From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:11:40 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
+eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>Sorry, although everyone of the Clinton advocates agree that Clinton
+>would be less prone to pulling the trigger, I think that is what will
+>weaken this country when it comes to any future military confrontation.
+>You don't need a leader who will waffle if you want to put pressure on
+>an adversary. Agreed, you have to be sensible, but you also have to make
+>the opponent stand down and take your threats to resist the aggressor's
+>plans completely seriously.
+>
+>Clinton could have been arrested for what he was doing. But George Bush
+>could have been killed for what he did. The question is do you think
+>that freedom and peace are worth dying for? Bill Clinton's answer
+>doesn't come as clearly for me as does George Bush's.
+
+World War II ended almost 50 years ago, and sometime it might be okay to
+elect a President who was not a war hero, or even a soldier.  The cold
+war's over too.  While military security is important, it might not be the
+MOST important thing any more. 

Military security will be redefined in the next four years since we are
absent a superpower threat. This definition will be shaped on the
imminent internal conflicts in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union. There may also be an economic threat to not only the US but also
the world, which was the case for the recent Persian Gulf Conflict. We
have seen that economic boycotts will not work. We must still maintain
our military dominance in order to ensure our livelihoods here at home.
That is the difference between electing a governor and electing a
President.

+On a marginally related note, I have a fun theoretical question for you.
+
+Suppose we decided that every American between the ages of 30 and 50 who
+skipped the Vietnam War was inelegible to run for any public office.
+Then, we also exclude any American who has every tried marijuana, because
+it's illegal.  Also exclude any who have had extramarital sex, because
+that reflects badly on their judgement.  Now:  how big is the remaining
+pool of potential candidates?
+
+Just for fun, also eliminate any who have had premarital sex or ever abused
+alcohol.
+
+How many are left?  Are the remaining people the best candidates?
+---this is just for fun.

We have done this before. Can you say Douglas Ginsberg?

I am more concerned with what the person has realized since those
experiences, and how his/her opinions were shaped by those experiences.
I don't really care so much about Bill Clinton's not serving in the
military during the Vietnam War as I am about how that experience has
influenced his decision-making process regarding military force. I think
his statements contemporary to the Gulf Conflict say tons about how he
thinks on the spur of the moment: "I would have voted with the majority,
but agreed with the opinions of the minority." [Paraphrase] I'm sorry,
but I can't believe I can trust a man with the nation's forces if he
thinks that way.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh