> Misfit, your many posts screeching about the evils of Theresa Kerry (!) speak
> volumes, not to mention your apologism for Faux News as "Independent."
My postS screeching? I made one reference and posted the link to that reference. Nice of you to childishly blow it out of proportion.
I didnt say Fox was independant. I said they were labeled as conservative. I agree that they are conservative. But you didnt ask me what MY opinion of them were. You just ASSUMED it.

> "Independent" (and only the kookiest Republicans) gives a rat's ass about
> Theresa. Again, your "independence" is as transparent as the many
> "Libertarians" that may pay token lip-service occasionally to "legalize
> marijuana" or whatever, but 99.999% of the time they are just Republicans.
> With perhaps a slight aversion to the kookier, religious fanatics in their
> party. Like this hilarious Repub campaign to paint "liberals" as "banning
> bibles":
Your stereotypes show your ignorance. Go ahead and paint people with labels because they dont believe exactly the way you do. You are like a little yappie dog nipping at my ankles until I finally have to kick it to the curb.

> As for the "prove it" -- somebody posted an anecdote about a "slut" from the
> "University of Berkeley" (I've never heard Cal-Berkeley called that) "dumping
> buckets of blood." It sounds like yet another urban legend of the "evil
> hippies spit on Vietnam Vets" variety, so I asked for more information; and of
> course you went off the deep-end for this simple request.
Smell what youre shoveling! Somebody? Why dont you go back an reread it to refresh your memory. "On an abbatoir tour group? It's a great anecdote, do you have any actual evidence?...You're starting to sound like that psycho Republican in Virginia that every 4 years claims "evil hordes of liberals" descend on him & his family and tear up their George Bush signs etc."
You werent just asking for more info you were doing your best to be insultive and got what you deserved. If Kevin wants to 'provide proof' thats up to him but then we might as well ask you to prove youre from america, prove your really in the UK, prove you like Tony Blair, prove everything youve ever said in your entire life. Well we wouldnt and we havent. Why must you require proof of Kevin's personal experience unless what you're really trying to say is you think he is blatently lying?

> Are the allegations real ???
>
> http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html
>
Oh geez. Who knows? But for the sake of arguement lets say it was. Do the sins of the father become the sins of the son? Remember Governor Arnold's father was associated with that too but nobody here held that against him. We have no control over what our ancestors did and didnt do.

> We have no control over what our ancestors did and didnt do.

I agree. it's still a very bad story though. If Geoeges grand father
was really involved in the nazi's activities as much as having built
the Auschwitz camp... I wonder why it's not making any headlines ?

> > We have no control over what our ancestors did and didnt do.
>
> I agree. it's still a very bad story though. If Geoeges grand father
> was really involved in the nazi's activities as much as having built
> the Auschwitz camp... I wonder why it's not making any headlines ?
>
Well Gray Davis (or his campaign) tried associating Arnold with the Nazis thru his father but that just angered people and backfired against him. Maybe the Kerry campaign would fell the same? I dont know. {going on a tangent here) But look at how America's involvement in previous international situations. We armed the Afgans against Russia and then ended up having to fight against those people/weapons. We armed Iraq against Iran and ended up having to fight against those people/weapons twice. Now that we have toppled Saddam will we in years/decades to come have to fight who replaces him? Or fight against Afganistan again? I surely hope not. Gene Roddenberry had a good idea back in the 60's when he created Star Trek. The Prime Directive non-interference policy. I believe that giving humanitarian need to whoever needs it is a good thing but providing weapons could come back and bite you in the butt.

> After reading these threads with much interest and not participating, the
> phrase "right/wrong" creeps in, and I have to put in my 2 cents (let the
> rambling begin). For I feel they are the key words, and unfortunately have
> little relevance in the political world even though that is where they perhaps
> have the greatest need. So perhaps we have to deal with them in a simpler,
> mure humanist sense, at a personal level.
...
> IMO, the actions of the Canadian and many of the European governments is akin
> to a bystander watching a woman being raped and doing nothing about it for
> fear of recrimination.

Well said and a good read. Political debates like these go on forever like the debates on abortion, capitol punishments, gay rights, and stem cell research. They will never be solved and most likely never even reach a compromise where both sides are pleased. But it makes for better posting than "The Devs suck, where's my credit!"

> Why is there no consistency from those that advocate "we went into Iraq to
> help the People of Iraq" when there have been and still are worse situations
> in this world whose people are in more desperate need of assistance? The
> troops commitments to Darfur and southern Sudan need not be large - likely an
> armoured brigade would be enough - 20-30 times less than what is in Iraq.


And there always have been, and always will be I'm sure, situations of a greater or lesser need than any particular situation you may choose to talk of. In this case I was talking of one particular event, Iraq (and at that particular time)- naturally there are going to be others which you or I would feel were more compelling, or timelines where assistance may have been more productive.

I also stated that I don't necessarily agree with the political reasoning behind these judgements - and that includes the choice of why help one nation of people and not another, or why we draw out before finishing the job in another situation.

But the fact remains that in the case of Iraq, something was done, mainly by the U.S. and the U.K. which has aided the people of that country. Whether or not history will show it as a turning point for their betterment is yet to be seen, and is now largely up to them.

But at least someone tried, which is more than we or most of our European friends have done. It seems to me that it would be more productive if the rest of the world would put in the same effort instead of chiming up with "what about this other place/situation". We seem to specialize in criticising others for what they have or have not done, while we do little or nothing. "Peacekeeping" forces aren't always enough - particularly when we won't always stand behind them with the resources and resolve they require.

> But the fact remains that in the case of Iraq, something was done, mainly
> by the U.S. and the U.K. which has aided the people of that country. Whether
> or not history will show it as a turning point for their betterment is yet to
> be seen, and is now largely up to them.

I am affraid for the future of Irak. They might suffer more in the next 10 years then they did in the past 10 years. I don't have a good feeling about this. I am affraid that even if the US intentions were good (I really don't belive so) it will never become a "real" democracy. It's just like Russia where peoples (appart from mafia) suffer more since the fall of communism. Democracy is a long process and I am profondly convince that it cannot be imposed by force. It's like one who became rich by working hard building an empire and another who won the 6/49. They both have lots of money but for me only the first one is rich.

> > Yes, nations/empires come and go. Victims of their own greed and quest
> for
> > ultimate power and blinded by their own political and/or religious
> beliefs,
> > preventing them from seeing the true nature of what is going on around
> them
> > and from valueing what is truely important.
>
> ***A bit simplistic. There are also cases of outside forces overthrowing what
> was.***


Perhaps. But I think those outside forces have less of an impact if blinkered by the blinders of your own unfailing beliefs and infalibility.

Egypt may have been able to remain independant of Rome if it had not been for strife internal to the Ptolemy royal family.

Romes biggest downfall was probably overextendending itself and becoming too reliant on it's dominions rather than being able to support itself.

The Mexica could not have been conquered by the Spanish (even with the help the Spanish got from smallpox) if Moctezuma had not been such a religious zealot believing Cortes' arrival to be the second coming of Quetzalcoatl, or if they had not so heavily handedly dealt with their tribute paying nations who eventually banded with the Spaniards for their overthrow.

The Spanish may have remained a superpower if they had dealt more fairly with their conquered nations. Greed, their belief of themselves to be racially superior, expansionism, and the Catholicism of the time left them overextended and ripe for picking.

The British too looked on their colonies as inferior and merely as dominions whose existance was their to provide for them. Those days of military domination are gone, but even now we find countries backing out of the Commonwealth as an outdated, unnecessary, domineering institution even though it is really just conceptual now.

The Soviet Union was victim to the dogma which created it outliving it's usefullness as it never really developed into the society which it was originally conceived to be.

So, I think in most cases the superpowers were victims of their own refusal to change with the times and to recognise their own weaknesses or the strengths of their successors.

> I am affraid for the future of Irak. They might suffer more in the next 10
> years then they did in the past 10 years. I don't have a good feeling about
> this. I am affraid that even if the US intentions were good (I really don't
> belive so) it will never become a "real" democracy. It's just like Russia
> where peoples (appart from mafia) suffer more since the fall of communism.
> Democracy is a long process and I am profondly convince that it cannot be
> imposed by force. It's like one who became rich by working hard building an
> empire and another who won the 6/49. They both have lots of money but for me
> only the first one is rich.

I know, me too. But at least now they have a chance to determine their own future. So much still depends on how the reins of power are handed over, and who gets to hold those reins. But the citizens have more say over their future now than they did a year ago. But how do you stand up to the terrorism from the various factions when you've been held in submission by a government of terror all your life?

As for Russia, well, they're still settling in, and a year ago I think I was as pessimistic about it as you. But I think things are starting to get somewhat better there now for an average citizen, and in some of the ex-USSR countries the people are much better off. Yes, there is strife in some areas, but others such as Poland and the Ukraine are making great strides, and I have hope that others will continue to make progress.

One thing that I like to use as a barometer of how things are going is now many people you see with personal computers there are showing up at places like Seti@Home - Russia is still pretty slow, but some of the other former USSR countries are picking up very fast.

I have Polish friends here who go back home to visit now and can't believe that it's like any other Euopean country to them now, they grew up in communist Poland and lived their early 20's there, and remember the corruption and favouritism shown to party members and how bad the living conditions and shortages were. And even after the fall of communism in Poland, how high the prices of everything were there, but as time has gone by and competition has arrived in the marketplace there, things have settled and are becoming normalized.

>
> Gee, well if that really happened to you I'm amazed it didn't make the right
> or left-wing press. And where is the "University of Berkeley", is that
> "Cal-Berkeley" (home of SETI & BOINC :-) or another institution? And
> where exactly were you that a chick from Berkeley just happened to have a
> bucket of blood to dump on you? On an abbatoir tour group? It's a great
> anecdote, do you have any actual evidence? A SETI-aware group should know
> Carl Sagan's famous phrase -- "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence."
>
-
-
Carl I guess you needed to be there.

At the time Berkeley was UC Berkeley as in University of California (at) Berkeley. I suppose it still is Officially named that today, Cal Berkeley being a nickname kind of like UM Columbia being called MIZZOU.

The reason I was there was to check on the Naval ROTC boys that were getting ready for their Summer Cruise. Kind of like the Army doing their Summer Camp.

The back gates to the campus where the ROTC buildings are/were located were already locked with "protesters" doing their "thing". So I had to park and walk across campus to get there.

Of course these "innocent little darlings" were set up and ready for some fun which accounts for bucket of blood among other things to throw.

Never the less, maybe their was a mention in the Berkeley Barb about it, only the protest part not any details that would make the participants look bad (heaven forbid).

Maybe you could take the time to talk with other Viet Nam Veterans and find out a little bit of the history that was not fit to print in the Left or Right press of the time. That is where you will find your "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

There is a reason that we still say "Welcome back Brother" when meeting other Vets of the time.

BTW, I do have the evidence it was burned into the mind of a nineteen year old boy. The Uniform is gone, but the Ribbons are packed away in a cigar box at the bottom of my old foot locker.




<a> [/url]
-
Oderint dum metuant

Berkeley, legendary for its anti-war campus activism, is quiet this time around


By Lisa Burgess, Washington bureau
Pacific edition, Sunday, December 30, 2001



ARLINGTON, Va. — If the war on terrorism is going to spark widespread anti-war demonstrations at any American university, odds are that those rallies will be held at the University of California at Berkeley, where anti-Vietnam protests have long since become the stuff of legend.

"Berkeley was a zoo in those days," said Navy Capt. Lee Rosenberg, who assumed directorship of the Navy’s Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program at the university in June. "Sproul Plaza [the university’s heart] was wall-to-wall people with street art, demonstrations, rallies, and all that.… There was also a lot going on in the street, with people playing conga drums, dancing and such."

During Vietnam, protests against the military were so virulent "that ROTC students lost an entire semester, at least. In some cases, they lost a whole year," Rosenberg said.

The most basic military practices were a trial for Berkeley’s ROTC students during Vietnam.

For example, hostile crowds of students routinely attacked those who wore their uniforms to class — verbally, if not physically.

But all that has changed.

Despite widespread predictions by baby boomers nursing real or wishful memories of Woodstock and the Summer of Love, widespread anti-war protests aren’t materializing at Berkeley, or anywhere else for that matter.

Vietnam failed to cross the line to influence today’s college students. They just don’t care to imitate their parents, for a variety of reasons.

"The campus is very quiet now," Rosenberg said. "The students seem very serious. The ethnic mix has changed, too, from white middle-class to diversity.

"People are more concerned now with getting a degree and going to work" than with activism, he said.

Berkeley students are aware they have a reputation to keep, so a few anti-war rallies have materialized since Sept. 11. But according to reports of the events in the student newspaper, the Daily Cal, all such rallies pretty much fizzled out for lack of interest.

Berkeley’s latest anti-war rally happened Dec. 10. Students hung a large bed sheet painted with the words "ROTC Equals Terrorism." The students also passed out a pamphlet that calls the military "terrorist operations."

But only six students participated in the rally, and Rosenberg and his ROTC staff appeared far more amused than threatened.

"There were so few of them," Rosenberg said. "They just kind of stomped around and did their thing."

On many campuses, it is the Vietnam protesters themselves who are returning to try to motivate a new generation to restart the anti-war movement.

"To radicals [the war on terrorism] is very much an opportunity to continue what began 30 years ago and they can correct [past] mistakes … and succeed in whatever mission they had back then," said Columbia University sophomore Eric Chen, 25.

Berkeley’s first post-Sept. 11 rally was held on Sept. 20 by the "Stop the War Coalition," a new organization that sprang up after the terrorist attacks.

"There were probably several hundred people out there," said Berkeley spokeswoman Marie Felde. "It was a combination of some students, but also a large number of Bay Area community people who oppose U.S. military action."

But the rally "did not sustain," Felde said. "There was also a sense that this was not the right thing to do.… There was a feeling that this is different from what we were protesting in Vietnam."

The key difference between the war in Afghanistan and the Vietnam War is that "Americans were attacked on their own soil," said Chris Jackson, an assistant professor of history at San Francisco State University.

John Ennis, a 26-year-old student studying emergency services management at the University of Richmond, agreed.

"It’s very clear to us why we’re involved in the conflict now," said Ennis, who also is a firefighter. "In Vietnam, from what I understand, no one really knew why we were there."

Both college students and the American public are standing behind the war because it’s justified, said Lauren Laitala, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

"In Vietnam, it wasn’t our business to be over there," Laitala said. "In this case, people feel like there’s no way it can’t be our business."

Another difference between Vietnam and today’s conflict is the all-volunteer military, said Ron Kirksey, a spokesman for Kent State University.

"I remember the ’60s," Kirksey said. "The draft was really hanging over people’s heads as students. Now we have a professional military, and I think the feeling is more like, ‘We’ll let them take care of it for us’."

Washington bureau chief Patrick Dickson contributed to this report from New York, and staff writer Sandra Jontz contributed from Washington.


© 2003 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer / Web Notice
Site Design by LaserNet, LLC.

Partisan shift in California

>There is a reason that we still say "Welcome back Brother" when meeting other
>Vets of the time.

HAHA, except if it's John Kerry or John McCain or whoever is on the VietnamVet hit-list-du-jour. FYI I know quite a few Vietnam Vets, thankfully not all are of the "my country right or wrong" variety. I did volunteer work at a VA hospital before moving to the UK, and I also ran into plenty of the "McCain cracked under torture and is a traitor" and the usual ones that believe in the Repbs-uber-alles, even as they ironically cut their VA benefits (again). I always find it amazing that those sort will get outraged over minutiae such as "Theresa Heinz-Kerry" or "Hillary Clinton" yet gladly swallow more chickenhawk lies and deceipt, the sort that got 'em bogged down in Vietnam in the first place!