty safe...
Yup i said Genocide, Sorry Hitler and and that itaiain guy whos name i wont attempt to spell, your still screwed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You would better have a rest and try to calm down a bit.
Where I've said that I find torture funny ?
To be bastard is not reserved to "gook" or "vietsqueak" it's in the nature of the human.
As I don't know all the fact about the american part of the vietnam war I won't comment further about torture.
But in all country (USA included) the guard of the POW camp are not the more intelligent soldier they are often the more dum and dull.
-
I ment "your amusement" as in the gooks amusement, I iterate things badly at time my bad. But regardless wether the "war" was just or not that is no reason to do the things they did to many of our folks. There are just some thing a person should no be able to lit themselves do, and i would say cutting someone elses balls off for chuckle would fall under that catagory, as would sitting 5 POW's at a table and making them play russian roulette, which was done quite often aswell, but in many cases the POW wanted the gun to go off, after being tortured and beaten and watching your friends die day after day for years i would too.
And alot of times the guards at the camps were either A: handsomehunkes
B: wounded or somewhat hurt solders pulled back (rare) but either way, they were ordered to do what they did, they also just happened to enjoy it.
-
Well ... I understand your point but not the words.
-
This subject seems to be opening some old wounds and I hesitate to delve deeper, but ah, what the hell. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Ah, OK then. Two of my UPT classmates were guests at the Hanoi Hilton. When Janie visited her buddies these two gentlemen, among many others, had the absolute SH*T beat out of them by the Hilton staff in celebration of the visit. The guards made a point of mentioning Janie during the beatings. The most senior of these two guys (about 6 years in the Hilton) said he never was beaten so frequently and so savagely as he was while Janie was in town.
How does that one score then? Did Janie's little illegal visit harm another?
Obviously I don't condone beating and torture but let's look at your friend's situation from the viewpoint of personal responsibility. I don't know why they ended up at the Hanoi Hilton but it's a safe bet they weren't dropping nylons and candy bars from a cargo plane when they were captured.
If I were a Vietnamese peasant and I saw my wife or kids get killed by an air strike and the pilot was shot down nearby, well I'd probably be inclined to stick my pitchfork up his ass. A POW captured under these circumstances should feel very fortunate he's allowed to live. If he's killed or tortured after confinement then that's a different story, as now there's a malicious intent involved and it's not during the heat of battle. So yes the guards were amazinhunks. And yes Jane creates her own karma as well if any of her actions were negative.
Does any old armed conflict qualify under this clause? WW1? WW2? Korea? The Civil War? Or just the ones a particular individual does not happen to approve of?
Yes, any armed conflict. Ask yourself, when does war end? Doesn't it end when the young men of the world refuse to pick up a weapon? I don't claim to be a Christian but didn't Jesus mention turning the other cheek? I don't take this to mean weakness. I take it to mean turning one's attention away from something undesirable. For in the end we all create our own reality.
Peace.
-
Blur,
What shows your complete and total ignorance is that you state everything as if it were the US versus innocent women and children in Vietnam.
People like you make me wonder who was manning anti-aircraft batteries... machine guns... and mortars for the North Vietnamese.
Of course, the North Vietnamese were only battling US agression against its people. This ideology is what made Jane Fonda ignorant... and you also. She had being 19 during a very rebelous time as an excuse for being so stupid. How about you?
AKDejaVu
-
Blur.
"I take it to mean turning one's attention away from something undesirable"
Yea, alot of countries did that when Hitler invaded poland, and look where it went from there.
-
First off: Wobble, it has generally been proven by asking the POWS themselves that the Hanoi Janie "notepassing/murder" incident did not happen. Do a search for Hanoi Jane and you'll find a few prominent ex-POW's that discredit that one. We must be fair to the worthless...loose woman. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) There's plenty she did do that is damning enough.
Blur (or is this really Nash? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif),
I don't know why they ended up at the Hanoi Hilton but it's a safe bet they weren't dropping nylons and candy bars from a cargo plane when they were captured.
No. One was an EW in an RB-66 and the other was an F-4 GIB. What they were doing was following their orders as issued by the Chain of Command of their legally and lawfully constitued government.
I surmise from your posts so far that you have trouble with that "government" concept as well. So you'd feel free to ignore those orders if they didn't suit your belief system, right?
You didn't answer that previous question: Why haven't we seen a society such as the one you propose in the entire history of the human race? Come on now, enlighten us.
A POW captured under these circumstances should feel very fortunate he's allowed to live.
So now you are condoning killing those who have surrendered? This system of yours is pretty flexible, isn't it? I take it the killer's karma would then change negatively? ROFLMAO.
Yes, any armed conflict. Ask yourself, when does war end?
Ask yourself "When does war start?" When some mean ole SOB decides his neighbor has something he wants and the neighbor is highly unlikely to be able to effectively resist. Or when "gods collide" as in Bosnia and Palestine and tens of thousands of men, women and children pay with their lives for "turning the other cheek" and turning their attention away from the muzzle of that Makrov pointed at their foreheads, since it is so "undesirable".
I guess you'd be in the lotus position when they came to do you and your family, right? Of course, if a downed "enemy" airman landed in your front yard first, you'll give him the old pitchfork, right? Hope you're keeping all your beliefs straight...they're pretty subjective and confusing to me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
..and just so I'm personally commfortable with where I think you're coming from, please answer this previouslly ignored question as well:
After we left, while the North Vietnamese were freely dispensing artillery, mortars, rockets, hand grenades and machine gun bullets among the South Vietnamese...from the business end of these weapons...and were maiming and torturing the peasant population in the South, just what was Hanoi Jane doing then?
-
After we left, while the North Vietnamese were freely dispensing artillery, mortars, rockets, hand grenades and machine gun bullets among the South Vietnamese...from the business end of these weapons...and were maiming and torturing the peasant population in the South, just what was Hanoi Jane doing then?
By then she'd moved on to the next cool cause of the time. Or was she making Barbarella?
I'm not a big fan of Jane Fonda. I do believe she was a stupid child when she went to North Vietnam. I do believe that if she had the benefit of hindsight, she would not have done it.
That said.. she is the only "peacemaker" (right blur?) that I've ever seen hop into an enemy anti-aircraft gun. For that, I can see how many will never forgive her. I don't really know that I have... I guess I'd just prefer to let it go.
AKDejaVu
-
No. One was an EW in an RB-66 and the other was an F-4 GIB. What they were doing was following their orders as issued by the Chain of Command of their legally and lawfully constitued government.
Again it all comes down to personal choice. If you want to give away your personal integrity and become an automation for the government then fine that's your choice. Just don't start whining when you find yourself in a world of toejam and some "gooks" are using your testicles for an ashtray.
I surmise from your posts so far that you have trouble with that "government" concept as well. So you'd feel free to ignore those orders if they didn't suit your belief system, right?
If the government shoved a rifle in my hands and told me to go and kill people or they'd kill me, well quite frankly it's time for a new government.
Yes, I'm espousing a subjective philosophy. You see I believe that people are basically good and that governments come and go like new hairstyles.
You didn't answer that previous question: Why haven't we seen a society such as the one you propose in the entire history of the human race? Come on now, enlighten us.
This is pure conjecture mind you, but a more enlightened society probably wouldn't feel a need to record a history and then constantly live in the past as we do. It's kind of dysfunctional I suppose.
So now you are condoning killing those who have surrendered? This system of yours is pretty flexible, isn't it? I take it the killer's karma would then change negatively? ROFLMAO.
If you look at my explanation more closely you'll see that I made a differentiation between "heat of battle" and the more cold-blooded "malicious intent".
..and just so I'm personally commfortable with where I think you're coming from, please answer this previouslly ignored question as well:
After we left, while the North Vietnamese were freely dispensing artillery, mortars, rockets, hand grenades and machine gun bullets among the South Vietnamese...from the business end of these weapons...and were maiming and torturing the peasant population in the South, just what was Hanoi Jane doing then?
Not sure, making a movie perhaps?
-
If the government shoved a rifle in my hands and told me to go and kill people or they'd kill me, well quite frankly it's time for a new government.
ROTFLMAO! Read this statement one or two more times blur. Read it VERY carefully. Now answer these two questions:
1. What would the US do to draftee's that refused to go enlist?
2. What would the North Vietnamese do to draftee's that refused to enlist.
You are a walking contradiction.
