U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

- i joined to defend Australia. and that what i will do, not defend
some other pathetic superpower who cant even hold its own ground.


Seems you missed the bali incident, and than this week's lovely
rant in Djakarta from the convicted bomber to the effect of "Kill all
Australians". Thats at least what the BBC showed in its video.

And the reason why you think Oz is less a taget of the Saudi royal
funded Wahabbist crazies than the US is.....?

And the reason you think its a better course for Oz to go it alone and
divorce itself from the US with respect to the Saudi royal funded Whabbist
crazies is.....?



Just wondering.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:18:50 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.

Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.


Under your definition, a rival paper could use an entire story. For
a parallel example, one song off of an album is still covered under
copyright, whereas your example would suggest that it would not.

By posting the entire story that started this thread in its
entirety, the first poster broke copyright, since that breaks the
"substantiality" part of the law you so kindly cited for us. A
sentence or so, up to a paragraph (if necessary), but not the whole
story.

so on all of the above the copying news stories for the purpose of
criticizing the reporting is fair use.

Nope. Using *excerpts* from a story might be okay, if you hadn't
posted the entire story. And as far as "criticism" goes, there
wasn't any criticism attached to the first post.

"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"
does not mean it has to be all three, it means one will satisfy.
There is no language indicating that the the material has to be used
for all the mentioned purposes. The "purposes such as" language
clearly implies that they are followed by a nonexclusive list of
"purposes" to be used as guidance by a court.

You seem to try to draw a bright line between quoting a whole story
and a part of it. Where in the law do you find such a bright line?
Yes, the quoted section lists "substantiality" as a factor among
other factors in its analysis of a use as being fair or not.

If the law were as you view it, there would be no need to discuss
"substantiality" in the case of a work being wholly reproduced. There
would be a fifth factor, or a sentence in the current four factors,
which would read something like "complete reproduction of a work is
strictly a violation of the law in all cases."

The law could easily have been written in such a manner. Why doesn't
it say this? Were the legislators trying to hide the true nature of
the law?

Brannigan was kind enough to cite the law upon which he bases his
beliefs, lets see the law which supports your "bright line"
intrepretation of current intellectual property law.


So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points.
Note that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and
completely ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

It says "the factors to be considered shall include..." Of course it
means all the listed factors are relevant. This argument is about how
the law is applied to this factual situation.


The "purpose and character" part *might* have a bearing, but since
it's trivially easy to include a link to the full story, that would
probably fall through, too.

I don't see anything in the law making an exception for how
"available" the work is in it's original copyrighted medium. The law
focuses on the nature of the defendant's activities, and the nature
of the work itself, not the availability of the work in another
medium. I don't see the law as requiring the defendant to tell the
reader to stop reading her message, go to the website, then come back
and read the rest of the message. Sounds a bit awkward.


The "potential market" part could be a loophole, but since you
effectively "published" a few thousand copies to the Internet (and
therefore the world), you missed out on that, too.

Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and
DC maintain lists of those licensed to practice.

There are a lot of people licensed to practice law. There are a lot
of people licensed to practice medicine. There are a lot of people
licensed to fly planes. That doesn't mean they're all good at all
of it.

It's like the old joke: "What do you call someone who graduated last
in his class at the worst medical school?" "Doctor."

(You should have noticed by now that "argument from authority"
doesn't fly too well on Usenet. But I've noticed that many lawyers
rely on that when they have a really weak case.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP2LVE1BGDfMEdHggEQKSPACg+zVKyPeAmGhpIXPDeYHZ6k 3JqsQAni8a
N9wp6rI+oNyCAW0AOe2TY3d2
=SWFi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Military people like me who is in training at present are cut off from
the world in initial training... so we have no knowledge or interaction
as we learn how to kill others...this is done to isolate us and make us
brainwashed and do what the military aka govt of day requests us to do.

You are an absolute idiot, the sooner the RAAF wake up what a fruitcake they
have on their hands the better.

Sunny, aren't you making a huge assumption when you believe that the
poster is actually in military training? Sounds to me like a ****** in
front of his flight simulator.

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

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.

Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.


Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately.

but not sold separately. This newspaper is the "copyrighted work as a
whoel" that is what has a market.

If your
point were true, then the Washington Post could use entire stories from
competitors' papers, verbatim, without having to pay syndication costs.

nonsense. teh washington psot is a commercial publisher and competitor
of wother newspapers. I can do things that they cannot

Under your definition, a rival paper could use an entire story. For a
parallel example, one song off of an album is still covered under
copyright, whereas your example would suggest that it would not.


it is "covered under copyright" but at least in traditonal analysis the
album not the song is the work as a whole. the development of digital
media and the capability of selling individual songs hs arguably changed
this argument.

By posting the entire story that started this thread in its entirety,
the first poster broke copyright, since that breaks the "substantiality"
part of the law you so kindly cited for us. A sentence or so, up to a
paragraph (if necessary), but not the whole story.


Nonsense.
Factual works are simply less protected, since thereis no copyright in
the underlying facts.

so on all of the above the copying news stories for the purpose of
criticizing the reporting is fair use.


Nope. Using *excerpts* from a story might be okay, if you hadn't posted
the entire story. And as far as "criticism" goes, there wasn't any
criticism attached to the first post.

Except that psoting here can be for the purpose of inspiring criticism.


So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

Its a common 4 factor test. How a court weighs one factor agsint another
depends on the Court. I dont think you will find any apellate decisons
holding that such a posting is a violation by the individual.


The "purpose and character" part *might* have a bearing, but since it's
trivially easy to include a link to the full story, that would probably
fall through, too.

that is not part of the purpose and character element, but the "effect
on the market" element.


The "potential market" part could be a loophole, but since you
effectively "published" a few thousand copies to the Internet (and
therefore the world), you missed out on that, too.


This is actually a respectable issue, if they sell individual articles
in the aftermarket.


Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.


There are a lot of people licensed to practice law. There are a lot of
people licensed to practice medicine. There are a lot of people
licensed to fly planes. That doesn't mean they're all good at all of it.

Sure, but you Suggested I was not. I psot under my real name and its
easy to check.



It's like the old joke: "What do you call someone who graduated last in
his class at the worst medical school?" "Doctor."

(You should have noticed by now that "argument from authority" doesn't
fly too well on Usenet. But I've noticed that many lawyers rely on that
when they have a really weak case.)

As you point out, internet is an excellet palce for textaul analysis and
commentary.
that is why users has a correspondingly large right to "fair use"

Vince Brannigan

phil hunt vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

Seventy-one
per cent were concerned that the US occupation of Iraq would be
"expensive, long and deadly".


I seem to remember that the occupation of Germany was expensive, long and
deadly...

From the personnel lost in the airlift, to all those folks who died in
everything from training accidents to car wrecks between 1945 and 1990, the
human toll may have been relatively less awesome than 45 years and the
cumulative expenditures, but tiresome and objectionable though they may be,
"our" Germans remain somewhat preferable to what would have been created
had we simply sailed home in '45.

While I doubt we can conytibute any more than a semblance of a Western
democracy in Iraq, I am sure that we'll manage in a half century to produce
there a generation of the same historically mis-educated escapists from
reality who carp and moan about US evils as are found in Germany today.

From back in '45, I remember my grandmother's loud cries to get my young
uncle back from Germany before September so he could re-enroll and finish
his degree, interrupted by a couple of years as a LT of the Armored Corps.
They got him home for Sep., '46....

I'm sure public opinion was strongly on Gran's side back in '45, but wars,
my uncle's, the later one I briefly visited, or this one, have a way of not
conforming to some optimal process curve. The mindless mindset which has
grown since the end of the USSR, that we can downsize and not maintain a
large military force, since all our technology allows precision strikes or
highly skilled specialist actions remains a recurring "bull****" theme
throughout history....the "By God, we'll have no more of these sorry massed
levees. I'll hire a troop of mercenaries who provide their own weapons and
gear!" school of thought, proved wrong on a repetititve basis for 3000+
years.

In article , Cub Driver
wrote:

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.

I don't entirely agree with your closing idea

Think it through.

, but thank you for the
fight that led you to it.

My pleasure entirely. You're welcome.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

Aerophotos wrote:

Maybe ed sometime it takes men of courage and ability to see beyond the
silver lining of the present..

Before addressing some specifics, I feel obliged to note that while
lack of capitalization served e. e. cummings well and lack of
punctuation and a stream of consciousness that is almost
indecipherable made James Joyce a lot of money, it doesn't work to add
credibility to your postings. Take a moment after composition to
proof-read.

Have you after 40yrs of been trained as a TAC trained killer changed
your ways?

No, I've changed little, other than to gain a bit of maturity. Years
of experience, it should be noted have some value in the
interpretation of events.

i dont think so...

Military people like me who is in training at present are cut off from
the world in initial training... so we have no knowledge or interaction
as we learn how to kill others...this is done to isolate us and make us
brainwashed and do what the military aka govt of day requests us to do.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the military is an instrument of
national policy. That's clear in the charter and clear in the oath you
take upon joining. Basic training to become a cohesive fighting force
requires that your life be modified. Without that isolation, you'll
seldom become a part of the unit.

Most Western world governments conduct an enlightened form of military
indoctrination that is a long way from brain-washing.

This is a reason why vietnam and other war vets can not adjust to life
is cause thy are still in a military mindset. they have no idea how to
adopt to a civil world...

If you consider that the war ran from minimal involvement in '62
through total withdrawal in '75, and that during the peak years had
500k people in-country and more in Thailand and in the Gulf, then add
in rotations you'll quickly conclude that the number of participants
in the Vietnam conflict numbers in the 10 million range. The greatest
majority of these have absolutely no problem at all adjusting to life.
The few bearded, dirty, drugged-out homeless that are stereotypically
used to illustrate "Vietnam vets" are exceptions. Don't make the
mistake of thinking that they are representative.

That is the simple aim of being in a military force... and funny notice
how we in australia generally except for current period of under
"howardism" defend the country or help defend others...not go and murder
people aka iraq.... the us mil other hand is never structured to defend
but only to attack other countries...hence nukes and chemical and bio
weapons and etc etc..

If your premise is correct (which it isn't) and the US military is
purely offensive, why have we not built an empire? Why did we withdraw
after Desert Storm? Why haven't we taken over all the places we've
been? Why don't we still hold Panama? Why aren't we still in the
Phillipines? Why do we tolerate Cuba? Why don't we exploit the oil we
controlled after we took Kuwait?

BTW, did you notice how effective our nukes were in deterring nuclear
war for the past 58 years?


Alot of the world can see the us is dragging it self into a modern day
revised epic of the vietnam era. hence term - quagmire... when you
loose more people dead after the war , then in a war something is
seriously wrong..

Vietnam's losses were DURING the war--the basic error in your analogy.
When the war is so successful with so few losses in such a short
period, it is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that there will be
more losses in the aftermath. We lose more people to traffic accidents
each day than we do to the war in Iraq.


could be maybe arabs dont like americans ...? and americans dont like
arabs, much same as most americans didnt like Vietnamese and vice versa
40yrs ago.

Sorry, Americans aren't particularly racist anymore. The low-grade
emotionalism of national stereotyping that was used in WW II, hasn't
been acceptable in this country since the '50s. We've probably got
more Arab-Americans in this country today than the entire population
of Australia. (Notice the courtesy of capitalizing your country? Try
it yourself!)

Deny all you want currently iraq is a quagmire .. but it may change..
elections are not long off... bush will do something... we wants to stay
in power...gota slow down the coffins in a box returnin home on the
block abit more...

Combat is inherently dangerous. If you aren't ready to accept that,
you might consider an early resignation. There are things worth
fighting for. There are even some things worth dying for. The
President's popularity is consistently high and at this point, his
re-election is close to a sure thing.


But tell me why is the leader of your ****ry scrambling as we speak to
get other countries who had no such involvement in invading iraq to take
over from it.. bizzare foreign policies he we come again ..sigh

No, what we are seeking to do is avoid the bad implications of
hegemony. We are seeking to retain the existing coalition of nations
and enlarge it for the benefit of the Iraqi development effort. It
isn't bizarre to seek cooperation in international peace-keeping
efforts.

The us FP is so twisted and distorted they never see the impact until
long after and they then deny it was ever created...

Sounds more like your interpretation rather than any demonstrable
fact.


I know a well respected friend of mine who flew BUFFs over nam ... he
QUIT the usaf cause of the bull**** the govt was doing in 1972.. he
couldnt handle it how they had ROEs and killing of civilians etc...

All wars have ROE. No policy of the US in Vietnam involved killing of
civilians. The ROE restrictions, while often unpalatable for the
crews, were specifically implemented to minimize civilian casualties.

If your friend flew B-52s for four years and decided that it was
suddenly "bad" in '72, might I suggest that his rationale wasn't
driven by policy, but by the change in mission from puking bombs on
the undefended jungle to suddenly taking the B-52 Downtown where there
were SAMs and MiGs and guns. I suspect a bit more cowardice than
policy disagreement going on here.

I was surprised to hear this come from a BUFF driver but then he totally
hated the US govt .. after 4yrs of flying in a ****ed up warzone...

So in iraq if this war is so popular why is nearly ever us troop so
desperate to leave the country? maybe says they went into the wrong
one...

Do you have some reference for the assumption that "nearly ever (sic)
us (sic) troop" is against the policy? I've seen some great on-scene
reports from AF, Marine and Army types in-country on the reception
they are getting from the Iraqi people as well as the successes they
are having. Maybe you aren't completely in the loop? You did say at
the top of this post that you are isolated so that you can be
brain-washed. It appears to be working.

If loosing 10 troops a day either dead or a mix of injured every day in
iraq doesnt concern you, maybe the thought that the war and peacekeeping
is not ending anytime soon might ...... this is where a quagmire is
formed and sticks to the issue...

Read Halberstam to understand what the quagmire metaphor is about.

Vietnam started off been a illegal war, remember in order to have war u
must declare it. remember ed... you guys bombed the north vietnamese a
fair bit...

Declaration doesn't make a war "legal". In international law there are
more sophisticated criteria. There are issues of exhaustion of
alternatives, appropriate force, minimization of collateral damage,
legitimacy of the government, etc. Declaration, such as Hitler's
declaration of the annexation of Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland,
don't make it legal.

Vietnam wasnt declared a war at any time tho it lasted 17yrs - gota
wonder why.. cheap way of cutting the weaklings from the us popualation
aka death in combat and same time helped the mil complex make record
profits...

So issues just keep going around and around....arabs are just as stupid
as americans... and vice versa

both want death and fame.. until one side actually thinks - the whole
shamble will just continue the same


If im ever asked to be deployed to fight a war with the US military i
am going to object in my unit and say no,regardless of the consequences
- i joined to defend Australia. and that what i will do, not defend
some other pathetic superpower who cant even hold its own ground.

My advice would be to object earlier. Do it tomorrow. You'll save
yourself a lot of years of hypocrisy, drawing a paycheck and paying
lip-service to an obligation you pledged but have no intention of
keeping.

Then, go back to school and take a course in basic English--spelling,
grammar, punctuation and capitalization. If you pass, you can then
move up to some military history, political science and international
relations.


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

In article ,
El *******o El *******o@El *******o.com wrote:

You seem to try to draw a bright line between quoting a whole story
and a part of it. Where in the law do you find such a bright line?
Yes, the quoted section lists "substantiality" as a factor among
other factors in its analysis of a use as being fair or not.

If the law were as you view it, there would be no need to discuss
"substantiality" in the case of a work being wholly reproduced. There
would be a fifth factor, or a sentence in the current four factors,
which would read something like "complete reproduction of a work is
strictly a violation of the law in all cases."

"Substantiality" keeps people from trying the "I quoted everything
except the last sentence" loophole.

(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

The law could easily have been written in such a manner. Why doesn't
it say this? Were the legislators trying to hide the true nature of
the law?

It wasn't written like this because it wasn't necessary. Once you've
covered substantiality, you've covered reprinting the whole thing.

Brannigan was kind enough to cite the law upon which he bases his
beliefs, lets see the law which supports your "bright line"
intrepretation of current intellectual property law.

It's the one he quoted. Substantiality covers it quite nicely.

The rest of your arguments are in the same vein. Trying to make the law
say what it clearly does *not* say isn't a good defense.

What it boils down to, for this case: quoting entire news stories to
Usenet is breaking copyright.

--


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

In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

(the relevant law is attached to the end of this post)

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.

Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately.

but not sold separately.

Actually, yes, sold separately. This story is available for the
syndication market, by itself. And since you obviously don't know this:
a work does not even have to be *published* to be covered under
copyright.

This newspaper is the "copyrighted work as a
whoel" that is what has a market.

Sorry, that's not how copyright works.

If your point were true, then the Washington Post could use entire
stories from competitors' papers, verbatim, without having to pay
syndication costs.

nonsense. teh washington psot is a commercial publisher and
competitor of wother newspapers. I can do things that they cannot

....but not republish entire stories from their paper. That's why
there's "fair use," which you broke quite nicely. That's also why most
honest college professors, when collecting large numbers of complete
pieces for their class handouts, get permission fromm the copyright
holders. Many don't, but that doesn't make them right

Under your definition, a rival paper could use an entire story.
For a parallel example, one song off of an album is still covered
under copyright, whereas your example would suggest that it would
not.

it is "covered under copyright" but at least in traditonal analysis
the album not the song is the work as a whole. the development of
digital media and the capability of selling individual songs hs
arguably changed this argument.

Nope. This has *never* been the case, and you're deeply wrong about
this. A work in a compilation is still a work in itself, and is covered
by copyright. A single poem out of a volume of poetry would not be
covered under your interpretation, and that's certainly not the case.

By posting the entire story that started this thread in its entirety,
the first poster broke copyright, since that breaks the "substantiality"
part of the law you so kindly cited for us. A sentence or so, up to a
paragraph (if necessary), but not the whole story.

Nonsense.
Factual works are simply less protected, since thereis no copyright in
the underlying facts.

*Facts* are not covered, but *works* are.

You can write your own story, using the same facts, but reprinting an
article by someone else is, plain and simple, a copyright violation.

Except that psoting here can be for the purpose of inspiring criticism.

Posting less-substantial pieces, maybe. Posting the whole article,
without previous permissions from the owner, is a copyright violation.

So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

Its a common 4 factor test. How a court weighs one factor agsint another
depends on the Court. I dont think you will find any apellate decisons
holding that such a posting is a violation by the individual.

RIAA versus all of those people swapping MP3s. Since you contend that a
single song is not covered like a whole album, then someone bootlegging
songs on Napster would have been free and clear.

But they weren't.

The "purpose and character" part *might* have a bearing, but since it's
trivially easy to include a link to the full story, that would probably
fall through, too.

that is not part of the purpose and character element, but the "effect
on the market" element.

See below. "Purpose and character' covers why you're posting someone
else's work. If you had a good purpose, posting a link would show that,
plus moderate the "character" guideline.

The "potential market" part could be a loophole, but since you
effectively "published" a few thousand copies to the Internet (and
therefore the world), you missed out on that, too.

This is actually a respectable issue, if they sell individual articles
in the aftermarket.

They do. It's called "syndication." It's been the standard for longer
than I've been alive. If you're interested in posting entire stories to
Usenet, call the newspaper involved and ask them for rates. If you want
to reprint a New York Times story in your school paper, you can buy it -
and often even get it for free, if you ask them nicely.

But you have to get *permission*, either way, from the copyright holder.

Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.

There are a lot of people licensed to practice law. There are a lot of
people licensed to practice medicine. There are a lot of people
licensed to fly planes. That doesn't mean they're all good at all of it.

Sure, but you Suggested I was not. I psot under my real name and its
easy to check.

You seem to think I care. I don't. Even if you're really a lawyer,
you're obviously not well informed about copyright laws.

As you point out, internet is an excellet palce for textaul analysis
and commentary. that is why users has a correspondingly large right
to "fair use"

"Fair use" would have been a paragraph, or a summary of the story
involved, with a link the the original. What you do is pretty much just
laziness.








Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

--


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

Aerophotos wrote:

Maybe ed sometime it takes men of courage and ability to see beyond the
silver lining of the present..

Before addressing some specifics, I feel obliged to note that while
lack of capitalization served e. e. cummings well and lack of
punctuation and a stream of consciousness that is almost
indecipherable made James Joyce a lot of money, it doesn't work to add
credibility to your postings. Take a moment after composition to
proof-read.

Have you after 40yrs of been trained as a TAC trained killer changed
your ways?

No, I've changed little, other than to gain a bit of maturity. Years
of experience, it should be noted have some value in the
interpretation of events.

i dont think so...

Military people like me who is in training at present are cut off from
the world in initial training... so we have no knowledge or interaction
as we learn how to kill others...this is done to isolate us and make us
brainwashed and do what the military aka govt of day requests us to do.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the military is an instrument of
national policy. That's clear in the charter and clear in the oath you
take upon joining. Basic training to become a cohesive fighting force
requires that your life be modified. Without that isolation, you'll
seldom become a part of the unit.

Most Western world governments conduct an enlightened form of military
indoctrination that is a long way from brain-washing.

This is a reason why vietnam and other war vets can not adjust to life
is cause thy are still in a military mindset. they have no idea how to
adopt to a civil world...

If you consider that the war ran from minimal involvement in '62
through total withdrawal in '75, and that during the peak years had
500k people in-country and more in Thailand and in the Gulf, then add
in rotations you'll quickly conclude that the number of participants
in the Vietnam conflict numbers in the 10 million range. The greatest
majority of these have absolutely no problem at all adjusting to life.
The few bearded, dirty, drugged-out homeless that are stereotypically
used to illustrate "Vietnam vets" are exceptions. Don't make the
mistake of thinking that they are representative.

That is the simple aim of being in a military force... and funny notice
how we in australia generally except for current period of under
"howardism" defend the country or help defend others...not go and murder
people aka iraq.... the us mil other hand is never structured to defend
but only to attack other countries...hence nukes and chemical and bio
weapons and etc etc..

If your premise is correct (which it isn't) and the US military is
purely offensive, why have we not built an empire? Why did we withdraw
after Desert Storm? Why haven't we taken over all the places we've
been? Why don't we still hold Panama? Why aren't we still in the
Phillipines? Why do we tolerate Cuba? Why don't we exploit the oil we
controlled after we took Kuwait?

BTW, did you notice how effective our nukes were in deterring nuclear
war for the past 58 years?


Alot of the world can see the us is dragging it self into a modern day
revised epic of the vietnam era. hence term - quagmire... when you
loose more people dead after the war , then in a war something is
seriously wrong..

Vietnam's losses were DURING the war--the basic error in your analogy.
When the war is so successful with so few losses in such a short
period, it is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that there will be
more losses in the aftermath. We lose more people to traffic accidents
each day than we do to the war in Iraq.


could be maybe arabs dont like americans ...? and americans dont like
arabs, much same as most americans didnt like Vietnamese and vice versa
40yrs ago.

Sorry, Americans aren't particularly racist anymore. The low-grade
emotionalism of national stereotyping that was used in WW II, hasn't
been acceptable in this country since the '50s. We've probably got
more Arab-Americans in this country today than the entire population
of Australia. (Notice the courtesy of capitalizing your country? Try
it yourself!)

Deny all you want currently iraq is a quagmire .. but it may change..
elections are not long off... bush will do something... we wants to stay
in power...gota slow down the coffins in a box returnin home on the
block abit more...

Combat is inherently dangerous. If you aren't ready to accept that,
you might consider an early resignation. There are things worth
fighting for. There are even some things worth dying for. The
President's popularity is consistently high and at this point, his
re-election is close to a sure thing.


But tell me why is the leader of your ****ry scrambling as we speak to
get other countries who had no such involvement in invading iraq to take
over from it.. bizzare foreign policies he we come again ..sigh

No, what we are seeking to do is avoid the bad implications of
hegemony. We are seeking to retain the existing coalition of nations
and enlarge it for the benefit of the Iraqi development effort. It
isn't bizarre to seek cooperation in international peace-keeping
efforts.

The us FP is so twisted and distorted they never see the impact until
long after and they then deny it was ever created...

Sounds more like your interpretation rather than any demonstrable
fact.


I know a well respected friend of mine who flew BUFFs over nam ... he
QUIT the usaf cause of the bull**** the govt was doing in 1972.. he
couldnt handle it how they had ROEs and killing of civilians etc...

All wars have ROE. No policy of the US in Vietnam involved killing of
civilians. The ROE restrictions, while often unpalatable for the
crews, were specifically implemented to minimize civilian casualties.

If your friend flew B-52s for four years and decided that it was
suddenly "bad" in '72, might I suggest that his rationale wasn't
driven by policy, but by the change in mission from puking bombs on
the undefended jungle to suddenly taking the B-52 Downtown where there
were SAMs and MiGs and guns. I suspect a bit more cowardice than
policy disagreement going on here.

I was surprised to hear this come from a BUFF driver but then he totally
hated the US govt .. after 4yrs of flying in a ****ed up warzone...

So in iraq if this war is so popular why is nearly ever us troop so
desperate to leave the country? maybe says they went into the wrong
one...

Do you have some reference for the assumption that "nearly ever (sic)
us (sic) troop" is against the policy? I've seen some great on-scene
reports from AF, Marine and Army types in-country on the reception
they are getting from the Iraqi people as well as the successes they
are having. Maybe you aren't completely in the loop? You did say at
the top of this post that you are isolated so that you can be
brain-washed. It appears to be working.

If loosing 10 troops a day either dead or a mix of injured every day in
iraq doesnt concern you, maybe the thought that the war and peacekeeping
is not ending anytime soon might ...... this is where a quagmire is
formed and sticks to the issue...

Read Halberstam to understand what the quagmire metaphor is about.

Vietnam started off been a illegal war, remember in order to have war u
must declare it. remember ed... you guys bombed the north vietnamese a
fair bit...

Declaration doesn't make a war "legal". In international law there are
more sophisticated criteria. There are issues of exhaustion of
alternatives, appropriate force, minimization of collateral damage,
legitimacy of the government, etc. Declaration, such as Hitler's
declaration of the annexation of Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland,
don't make it legal.

Vietnam wasnt declared a war at any time tho it lasted 17yrs - gota
wonder why.. cheap way of cutting the weaklings from the us popualation
aka death in combat and same time helped the mil complex make record
profits...

So issues just keep going around and around....arabs are just as stupid
as americans... and vice versa

both want death and fame.. until one side actually thinks - the whole
shamble will just continue the same


If im ever asked to be deployed to fight a war with the US military i
am going to object in my unit and say no,regardless of the consequences
- i joined to defend Australia. and that what i will do, not defend
some other pathetic superpower who cant even hold its own ground.

My advice would be to object earlier. Do it tomorrow. You'll save
yourself a lot of years of hypocrisy, drawing a paycheck and paying
lip-service to an obligation you pledged but have no intention of
keeping.

Then, go back to school and take a course in basic English--spelling,
grammar, punctuation and capitalization. If you pass, you can then
move up to some military history, political science and international
relations.


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