From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:54:09 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <5642@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> It is now 2:33 AM. My mind has decided to go to sleep.
|> [stuff deleted]
|> We fail to remember that if Bill Clinton stood up for his principles as
|> adamantly as the proponents of Gov. Clinton claim he does, then why did
|> he say that he would vote in favor of military conflict in the Persian
|> Gulf but that he agreed in principle with the minority (Democrats).
|> Do you remember "I guess I would have voted with the majority if
|> it was a close vote.  But I agree with the arguments the minority
|> made." He later changed "agree" to "understood" when asked about this
|> again.
|> 
|> 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.

And like I said, George is braver than both.  But George fought in a war
that threatened the US and had great support at home, while Vietnam was 
a death-trap with no clear goals, demoralized troops, and few men returning 
home to a warm welcome.  Gulf War?  Big threat.  Little Iraq rattling its 
plastic sabre.  So we murder 250,000 civilians, and enjoy it on TV!

JDQ got out of going to Vietnam by exerting his families power.  Clinton
got out of it by cheating the system, much more of a protest than going
into the National Guard.  If Danny thought the war was wrong, then he
should have protested it.  If not, he should have gone there.

I would prefer Clinton because he is much more dedicated to peace than
Bush is.  Clinton made an honest attempt to preserve peace.  Since when
is it our job to run around the world and play cop every time some petty
dictator overruns a country.  It was mostly our troops.  I'm sick and tired
of America doing all the work and the other security council nations 
sitting on their butts.  

And I don't buy this crap about Bush being out of the loop.  The former
director of the CIA is never out of the loop.  Remember, this is a partial
CIA operation.  Once your in the CIA, you never leave. 


Jared "WHOOOOPS! There I go again" Dahl
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion