HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Veterans' Day
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 18:32:16 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Nov18.000432.5874@berlioz.nsc.com>, alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.000732.43734@watson.ibm.com>, strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> |
|> |> 
|> |> If I read correctly the acronym under your signature, you were
|> |> in the Navy, and if my memory serves me correctly, that means
|> |> that you were *not* drafted.  American combat involvement
|> |> in Vietnam began in 1965, and you served a tour of duty
|> |> from 1969-1970.  I think it is fair of me to say that since
|> |> you voluntarily enlisted in a military unit subsequent
|> |> to the outbreak of hostilities you can be described as "pro-war".
|> |> (It's possible that you enlisted because you thought you
|> |> might be drafted if you didn't enlist.)
|> |> 
|> |> 

|> 
|> We do not love war, we do not enjoy war, but we have a certain moral standing
|> that tells us that we have to "do our duty" to our country when we are asked.

I didn't say you loved it.  I merely said you weren't "asked" to
fight.  Therefore something caused you to perceive it as
somehow the right thing to do.  I called your attitude
pro-war because you believed that participation in this
war was a legitimate thing to do.  In your reply you
imply that not only did you consider it legitimate, you
considered it your moral duty.   

|> I'm not saying that the inti-war protesters are not moral, but their moral
|> convictions just put them on the other side of the fence.  Are they wrong?
|> Are we wrong?  NO!  So long as we are each true to our own sense of morality
|> then there is no right or wrong side.  But when we are denigrated because
|> of our decision then the protest is no longer being carried on against a
|> governmental policy; rather it's being carried on against those of us who
|> chose to serve.
|> 
I don't denigrate you for your decision.  In this forum I have
only attacked people who denigrate the the anti-war protestors.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Target Analysis Problems and DD214's
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:20:37 GMT

henry@kodak.kodak.com (R.W.Henry) writes:
] 
]  Ugly rhetoric, maybe. I did think that it quite inappropriate of
]  Governor Clinton to say that relations were warming up
]  between the US and the USSR when he visited Russia in '69-'70.
]  You see I was ducking bullets at that time. Bullets being supplied
]  by Russian ships anchored in North Vietnamese harbors.


Minor Problem Here Brother Henry,
the reason that we KNOW there was trans_shipments
of arms through Haiphong has to do with the USAF
recon photo's and placing Haiphong OFF LIMITS
to 'weaspons release' so as NOT to have an
'international incident'.....

{ Extra Points if You can NAME the level at 
which this Decision was being Made. }


This is a PART of what Made the Mining of Haiphong Harbor
such a 'radical' procedure under NIXON.

This is also what made a part of the 'amusement' of
the Christmas Bombings... Its NOT EASY for the 
soviet system to rapidly resupply things like 
Migs and SAMS......

Now, While you are 'complaining' about 'clinton' and going
abroad to the USSR, any comment on selling the soviets
advanced computer systems for 'tupelov' that were alledged
to have been only for Aeroflot?????

{extra points if you can NAME the US company....}


Not that I would wish to suggest that there is a MAJOR
PROBLEM with trying to Throw a WAR without declaring it.

I presume that you may have noticed that the contract you
signed to be a member of the active duty military service
indicates that you are 'on contract' for the duration of
the war plus six months.....

Gee....

How did they get to rotate folks OUT of COUNTRY,
as well as cut DD214's for so many while OTHERS
were still IN COUNTRY.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hi Diddle, Diddle, the Cat and the Fiddle,
The Cow Blew Up on the Launching Pad
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Veterans' Day
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:15:10 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <1992Nov12.195413.15371@watson.ibm.com>, strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Just for the record so that people won't forget again
|> 25 years later: We were protesting against the
|> *government policy,* not the soldiers!
|> 
|> I know that you can point to some well-publicized
|> incidents where returning soldiers were spat upon
|> by protestors, but I think that's far outweighed
|> by incidents where protestors were abused by
|> war supporters.
|> 
|> 

Well, you may have been protesting against "government policy" but it was
the soldiers and their families who took the brunt of the attack.  I have
extremely bitter memories of my time coming home when I could not buy a
bus ticket because "the bus was full" and not being served in coffee shops,
and my parents and siblings told me stories of hateful "friends" who were
extremely vociferous in their feelings toward me and my decision to serve
this country.

I admit that these things might have been the reactions of a "fringe group" 
but when it's as widespread as my experience tells me, then that fringe was
a lot bigger than you, and others, wish to admit.  And the media, in its
zealous desire to sell its product certainly didn't help either side.

-- 
Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
Santa Clara, Ca              
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 00:09:34 CST
From: <U37426@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: How do I win the medal of honor????????

Well ........how do I???????????
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: How do I win the medal of honor????????
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:28:38 GMT

In article <92322.000934U37426@uicvm.uic.edu> <U37426@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Well ........how do I???????????

Be a hero  with the brass watching and as far away from me as possible.

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: CLF@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Christopher L Frame)
Subject: Re: Powered Body Armor
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:54:30 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <Bxnx3u.8II@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca writes:

> This is more Science Fiction than alt.war or Sci.military, but what you're describing sounds like the MI Power Suits from Starship Troopers (By Robert Heinlein)
> 
> (I recommend the book- it's a very good read.)



	Science fiction on occasion becomes science fact.  Get with the
program.  Power assisted mechanisms exist now, integrating them into a suit
for use by humans is not impossible.  Even a fork lift truck could be
considered a powered suit of sorts.

Christopher Frame
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Powered Body Armor
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:20:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <BxnFDr.GJC@news.chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
]In article <Uf0bywu00iV4029adc@andrew.cmu.edu> js43+@andrew.cmu.edu (James William Stepanek) writes:
]>City fighting would also bee a good use,
]>considering that they would act as very small light tanks, and be
]>(hopefully) proof from sniper fire.
]
]  The trouble is that snipers nowadays also use RPG-s and rifle grenades as 
]seen on the Balkans and in the Caucasus. I don't think it is possible to make a
]powered body armour that is RPG-proof, and since RPG-s and similar are 
]peanuts in comparision to the probably hideously expensive power armours...

True, but then snipers w/o power armors are very fragile to 20mm HE....
This assumes that the PA has good sensors and manages to spot the sniper
in time. Also, if the PA has thrusters for long hops/short flights it might
be able to get out of the way of a rocket fired from all but very short range.

You also might consider that main battle tanks would be higher priority 
targets for missile sniper teams than powered armor units. MBTs are hideously
expensive to PA units.

My preference, of course, would be for larger units like Mobile Suits or 
BattleMechs. But those are a *long* way off (dammit).


-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: mew@controls.ccd.harris.com (Mark E. Warthling)
Subject: Re: how's about alt.me262
Organization: Harris Controls Division
    
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:13:43 GMT

There you go now there's a subject worth discussing, the ME-262.  The 
most revolutionary creation in aviation history.  Where would you
like to begin?  

Mark
From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Great Wall of China
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:48:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.022250.15553@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>   How effective was the Great Wall of China? I don't know much about the
>history of the area, so I don't know how well it did what it was supposed,
>or even what it was supposed to do.
>
>   I am inclined to think that it wasn't an effective barrier. Unless the
>wall was continuously and heavily garrisoned, it wouldn't prove too much
>of a barrier. Any lonely section could be overwhlemed and breached.

It would certainly be possible to overwhelm a part of the wall.  Getting
horses and loot over would be very difficult.  If the wall were breached,
to get the horses and loot over, the Chinese army could guard the breach.
In this case, the raiding force would have to either fight a pitched battle
at the breach site or re-attack the wall from the other side, with an
alerted Chinese army in the vicinity with good knowledge of raider movements.

>   The more likely useful function I can imagine is that the wall could
>quickly signal an invasion. If the wall was thinly garrisoned, it could
>still be used to warn of an invasion and allow extra time to raise an army
>and choose where to repel the invaders.
>
Also useful against invasions, because of the delay imposed on the invader,
and the constriction of the invader's supply routes.  But mostly useful
against raiders.

DHT
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Great Wall of China
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:54:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.031316.19221@alf.uib.no> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>> The Great Wall
>
>I think it was quite effective because the mongols used horses
>extensively. It's pretty hard to get a horse across one of these
>walls. Well, we all know the mongols won, so it didn't work. :-)
>
The current great wall, was re-built during the early years of the
Ming Dynasty(1368-1644), they were the guys who kicked out the Mongolian
Yuan Dynasty, so "mongols won" is a partially incorrect statement,
before that the Mongols conquered northern china from Jing(early Manchurians),
which was also partially nomad, and during that time the Great wall
was pretty ran down, since it was originally built in 2nd century BC,
and never had any large scale rebuilding, and it's not one great wall,
it was discontinous at some places.  

Ming dynasty rebuilt the great wlll with special bricks & stoneso keep out
the Mongol remanants, which was successful(it's also due to the 
the Mongols were pretty devastated after their crushing defeat in China)
until Mongols rose again a century later, and one of more stupid 
eunch-trusting Ming Emperor(Ying Zong) ad the nerve led the army against 
the invading mongols  himself(I guess he thought it's a hunting expedition 
or something) nd get himself captured easily by the Mongol Khan. and one 
again the Mongol main force was inside the great wall, for a while surrounding
Beijing(his excuse is: "escorting the Emperor to his rightful Throne"), 
lucky for China those who left in the captiol had some brains and
installed his brother as Emperor, used lots of Cannon(which devastated
the mongolian cavalary), and called in troops from the provinces to fend 
mongols off.  But the Mongol khan was smart, instead killing or asking a
ransom for the Chinese Emperor, he released him, let them go back so the 
Chinese Empire once again engaged court politics and ignore the borders 
problems, the brothers had coup-d'etats and counter coups, the ex-POW 
Emperor wound up regain the throne and ousted his brother, and from then on 
the Mongols remains to be a big threat, but overall the Great wall
was useful.  When Qing Dynasty was replacing Ming, they had the Ming
territories northeast of great wall for decades, but unable to
invade south of the Great Wall, even with their alliance with 
the Mongols.  Not until domestic rebels sacked Beijing in 1644
and the Ming Emperor committed suicide, the Ming commander
at Shan-Hai pass at the east end of the Great Wall surrendered
and allied himself with Qing Manchurians, Qing started to invade
south of the Great Wall and took over China.     

Overall, the Great Wall itself was quite useful, but the problem is
no matter how the defense looks fomidable, it really depends on
the people who's defending & attacking it.  

>-Magnus
From: jmurphy@crash.cts.com (Jason Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Gays in Military (More Questions)
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:56:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA


 Hey netters,
 
 With the big debates about gay's in the military and how it 
would effect combat effectiveness and learning that 14 of the 
16 members of Nato let open gay's serve. I would like to know 
which members of Nato do not let open gay's serve, and how to 
the others deal with it (gays).
 Jason Murphy
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:35:05 GMT

In article <1e0nupINN50v@FUNCTOR.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore) writes:
>dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
>   3.  For women to serve on warships, major changes are required in
>   delineating the normal day-to-day procedures, for making proper
>   berthing arrangements, etc.  [...]  Also, special care must be
>   taken that privacy can be enforced.  US Navy warships are not
>   currently designed to keep someone walking down a passageway and
>   not be able to look into a berthing compartment or shower area
>   without seeing people in their birthday suits. [...]
>
>Oh, horrors!  I'm sure that being seen in your "birthday suit" is a
>fate worse than death.  :-)  
>
>Seriously, I think *anybody* who joins the military has to be prepared
>to deal with loss of privacy and individuality and less than ideal
>living conditions.  I don't think that the gender of the persons 
>involved necessarily has a major impact on this.
>
Given the social dynamics of a very small resticted group, I would favor an
all female ship to a mixed ship. To date, the navy has not had much success
in integrating its ships. Gender plays a hell of a lot of impact after a few
months at sea.

>BTW, a couple of weeks ago I saw a show on TV about life on the Danish
>merchant marine's training ship, the tall ship Danmark.  There
>appeared to be absolutely no segregation of living quarters; they
>showed both men and women clad in underwear climbing in and out of
>their hammocks, all in the same crowded compartment.  Both the cadets
>and the TV crew seemed to treat the living arrangements in a very
>matter-of-fact manner.
>
>-Sandra
As an aside, I seem to recall that the USAF has female personell assigned
to missle silos. The navy, however, regards a boomer as a combat position
 - it seems to me that a boomer is a hell of alot safer than a silo. 

No offence meant to our reside sub-hater :-)
From: 9111123@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Powered Body Armor
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:43:16 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland


Hmmm.. these suit would prove invaluable in house to house conbined with a pair
 of G-11s (one in each hand)both using laser signing ,different colour for each
gun red and green.

 Unpowered versions would also be usefull say 10mm of kevlar and steel laminate
could absorb most hits from small arms and grenade fragments make up for the
 non-existant manuverbility.

********************************************************************************
* Coyote          *   "Four things greater than all things are,                *
*  9111123@ul.ie  *     Women and horses and power and War"                    *
*                 *      Rudyar Kipling(maker of exceedingly good cakes)       *
* I would be greatly susprised if anyone shared my views:disclaimer            *
********************************************************************************
  

 Also I have no connections with any paramilitary,military,civilian or political
organisations that infringe on the defence of the state act 1939(?) or any 
 subsequent laws relating to the posession of firearms,explosives,pyrotechnics,
narcotics,banned literature or membership of a proscribed organisation, nor do
 I wish  to at this time,or at any time in the forseeable future,nor do I wish
to infrige any law which would result in the destablising of the state,death,in
 jury,or maiming of another,or in the damage or destruction of another person`s 
,company`s,or state properties.

                  **SO DON'T BOTHER ME ABOUT ANY OF THESE**
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: cavalry bugle calls
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:45:23 GMT

In article <18NOV199209471843@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> afallen@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (E. Allen Arrington) writes:
>I'm looking for cavalry bugle call sources (sheet music, use of the calls, 
>when the calls were made, etc.).  
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>E. Allen Arrington  
>        Trooper, 1st Kentucky Cavalry, Co. C 
>        Mounted Memorial Unit                 
>and Mason (who perfers the bugle to pistols)

If the calls are the same as those used in WWI, I have a full set of calls.
Could someone verify this. I will gladly copy them and send them to the 
person making the reaquest.

There are some 40 calls in the 1917 edition of the Infantry Drill Regulations.
These incleude the standard cav calls such as 'To Horse' and 'Boots and
Saddles'.
From: mar@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Maryann Riggs)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: blank
Date: 20 Nov 1992 02:50:10 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: wi
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: mar@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: What if...
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:24:59 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov15.150821.27718@sequent.com>, dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.211119.9707@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
>>What if Fort Sumter doesn't happen?  
-------- stuff deleted to save bandwidth ------
>>
>>Gary
>>--
> 
> Unfortunately, if Fort Sumpter didn't happen, something else would
> have triggered the Civil War in my opinion.  By the 1850's the country
-------- stuff deleted to save bandwidth ------
> ludicrous).  The U.S.  was in the unfortunate position of having two
> moral systems in operation with in its borders and the question had to
-------- stuff deleted to save bandwidth ------
> +Dick Winningstad                                                    +
> +dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +

It occurs to me that the issue of whether North and South were within the same
"borders" is not so clear cut. Certainly From Lincoln's POV they were ("...
half slave and half free.) But I have been reading alot of analogies between
the modern European Community and the anti-bellum United States. The
seccesionists made a great deal of the fact that the Treaty of Paris recognized
each of the 13 States as sovriegn. The Civil War established the fact that
North and South were within the same borders, but I am still foggy on how
people perceived things before then.

- Paul

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: what made a good regiment
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:23:44 GMT

In article <1e8n56INN8sb@roche.csl.sri.com> jstewart@jstewart-ss2.cisco.com (Jason Stewart) writes:
>I have heard many descriptions of the "Best" troops,
>but what about the worst troops?
>Can anyone think of some particularly dreadful
>unit which failed time after time.  It
>appears to me that "green" troops when thrown
>into bad situations tended to fail.  Is
>this the fault of a lack of training? 
>poor command structure?  never being under fire?
>not having fancy uniforms???

My off-the-cuff nomination for worst troops would have to be the
Ohio regiment under Colonel Appler (sp?) that broke and ran at Shiloh.
That was most definitely the fault of the commander.

I'm not sure that green-ness makes all that much difference.  I have
just been reading up on Second Bull Run (after hearing John Hennessy 
speak at the local round table) and I was surprised to find that the
battle at Brawner Farm was the first time the Iron Brigade saw combat.
Foote suggested that the reason for their superb performance, at least
in part, was that they had never seen combat before and thought that
being slammed into by a veteran Confederate division that outnumbered them
something like three to one was just the way war was supposed to be.
Some baptism.

I would suggest that the training given them by John Gibbon, an 
ex-artillerist who knew something about drill and esprit de corps,
was more decisive.  And they did have awfully snappy uniforms.
--Chuck




-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa