Re: Memorial Day (OT)

Michael Press

In article
<2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3eb6@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

> The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
> prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.

Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
Yorktown sank.

--
Michael Press

Bill C

On May 27, 6:08*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *"dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
> > prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.
>
> Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
> a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
> our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
> they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
> willing. *Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
> attack. *USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
> traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
> force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
> notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
> was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
> were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
> of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
> Yorktown sank.
>
> --
> Michael Press

You can add to that, that while the US was "neutral" and a "non-
combatant" our ships and planes were spotting Nazi subs and ships for
the British, and we sank a couple of U-Boats, all well before Pearl
Harbor but that usually doesn't make it to the discussion either.
Bill C

MagillaGorilla

Michael Press wrote:

> In article
> <2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3eb6@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
>>prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.
>
>
> Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
> a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
> our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
> they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
> willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
> attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
> traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
> force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
> notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
> was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
> were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
> of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
> Yorktown sank.
>


Sounds to me like you think the World Trade Center was a government
implosion too.


Magilla

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On May 26, 2:35*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 26, 2:13*pm, Andrew Price <ajpr...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> > <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? *Last time I
> > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>
> > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>
> > >> Thanks,
>
> > >> Magilla
>
> > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > >Rose did.
>
> > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > the Vietnam war.
>
> I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
> *Bill C

"Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
an actress who later made exercise videos. She isn't,
and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
Hayden. Man up and say _they_ should have been
tried for aid and comfort, etc.

Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
here. As you know, there was never a declaration of war
during the Vietnam "War." Clearly, the US was fighting
North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
homegrown VC insurgency. Given that there was no
official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
treason just for palling around with some country that
we weren't officially at war with? In theory, people can
be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
family, the Rosenbergs). More recently, even John
Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
charges rather than treason.

So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
and Hanoi Jane. However, if you want to give her the
retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. Excepting
Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.

Ben

Paul G.

On May 27, 4:59 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
> that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos.

Right. On the other hand, here's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Or if Saddam was such a great threat, let's execute Bush's father for
not finishing him off in the Gulf War.
-Paul

Michael Press

In article <K7ednTKk9rZuAqHVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@ptd.net>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@zoo.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3eb6@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:
> >>The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
> >>prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.
> >
> > Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
> > a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
> > our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
> > they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
> > willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
> > attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
> > traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
> > force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
> > notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
> > was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
> > were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
> > of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
> > Yorktown sank.
>
> Sounds to me like you think the World Trade Center was a government
> implosion too.

Ooook.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press

In article
<7be3c14e-dfc6-4d9c-b70e-35b43f8e9094@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> On May 26, 2:35*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On May 26, 2:13*pm, Andrew Price <ajpr...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
> >
> > > <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? *Last time I
> > > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
> >
> > > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
> >
> > > >> Thanks,
> >
> > > >> Magilla
> >
> > > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > > >Rose did.
> >
> > > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > > the Vietnam war.
> >
> > I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> > Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
> > *Bill C
>
> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
> that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos. She isn't,
> and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
> Hayden. Man up and say _they_ should have been
> tried for aid and comfort, etc.
>
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here. As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War." Clearly, the US was fighting
> North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
> South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
> homegrown VC insurgency. Given that there was no
> official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
> treason just for palling around with some country that
> we weren't officially at war with? In theory, people can
> be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
> tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
> family, the Rosenbergs). More recently, even John
> Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
> charges rather than treason.
>
> So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
> and Hanoi Jane. However, if you want to give her the
> retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
> neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
> sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. Excepting
> Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.

<http://www.swapsale.com/Barbarella_2.jpg>

--
Michael Press

Donald Munro

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> However, if you want to give her the retroactive death penalty for
> aerobics, 80s hair and neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and
> I'm sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree.

Next thing you'll want to execute all the fatty masters for wearing
(very) tight lycra.

> Excepting Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.

<http://www.sexy-spandex.com/>

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:27:34 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>
><http://www.swapsale.com/Barbarella_2.jpg>

http://67.19.222.106/photos/images/kerry03.jpg

Also, there's a picture out there with the two of them plus Obama and
Rev. Wright on a Chinese-made tank, but I haven't been able to find
it yet.

Bill C

On May 27, 7:59*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On May 26, 2:35*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2:13*pm, Andrew Price <ajpr...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> > > <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? *Last time I
> > > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>
> > > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>
> > > >> Thanks,
>
> > > >> Magilla
>
> > > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > > >Rose did.
>
> > > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > > the Vietnam war.
>
> > I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> > Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
> > *Bill C
>
> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. *But forget
> that. *People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos. *She isn't,
> and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
> Hayden. *Man up and say _they_ should have been
> tried for aid and comfort, etc.
>
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here. *As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War." *Clearly, the US was fighting
> North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
> South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
> homegrown VC insurgency. *Given that there was no
> official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
> treason just for palling around with some country that
> we weren't officially at war with? *In theory, people can
> be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
> tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
> family, the Rosenbergs). *More recently, even John
> Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
> charges rather than treason.
>
> So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
> and Hanoi Jane. *However, if you want to give her the
> retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
> neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
> sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. *Excepting
> Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ben, all good points, especially the lack of declared war, and yess
"manning" was an overstatement. "Treason" is purposely so incredibly
difficult to define, and prove, legally that it's alomost never used,
even in major spy cases they usually find an easier charge. You're
right in that she was only the most visible, and as D-y points out,
probably the dumbest, I tend to equate her with Sean Penn in that
department.
Nothing in this area of discussion is easy, and to even begin to
understand, and I still don't, our getting into that mess you have to
go back to our screwing over of the French, which is really what
started to sour that relationship, not anything the French did.
Bill C

Bill C

On May 27, 9:14*pm, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 4:59 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> > was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. *But forget
> > that. *People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> > representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> > an actress who later made exercise videos.
>
> Right. On the other hand, here's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
>
> Or if Saddam was such a great threat, let's execute *Bush's father for
> not finishing him off in the Gulf War.
> -Paul

How about we shoot FDR:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/2049915441/\
Bill C

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:53:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Treason" is purposely so incredibly
>difficult to define, and prove, legally that it's alomost never used,
>even in major spy cases they usually find an easier charge.

I thought the difficlulty with prosecuting treason was liberals
defended Jane Fonda duing the Vietnam war, not that it's hard to
define. Or was it clearer before that and libs made it hard to
define?

Bill C

On May 27, 7:59*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On May 26, 2:35*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2:13*pm, Andrew Price <ajpr...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> > > <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? *Last time I
> > > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.
>
> > > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."
>
> > > >> Thanks,
>
> > > >> Magilla
>
> > > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > > >Rose did.
>
> > > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > > the Vietnam war.
>
> > I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> > Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
> > *Bill C
>
> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. *But forget
> that. *People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos. *She isn't,
> and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
> Hayden. *Man up and say _they_ should have been
> tried for aid and comfort, etc.
>
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here. *As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War." *Clearly, the US was fighting
> North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
> South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
> homegrown VC insurgency. *Given that there was no
> official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
> treason just for palling around with some country that
> we weren't officially at war with? *In theory, people can
> be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
> tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
> family, the Rosenbergs). *More recently, even John
> Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
> charges rather than treason.
>
> So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
> and Hanoi Jane. *However, if you want to give her the
> retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
> neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
> sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. *Excepting
> Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ben, Tom Hayden was actually the other person I was thinking of too,
and yes IMO they were all guilty of that offense, but that's my
opinion. As Magilla makes the case the dividing line is really
slippery between where protected free speech ends and a violation, of
any sort, begins. This is the question behind speech codes, wade
chuchill, affiraative action bake sales, pro-Al-Q stuff, Westboro
Baptist garbage, etc...
Yet again this is another issue I'm torn on. I know what I think of
lots of this stuff, including Fonda, etc...but I'm not sure if it came
down to it I'd disallow any of it legally. Most likely I'd exercise my
free speech and then defend theirs. It's like every other freedom
though, exercising it comes with some risk that others will disagree
and exercise theirs. In the Churhill case he was free to speak, and I
think the university, properly, was free to choose who they wanted to
be acting in their employ. If people don't like either either decision
they are free to interact/do business with someone else.
Of course this gets into what views, beliefs, and attributes are
protected by anti-discrimination laws, and all are in some form of
conflict.
I'm not trying to pick an argument, and yes I do mena that.
What makes the difference between Tokyo Rose, as presented, pre-
pardon, and Jane Fonda? The lack of a declaration of war, that you
agreed with one war being just and one not, or something else?
Bill C

Bill C

On May 28, 8:01*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:53:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"Treason" is purposely so incredibly
> >difficult to define, and prove, legally that it's alomost never used,
> >even in major spy cases they usually find an easier charge.
>
> I thought the difficlulty with prosecuting treason was liberals
> defended Jane Fonda duing the Vietnam war, not that it's hard to
> define. *Or was it clearer before that and libs made it hard to
> define?

C'mon JT, you know me better than that. Anyone defending Jane Fonda
was exercising their right to free speech, the lawyers who would have
been defending her if it had come to that would be doing the most
American thing possible, and giving her the rights guaranteed by our
Constitution, both of which should be saluted, and celebrated.
Now there are plenty of assholes on the right who agree with the
kangaroo courts Bush has set up, others as Howard pointed out defended
FDR's criminal behavior, etc...They have the right to do that but,
they are completely wrong under our Constitution IMO and should,
rightly, be slammed for it.
Unfortunately you, and lots of the left are perfectly correct when
you say that there are folks, and leadership on the right who would,
and are imposing illegal, fascist acts on the country. The use of
fearmongering over 9/11 and "the grave danger posed by terrorists" is
garbage. The danger to our system, and country is a whole lot bigger
from the assholes who are out to save us for our own good.
I know where you stand on religion, and I largely agree with you, as
far as it goes as an organized entity. Since I've commented on Wright/
Obama I want to add a bit here and defend Hagee. Don't get your blood
boiling, I'm not THAT big an idiot.
Hagee's calling the Catholic Church "The Great Whore" comes directly
from Martin Luther, and, unfortunately, I really can't see Wright or
anyone else going after Martin Luther, except the hardcore, nutcase
Catholics who do it in typical nutcase fashion. It was in reference to
the Church being totally corrupt and selling "absolution", along with
selling everything else to anyone who'd pay.
Historically Martin Luther was a complete piece of shit. He rallied
and encouraged the peasants to stand up for themselves and oppose the
system. When they did, and fought the nobility and were slaughtering
the privileged. The Privileged went after Luther, he immediatley
started ass kissing, and helped lead the slaughter of the folks he
stirred up in the first place so he could protect himself and his
privilege. Lots there in common with Bush and his crusade in Iraq, no?
Paul G. has a good point about who actually shows up to fight these
days and up until after WW2 I think it was pretty much an expected
role for anyone who wanted to be in a public leadership position. They
had to have military service, or their kids. That got lost somewhere,
which is a disgrace because the people sending kids off to die and get
mangled should be leading by example if it's worth it and have fought
themselves, or sent their kids.
McCain attacking Obama is bullshit. He oughta start a little closer
to home, if he wants any credibility on the issue, with the current
CIC, Dick Cheney:
http://www.slate.com/id/2097365/
and the other pieces of shit leading his own party, and generating
their ideology. At least Obama and the anti-war folks were, and are
honest and not hypocritical pieces of shit.
Despite the attacks and spin being promulgated by the Catholic
Church, and I'll give them that there are isolated cases where Priests
did work against the Nazis, in large part Pius the 12th went along
with the program to protect the Church's assets and not have it wiped
out alongside the Jews. Many Priests went much farther and actively
helped the Nazis with their program, seems to have been because "Those
filthy Jews Killed/Sold out our Savior.".
Even though McCain didn't have the in depth relationship with him
that Obama had with Wright he's a political slut, and should have
really looked into what Hagee had to say before jumping on that
bandwagon. He was too eager to court the nutjob moral majority types
to have any integrity on the subject so he grabbed at it, and either
thought he could get away with it, or was stupid enough to think it
wouldn't be an issue.
This goes along well with those assholes branding Islam "A religion
of violence" and pontificating on it. What they don't bother to
mention is Catholicism being brutally violent and reveling in genocide
before and after 1517, when Martin Luther caused the Reformation,
under the battlecry "By the Cross or the Sword!!".
After the Reformation the Catholic and Protestant sects fought endless
wars with each other, and anyone who wasn't one of them, and still
were in N. Ireland a couple of years ago.
None of this happened, or was really something else, the Inquisition
really wasn't a problem, etc...just ask them. Now you've got the
leadership of the right with their lips locked onto these folks asses,
primarily because the little kids, that have escaped the UN
peacekeepers are busy in the front.
If freedom of religion, and speech wasn't a cornerstone of our
history and Constitution I'd happily join you in running these people
out of the Country. Since that's not an option we need to just keep
telling people the truth about their actions, unfortunatley True
Believers want their fantasy, and not facts or reality.
Great to see Westboro Baptist losing the lawsuits, but there's got to
be a way to properly convict them with crossing the line into inciting
violence too.
Bill C