HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iburrell@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ian Matthew Burrell)
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:48:37 GMT


>What has to be done, is to clarify the term democracy. Most of us do not 
>mean a simple elected legislative body when they talk about democracy.

>I now define 9 more or less arbitrarily choosen points, that have to be
>fullfilled to qualify a state as democratic in a modern sense. 
>There may be other and better classifications, but I use this from
>the top of my head to classify a state.

>1)  Free, secrect and equal elections.
>    (This would rule out *a lot* of states, including antique greeks and
>    romans, the soviet systems, wilhelmine Germany, etc...) 
>2)  A constitution.
>3)  Established judical equality of all people. 
>    (i.e. no slavery, womans right to vote, etc.) 
>4)  Three way division of power.
>5)  Freedom of speech and media (press, radio, etc.). 
>6)  Civil control over police and military.
>7)  No political prosecution.
>8)  No torture.
>9)  Respect of privacy. 
>    (Secrecy of mail, housing, etc.)

>Most of this terms are of a more judical nature, but I consider them 
>important enough to classify a state as free and democratic.

>The whole topic dosen't belong here, I know, but when we want to talk 
>about wars between democracies, we've to do a little clarification here.

>				Klaus

You know, almost no states on the face of the planet today meets the
criteria for a "democratic" state.  Britain has no written
constitution of division of power, as with most parliamentary systems.
Whether a government has these qualities is also debatable ("Were
being persecuted, therefore this ain't a democracy!").  Also, the U.S.
is not a democracy in the technical use of the term, being a
representative republic.  Democracies have gone to war before and the
only reason they didn't fight after World War II was the fact that
they were on the same side in a larger conflict.  Now, there are many
possibilities for "democracies" to war with each other.  Finally,
democracy does not imply sanity or wise government conduct, as
evidenced by ancient Greece.

Ian

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:15:51 GMT


In article <1992Dec15.152958.28960@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> Klaus.Moel
ler@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Klaus Moeller) writes:
>regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:
[deletions]
>>debate is implicit in your question. I would argue that Wilhelmine Germany
>>was a "democracy" in 1914:
>>          (1) elected legislature
>>          (2) semifree press
>>          (3) limited monarchy (at least relative to Tsarist Russia)
>>Yet it went to war with France.
[deletions]
>No, Wilhelmine Germany was no democracy, in the same sense as the Soviet
>Union was no democracy.
>
>to 1) The elected legislature was not elected by the principle of
>      "one man, one vote". The emperor could disband it or prohibit single
>      parties without consultation of the legislature. The legislature
>      had no pratical control over government or military.

        (A) The Reichstag had the power of the purse, it controlled
        military expenditures. It thus kept the Army from expanding
        circa 1913. One General Staff officer, by the name of Erich
        Ludendorff, was driven from the General Staff over the issue.
        (B) The largest single party in the Reichstag in 1914 was the
        Social Democrats - hardly a fact of which the Kaiser approved!
        (C) Yes, suffrage was unequal, especially in Prussia.

>
>to 2) What do you mean with "semifree". There was no thing like free speech
>      in the way Britan or France had.
>
        A magazine entitled "Simplissicus" [sp?] regularly satirized
        the Junker class.
[deletions to conserve space]

    As for (3), I would suggest that the presence of Socialists in the
legislature shows that the Kaiser's powers were limited.

    But I would never claim that Wilhelmine Germany was a "free"
and "equalitarian" state. But it does possess some traits we associate
with democracies, as noted above.
Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: A question: what means GI?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:50:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.115246.302@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> erskine@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Michael Erskine) writes:
>
>Hi,
>
> whenever I hear or read the word "GI" I wonder what it stands
>for. I guess it's an abbreviation, but for what? My "Oxford Advanced
>Learner's Dictionairy" couldn't help me, it's only comment is 
>"enlisted soldier". Well, that's what I knew before - but for
>what is it an abbreviation????
>
>
>               Michi
>               (erskine@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE)


"Government Issue"  

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:38:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.075904.8431@midway.uchicago.edu> bitn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.060817.3986@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.035606.29927@midway.uchicago.edu> bitn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <92Dec13.224339est.47890@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
>>>>This came up during a conversation with some friends and we don't know the 
>>>>answer. Has there ever been a war between two democratic countries?  
>>>>I don't want to start a debate on what a democracy is. Let's say it's 
>>>>something like those of the USA, France, Britain, etc. 
>>>
>>>Not counting technicalities, there has never been a war between two 
>>>democracies, if you mean "democracy" in the modern sense of the word.
>>>
>>Democracy currently doesn't exist as a form of government.  Two democracies
>>have gone to war in the past -- they were the Roman Empire and the Greek City
>>States.
>
>That's why I said "in the modern sense of the word".  I don't think that he
>meant a "pure democracy" like the Greek city-states.  And how can you call
>the Roman Empire a democracy?  Julius Caesar was not the leader of a 
>democratic state and after him, it was an oligarchy.  At exactly what
>time would you call the Roman empire a democracy??
>
Well, you mentioned the era of Julius Caesar and the era after Julius Caesar. 
Three guesses as to the time period you haven't mentioned yet.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu (Rao Akella)
Subject: Re: War&Democracy
Reply-To: rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:57:05 GMT



In article <1992Dec15.041312.29118@ll.mit.edu>, shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:
> 
> The Indian-Pakistani conflicts (several) occured when one or both where under
> a non-democratic status.

Both countries got independence in 1947.  India became a republic in 1951,
Pakistan in 1956.  India has remained a democracy throughout, except for a
brief period in 1975-77, when the then Prime Minister, Mrs.Indira Gandhi,
imposed emergency rule.  Pakistan has been under military rule several times.
During the last war in 1971, Pakistan was under the administration of General
Muhammad Yahya Khan (1969-1971), though the war broke out as a result of the
elections of 1970, when Shaikh Mujibur Rahman's Awami League won a majority in
East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh), while the Pakistan People's Party (PPP)
won in West Pakistan.

(Source: The Guinness Book of Answers)

-- Rao Akella    <rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu, rao%moose@umnacvx.bitnet>

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jbutt@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt)
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:36:34 GMT

quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:

>This came up during a conversation with some friends and we don't know the 
>answer. Has there ever been a war between two democratic countries?  
>I don't want to start a debate on what a democracy is. Let's say it's 
>something like those of the USA, France, Britain, etc.

Yes. The war of 1812. Conducted on both U.S. and Canadian soil was Officially between the USA (a democracy) and Great Britain (another democracy).

And you can't argue that Canada wasn't democracy then because representitive government was established in the 1790s in Upper Canada.
 
-- 
Jonathan D. Butt (aka. Slammer)
jbutt@garfield.cs.mun.ca
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: wallace@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ranger)
Subject: redline
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:56:54 GMT

345 672 796 132 690 575 783 476 246 394 573 294 569 365 143 980 039 493 090
276 787 143 175 376 645 265 798 546 034 790 435 755 891 403 201 657 309 324
rtf dnf eid vie asw erf yuh opl xsd bfg nhj mkl lki gfr dsw qaw eds wer tye
pol kio hty uiy asd fgh hjk zxc vbn poi oiu utr rew wqs lki jgh fds dsa qaz 
wsx edc rfv tgb yhn ujm ikb old pef qlp awc zse xdr cft vgy bhu nji mko plc    
azp qsc wdv efb rgn thm yjk uil jik ewq dsa cxz nvb hgf ryt uoi jlk bmn uoi
dre ftr gyh jui kuo lyu csr fgr stv mtv cia dia sed kid ofv rng gmt abr sgt 
lif dgr tui cho led aws qfb ezs tjc dgr inr dvh srv ikh nrg dtr jkd fea adc
--------------------------end of trans.-----------------------------------
-- 
**************************************************************************
**    " Life, Librerty, and the slight delay persuit of happiness."     **
**                                             Matthew Wallace, 1988.   **
**************************************************************************
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.war
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:56:25 -0500 
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re:War&Democracy

People always love to claim that there have never been wars between two
democracies,orry not quite true. Two off the top of my head are Turkey and
Greece over Cypruss, and pick any given India - Pakistan conflict. There are
undoubtedly more if you look , these are just the easy ones.
James Stepanek
esp
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: cearr@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jesse C. Neese)
Subject: Medieval Warfare
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:10:37 GMT

       Doesn't anyone like good old medieval tactics discussions

   anymore?

                              CEARR

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: bitn@ellis.uchicago.edu (nathan elery bitner)
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Reply-To: bitn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:48:03 GMT

In article <1go1amINNjk7@mirror.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>In article <92Dec13.224339est.47890@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
>>This came up during a conversation with some friends and we don't know the 
>>answer. Has there ever been a war between two democratic countries?  
>>I don't want to start a debate on what a democracy is. Let's say it's 
>>something like those of the USA, France, Britain, etc. 
>
>American Civil War?  American Revolution?  War of 1812 (would you count
>Britain as a democracy at that time?)?
>
>I suppose you could argue that these were rebellions and not real wars,
>but they sure looked like wars to those who fought in them...
>
The American revolution???????
I guess you've never heard of King George III ... :)

And, again, though we just brought these other two options up two days ago,
I would argue that the U.S. Civil War was not a war between two democracies
because the CSA should not be recognized as a separate country.  It's hard
to consider Britain a democracy in 1812. >

Nathan
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         INTER ARMA SILENT LEGES                      |
| "Worship Ditka NOW."                email:  bitn@midway.uchicago.edu |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:13:19 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec15.152958.28960@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> Klaus.Moeller@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Klaus Moeller) writes:
>I now define 9 more or less arbitrarily choosen points, that have to be
>fullfilled to qualify a state as democratic in a modern sense. 
>There may be other and better classifications, but I use this from
>the top of my head to classify a state.
>
>1)  Free, secrect and equal elections.
>    (This would rule out *a lot* of states, including antique greeks and
>    romans, the soviet systems, wilhelmine Germany, etc...) 

Didn't the British in 19th century have to declare their votes openly?

>2)  A constitution.

Britain doesn't have one.

>3)  Established judical equality of all people. 
>    (i.e. no slavery, womans right to vote, etc.) 

US did not have this until 1950's (for no separate but equal) or 1910's
(I think) for women's suffrage.

>4)  Three way division of power.

Lots of places lack this.

>5)  Freedom of speech and media (press, radio, etc.). 

Depends on what you mean.  There is still an official secrets act in
Britain, and the publication of _Spycatcher_ there was outlawed.

>6)  Civil control over police and military.
>7)  No political prosecution.

Again, depends on your point of view.  

>8)  No torture.

Something I like, but I don't think it has much to do with democracy.

>9)  Respect of privacy. 
>    (Secrecy of mail, housing, etc.)

Again, do you mean official respect for privacy, or are you worried
about the FBI tapping phones.  


In short, I think your list is far too restrictive.  As another poster
noted, I think you'ld have a hard time classifying ANY government as
democratic by these rules.

Of course, if no government is democratic, then there have been no wars
between democracies.  QED.

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Courtesy (was Re: FOREVER GONE)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:27:26 GMT


In article <1gr439INNfam@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> Monte Olsen
<olsenm@ucs.orst.edu> writes:
>In article <BzBM95.77u@cs.uiuc.edu> David Kohr, drk@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>If you can't keep your posts civil, then don't post at all.
>
> Gee, Dave, you're not trying to inhibit my right to free speech and
> thought are you?

No, I'm asking you not to clutter this newsgroup with such flame-bait as

	To be honest, I don't think you have the capacity to understand.

> Why, that would be, gee, kinda fascistic wouldn't it?

Only to the extent that asking people to observe common courtesy is
"fascistic".
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam,soc.veterans
From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Re: FOREVER GONE
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:07:15 GMT

In article <BzELsJ.3Fv@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
(Larry Jewell) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.184427.14189@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean
>Alaska) writes:
> > How long after the Korean War were MIA's being searched for? 
>
> That generation was too well programed to "shut up and sit down" for them
> to raise the needed amount of hell.
>
>Larry J

Or perhaps the fact that the U.S. essentially accomplished its primary goal
in that war produced a much smaller amount of bitterness and resulting
accusations against the former enemy.
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: nguyen@turing.scs.carleton.ca (H.H. Nguyen)
Subject: Re: FOREVER GONE
Organization:  Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:53:54 GMT

In article <BzAwsn.9xB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>
	.......
>
> Go talk to to Garwood, he working at a gas station in North Carolina,last
>I heard.
>
> Larry J
>
>--
	.......
 
	
	Hello Larry,

	Could you tell me what information Mr Garwood has provided regarding 
the MIA ?  I indeed don't know and I don't know how to get in touch with
him either. 

	Thanks,
	H.H. Nguyen

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Falsity of "live MIA/POW evidence" (was Re: FOREVER GONE)
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:25:10 GMT

After thinking about Dave's postings for a while, I've come to the conclusion
that he thinks the situation is ove-publicized because he sees enough of it
in the news that he can't forget about it.  People like Dave would like to
forget about the whole thing and just HOPE that there are no men life alive.
Easy to forget us if noone mentions us, isn't it Dave?

As for courtesy, how courteous is it hold back remains for years, and bury
men in some unmarked spot in the jungle when they become a nuisance?

Charlie was never courteous to me, and I tried with all my might to return
the discourtesy.  I fought the men you're so eager to establish ties with
and I've seen the way they treated their own people.  I sleep well at night
knowing I killed great numbers of them.

Larry J

-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Re: Falsity of "live MIA/POW evidence"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:11:03 GMT


In article <BzHCB2.I1r@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
(Larry Jewell) writes:
> No MIA's have been found alive, therefore no MIA's WILL be found alive.
>
> This is mental laziness to the extreme.

Seems to me I listed a lot more reasons than just this one (and this is
actually the weakest one, in my judgement).
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Garwood (was Re: Falsity of "live MIA/POW evidence")
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:17:40 GMT


In article <BzHCB2.I1r@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
(Larry Jewell) writes:
> Garwood came back to life six years after the assholes in DC said
> announced he was dead, along with all the others.

Would someone care to explain what happened with Garwood?  Was he a POW or
an MIA during those six years?  Did he stay in VN voluntarily after the
U.S. left, or was he held captive?  Did he claim to see POW's or MIA's
being held in Vietnam after the war was over?

I will be gone the next two weeks on break; if someone posts a reply could
they also please e-mail me a copy?

Also, there is a book on Garwood here at the UIUC library, "Conversations
With the Enemy : the Story of P.F.C. Robert Garwood", by Winston Groom;
I'll look it over when I get back.  Anyone care to comment on it in the
meantime?

> Someone should tell him to stay dead and not bother the assholes in DC.
>
> Larry J

In my opinion, the "assholes in DC" are "assholes" primarily because they
sent people to VN in the first place.
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: FOREVER GONE
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:29:40 GMT

In article <127560001@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> pphan@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Pham Phan) writes:

>			   FOREVER GONE
>
>
>			   by W.D. EHRHART
>
>
>Trying to prove what happened to U.S. servicemen missing in action in
>the Vietnam War is like trying to prove how many angels can dance on the
>head of a pin. It can't be done. It's a question of faith.
> But logic dictates that no MIAs survived. 

  Fuck logic.

  A Japanese serviceman survived 30 after the end of World War II without
being captured.  No American could do this?

  Mr. Ehrhart, may your existence be snuffed out by "logic."

  I will never give up hope, no matter how badly you'd like me to do so.

  I saw men of my own unit receive the tender ministrations of an B-52
raid, and those I couldn't find were counted as MIA.  This doesn't mean
they are certainly dead, just that they could be dead.

  Anyone who wants to give up on American servicemen may do so freely.
Just don't tell me that I should give up because they have.

Larry J
S.E.A. 13JAN70-14MAR72


-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: FOREVER GONE
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:38:28 GMT

In article <Bz6I3E.L8G@cs.uiuc.edu> drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr) writes:

>Whether or not you give up hope is purely your personal decision.  But
>whether or not this hope, on the part of a large segment of the population,
>is the overriding factor determining US policy toward Vietnam (as it has
>been for some time now--according to the official government line), is
>another matter entirely.

  Please explain what you're trying to say here.

  If you're saying that Vietnam should be given a better position vis-a-vis
the USA, then state why.  The current regime has been shown to be completely
unco-operative on this matter unless the greatest pressure is brought to
bear, and I don't think that pressure should be relieved.  VN has done
nothing to deserve better treatment, and if the US kisses their ass on
this, they will never be any more co-operative, most likely they will
continue or intensify their stonewalling.

  BTW, if you make any mention of "humanitarian needs" in your reply,
I will laugh and add you to my kill file since you don't have a clue.



>-- 
>Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
>                   "One either has none or not enough."

Larry J
-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam,soc.veterans