U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Cub Driver wrote:


what are we fighting for i dont give a damn cause george bush sent us to

die in vietnam

Isn't that amazing? A product of which demented school system? He
can't spell, can't punctuate, and thinks George Bush was prezdint
during the Vietnam War!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9


And, doesn't quote the song correctly either.

"And it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn.
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates.
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopie! We're all gonna die!"

Also it seems our incendiary Aussie friend can't tell the difference
between ten years of war and five months; can't tell the difference
between 58,000 dead and less than 200; can't tell the difference
between an occupied country and an ongoing Communist insurgency.


However, given that the Song was released in 1965 Country Joe McDonald
certainly qualifies as a brilliant political/military analyst. As just
one example even by the end of 1965 we had lost only 528 Marines in
vietnam. The final total was over 14,000
http://www.marzone.com/7thMarines/usmc_cas_stats.pdf

Vince




How many dead had we accumulated in 1965?

El *******o wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:26:18 +1000, Aerophotos
wrote:


hey sonny

youve never heard of the famous anti vietnam war protest song in the 60s
obviously..

that send up was quite famous, obviously your so PTSD wound up you cant
remeber it...

and obviosuly sonny aka skip cant understand the relation between
vietnam and iraq... both were quagmires started by the us foreign
policies which are in no way useful to the worlds health





Can somebody please supply with the "moron" cipher key so I can
decrypt this message?

Usually a whack with a number 3 loon mallet will straighten them up.

George

George Shirley wrote:



Can somebody please supply with the "moron" cipher key so I can
decrypt this message?

Usually a whack with a number 3 loon mallet will straighten them up.

George

George!...surely you're not licensed on a level 3 LM?...I'm
impressed!...I've owned one for a long time, but can't pass the
exams. Just have to struggle along with my rickedy old level 2
unit.

(...aaaaand sorry about that other thing there...couldnt resist)


--

-Gord.

Vince Brannigan wrote:



Ed Rasimus wrote:

And, doesn't quote the song correctly either.

"And it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn.
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates.
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopie! We're all gonna die!"

Also it seems our incendiary Aussie friend can't tell the difference
between ten years of war and five months; can't tell the difference
between 58,000 dead and less than 200; can't tell the difference
between an occupied country and an ongoing Communist insurgency.


However, given that the Song was released in 1965 Country Joe McDonald
certainly qualifies as a brilliant political/military analyst. As just
one example even by the end of 1965 we had lost only 528 Marines in
vietnam. The final total was over 14,000
http://www.marzone.com/7thMarines/usmc_cas_stats.pdf

Vince

While I find the song entertaining, and the lyrics poetic, I don't
agree that it qualifies at any level as "brilliant political/military"
analysis.

It doesn't address involvement, international relations, tactics,
understanding of SEA culture, the efficacy of the Truman
Doctrine/containment, or a raft of relevant topics. It's great social
commentary and brilliant populism expressed before a receptive
audience.

Is the issue simply number of deaths? Is there a specific number you'd
like to put forth that relates to acceptability? Is there, or is there
not, something worth fighting and dying for?

As for the date, Country Joe might have penned it in '65, but I don't
think it got much notice until Woodstock.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:



Ed Rasimus wrote:

And, doesn't quote the song correctly either.

"And it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn.
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates.
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopie! We're all gonna die!"

Also it seems our incendiary Aussie friend can't tell the difference
between ten years of war and five months; can't tell the difference
between 58,000 dead and less than 200; can't tell the difference
between an occupied country and an ongoing Communist insurgency.


However, given that the Song was released in 1965 Country Joe McDonald
certainly qualifies as a brilliant political/military analyst. As just
one example even by the end of 1965 we had lost only 528 Marines in
vietnam. The final total was over 14,000
http://www.marzone.com/7thMarines/usmc_cas_stats.pdf

Vince


While I find the song entertaining, and the lyrics poetic, I don't
agree that it qualifies at any level as "brilliant political/military"
analysis.

only in the sense of its timing. Sort of like the Star Spangled banner,
its always more imp0ressive when a poet sees things before others.


It doesn't address involvement, international relations, tactics,
understanding of SEA culture, the efficacy of the Truman
Doctrine/containment, or a raft of relevant topics. It's great social
commentary and brilliant populism expressed before a receptive
audience.

Fair enough, although the same coudl be said of "green berets" with john
wayne

Is the issue simply number of deaths? Is there a specific number you'd
like to put forth that relates to acceptability? Is there, or is there
not, something worth fighting and dying for?

not the issue see below

As for the date, Country Joe might have penned it in '65, but I don't
think it got much notice until Woodstock.

I certinaly remember it vividly when he sang it in 1966 I was there. By
Woodstock it was already an Icon.

Vince

There is indeed an obvious difference between "quoting a relevant excerpt"
and "reproducing the entire document."

Your point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As a personal aside, what would drive a person to do this? I've never
understood that phenomenon- the use of an inappropriate counterargument in
refutation of a position- but I do agree it is effective, as many people are
too weak-minded or are inattentive to the discussion to notice. I, for one,
have never even considered the use of such misdirection to state a case. I
just fundamentally don't understand how anyone would consider using such a
ploy. Was it an accident?

Steve Swartz


"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Alan Lothian wrote:

In article , John
Mullen wrote:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

On this point I have to disagree. It is clealry being distributed for the
purpose of comment and reaction, which is classic "Fair use" under the
copyright law.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has
already
been lawfully made available to the public,
provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their
extent
does not exceed that justified by the purpose,
including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form
of
press summaries

Vince

Diogenes Weeps.

Steve Swartz

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
This post should not be understood as implying support for any US
policy, past, present or future, but merely as a small contribution to
the War against Bull****, which is both more pressing and more
important than the War against Terrorism.


Maybe a bit less of Fox News biased propaganda and a bit more listening of
the worldwide opinion would help the USA in dealing with foreign
countries.
You're so self-centered and buried in your own pro-US propaganda that you
have no real contact with the rest of the world, so how can you pretent to
bring peace and stability (with weapons!!!) throughout the world without
knowing it, and without wanting to know it.
It's not american people fault, it's all propaganda and biased
information,
of the same kind germans invented at national socialism time and which is
still used at each crisis (please, I'm not saying US people are Nazis!).
It's the same kind of propaganda that was used by soviets and of course by
extreme islamists.
You should know, especially you in this "military" forum, that at war
time,
misinformation and propaganda play a major role. So, do you really swallow
every word, all the bull****, that your puppet of president Bush says?!

The tv news we have in Europe are not the same as US ones, we have another
point of view of the world from where things don't look the same. So in
example it's better to put US and European news in the balance to get an
opinion that should me more correct. You should do the same in the US,
before things to get worse. This article isn't bull**** (at least you
think
the others opinion always is bull****...) and you should have the
intelligence to pick some good points in it.

Not being single minded and keeping a critical spirit is a good thing,
whatever the situation is...

Yours, John

"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Ed Rasimus wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


(snipped)


As for the date, Country Joe might have penned it in '65, but I don't
think it got much notice until Woodstock.

I certinaly remember it vividly when he sang it in 1966 I was there. By
Woodstock it was already an Icon.

Vince

Oh yes, it was popular long before Woodstock. It hit home to me in '68,
when I was drafted!!
........Be the first person on your block, to have your boy come home in a
box....

T3

Leslie Swartz wrote:
There is indeed an obvious difference between "quoting a relevant excerpt"
and "reproducing the entire document."

its not the entire document. its a single story in a newspaper




Your point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Dont think so

As a personal aside, what would drive a person to do this? I've never
understood that phenomenon- the use of an inappropriate counterargument in
refutation of a position- but I do agree it is effective, as many people are
too weak-minded or are inattentive to the discussion to notice. I, for one,
have never even considered the use of such misdirection to state a case. I
just fundamentally don't understand how anyone would consider using such a
ploy. Was it an accident?


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

im bothered by anyone who misuses the limited monopoly provided by the
copyright law

Vince


Steve Swartz


"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Alan Lothian wrote:


In article , John
Mullen wrote:


Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

On this point I have to disagree. It is clealry being distributed for the
purpose of comment and reaction, which is classic "Fair use" under the
copyright law.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has

already

been lawfully made available to the public,
provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their

extent

does not exceed that justified by the purpose,
including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form

of

press summaries

Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.

im bothered by anyone who misuses the limited monopoly provided by the
copyright law

And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.