AKDejaVu
-
BTW Blur, I haven't seen where anyone was trying to glamorize the US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.
Why do you insist on glamorizing Jane Fonda's and the North Vietnamese?
People were fighting over there.. for whatever cause. Little you can say will justify the atrocities that happened to anyone in that country. Little you can say will convince anyone that the US is the only one that committed those atrocities. Little you can say will detere from the fact that Jane Fonda went and sat in an anti-aircraft gun that was aimed at her own country's soldiers... with a smile on here face. Little you can say will deter from the fact that Jane Fonda has since proven that here political affiliations are about as fly-by-night as they get. Little you can say will detere from the fact that most people that condemned the US soldiers in Vietnam are truly sorry that they did it. Nothing you will say will deter from the fact that most people that are sorry for what they said/did during Vietnam are really only PC much like they were during Vietnam... only the PC pendulum has swung in a different direction.
Anti-Vietnam became a fad. It became so much of a fad that many US citizens failed to realize what it really meant to have friends and family die over there. They were too busy with other pursuits. Its easy to protest about numbers you read in a paper... a whole different thing to deal with losing your brother/son/friend in a senseless war.
AKDejaVu
-
Blur, it's too bad men of your character were not around in the 40s. We would have never gotten involved in that messy world war thing. After all Hitler was basically a good guy, and goverments come and go like new hairstyles.
(how, exactly, do you think they go. They get bored and move out of power?)
-
Guys, Blur appears to me to be one of that all-knowing group that are far above the mundane affairs of the real world.
Like most of these guys, he doesn't directly answer a question; he misdirects you to another subject.
You didn't answer that previous question: Why haven't we seen a society such as the one you propose in the entire history of the human race? Come on now, enlighten us.
This is pure conjecture mind you, but a more enlightened society probably wouldn't feel a need to record a history and then constantly live in the past as we do. It's kind of dysfunctional I suppose.
Ther real answer is that his utopian society will never exist in this, the real world. He won't admit that, however. Lacking the "perfect world" his ideas and ideals are ludicrous; however, that won't prevent the morally superior quips.
Here's one back: (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
- George Orwell
Basically, he's free to engage in his wishful thinking, dreaming and haughty condescension for one reason and one reason alone:
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-19-2000).]
-
Excellent post Toad. Especially the last paragraph.
-
Guys, Blur appears to me to be one of that all-knowing group that are far above the mundane affairs of the real world.
On the contrary sir, I'm up to my bellybutton in the affairs of the world and I've learned to see it directly without filtering it through layers of patriotic and cultural roadkill.
You want to know what I see? Our only problem is fear. It's that simple.
Basically all I've been saying is that our reality, our moment-to-moment personal experience, is based on our beliefs. Concentrate on war and you'll have it. Focus on fulfillment and prosperity and you'll have that too. I've chosen the latter and I have a happy life with no ill will towards any living creature. So you see I do practice what I preach.
Your quotes sound very high and mighty but to me they're just a justification for violence. If you choose to believe in them that's fine,
It's your choice.
-
Well im tired of this thread, too much total gook and Jane fonga defence.
Jane Fonda can kiss my ass, then she when she dies (not from my ass) she should be buried in a Gook style mass grave and coverd with lye and pissed on. thats all i have to say.
-
Since the time of the cave dwellers some have chosen to stand between danger and the weaker members of the tribe.
One can say the dangers exist only in the mind but that is simply a fantasy and everyone knows it, even those that give voice to such nonsense.
Generally, those that defend ask no thanks; they simply see it as their duty, a job that needs doing for the benefit of all. Bless 'em.
I guess it's asking to much of some of those that hide far behind the shields to refrain from denigrating those that provide the safety for all.
Like quotes? Here's an entire piece from Kipling that pretty much sums up how I feel about your attitude, Blur. Peace? Yes, you have it... because other men provide it for you.
Stay safe behind the shields of better men, bro!
Tommy
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
..........O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
..........But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play -
..........The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
..........O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
..........For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
..........But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide -
..........The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
..........O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
..........Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
..........But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll -
..........The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
..........O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
..........While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
..........But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind -
..........There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
..........O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
..........For it's Tommy this an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
..........But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
..........An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
..........An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!