The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[ima]

Stop being modest.
You volunteered twice to kill people who posed no threat to your country.
Hopefully you'll reap exactly what you've sown, Hero.

you really might want to check your fire there.

If you knew then what you know now, would you have served in Vietnam?

The ONLY good thing to ever come out of Nam were Thai Sticks! Yum!

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

you really might want to check your fire there.

If you knew then what you know now, would you have served in Vietnam?

The ONLY good thing to ever come out of Nam were Thai Sticks! Yum!

I do not even know what that is.

 

[georgephillip]

If you knew then what you know now, would you have served in Vietnam?

The ONLY good thing to ever come out of Nam were Thai Sticks! Yum!

I do not even know what that is.

Thai sticks were a relatively potent form of cannabis dipped in opium or hashish oil.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

A little off-topic, but ---> I'll answer.

do you think the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam qualified as terrorism?

(COMMENT)

The US entering Vietnam was not an "Invasion" or "Occupation." US involvement came after the 1954 Geneva Accords which divided Indochina and became Vietnam under President Diem. While my father was there in earlier times, during WWII, helping support Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese Occupation, the post - Gulf of Tonkin operation was at the request of the RVN Government.

US Forces in Vietnam was not a case of the US attempting to transcend national boundaries to intimidate or coerce, a people or a nation. It was the case of a Cold War confrontation between Communism and Democracy.

"Specifically, were the above members of "Charlie" Company state-sponsored terrorists?

(COMMENT)

In any extended environment (years) where combat is a daily occurrence, there are bound to be incidence of a heinous and very tragic nature (malum per se). These are not examples of a state intended to coerce or to the local population in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals. This is a case of a large scale criminal action where the command lost control of the good order and discipline of the unit; and not the purpose of the major commander's campaign intent.

For terrorism to work, someone has to be left alive to be coerced and do the bidding of the terrorist; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. The event of My Lai, if anything, made the US Military closely examine the command and control of its forces.

The intent of the military operation in question was seek-out and engage enemy forces. It was not a campaign to use force and violence against the indigenous population in order to attain political goals, religious conversion, or a change in the ideological in nature of the hamlet through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.

Do you suspect your opinion would be different if you had been born in Vietnam?

(COMMENT)

Probably not. The Vietnamese people saw much worse over a much longer period of time, committed by multiple forces. My Lai was a much bigger event for America than it was for the Vietnamese. It showed that America is not always the good guys.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

A little off-topic, but ---> I'll answer.

do you think the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam qualified as terrorism?

(COMMENT)

The US entering Vietnam was not an "Invasion" or "Occupation." US involvement came after the 1954 Geneva Accords which divided Indochina and became Vietnam under President Diem. While my father was there in earlier times, during WWII, helping support Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese Occupation, the post - Gulf of Tonkin operation was at the request of the RVN Government.

US Forces in Vietnam was not a case of the US attempting to transcend national boundaries to intimidate or coerce, a people or a nation. It was the case of a Cold War confrontation between Communism and Democracy.

"Specifically, were the above members of "Charlie" Company state-sponsored terrorists?

(COMMENT)

In any extended environment (years) where combat is a daily occurrence, there are bound to be incidence of a heinous and very tragic nature (malum per se). These are not examples of a state intended to coerce or to the local population in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals. This is a case of a large scale criminal action where the command lost control of the good order and discipline of the unit; and not the purpose of the major commander's campaign intent.

For terrorism to work, someone has to be left alive to be coerced and do the bidding of the terrorist; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. The event of My Lai, if anything, made the US Military closely examine the command and control of its forces.

The intent of the military operation in question was seek-out and engage enemy forces. It was not a campaign to use force and violence against the indigenous population in order to attain political goals, religious conversion, or a change in the ideological in nature of the hamlet through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.

Do you suspect your opinion would be different if you had been born in Vietnam?

(COMMENT)

Probably not. The Vietnamese people saw much worse over a much longer period of time, committed by multiple forces. My Lai was a much bigger event for America than it was for the Vietnamese. It showed that America is not always the good guys.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...

"The Geneva Conference (April 26 – July 20, 1954[1]) was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina.The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference..."

What moral authority did the Soviet Union, US, France, and the UK have to authorize a government in Vietnam, particularly one presided over by a corrupt puppet like Ngo Dinh Diem?

Depending upon how you define "invasion" (A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.) it seems pretty clear half-a-million Americans didn't suddenly decide to vacation in Vietnam.

It seems equally clear they were there to alter the government preferred by the vast majority of Vietnamese unless you think Diem would have defeated Ho in a free election?(which Diem refused to participate in, as I recall).

Geneva Conference (1954) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

Mr R----you write well.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

These are all good questions. But it has nothing to do with terrorism.

georgephillip, et al,

A little off-topic, but ---> I'll answer.

do you think the US invasion and occupation of South Vietnam qualified as terrorism?

(COMMENT)

The US entering Vietnam was not an "Invasion" or "Occupation." US involvement came after the 1954 Geneva Accords which divided Indochina and became Vietnam under President Diem. While my father was there in earlier times, during WWII, helping support Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese Occupation, the post - Gulf of Tonkin operation was at the request of the RVN Government.

US Forces in Vietnam was not a case of the US attempting to transcend national boundaries to intimidate or coerce, a people or a nation. It was the case of a Cold War confrontation between Communism and Democracy.


(COMMENT)

In any extended environment (years) where combat is a daily occurrence, there are bound to be incidence of a heinous and very tragic nature (malum per se). These are not examples of a state intended to coerce or to the local population in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals. This is a case of a large scale criminal action where the command lost control of the good order and discipline of the unit; and not the purpose of the major commander's campaign intent.

For terrorism to work, someone has to be left alive to be coerced and do the bidding of the terrorist; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. The event of My Lai, if anything, made the US Military closely examine the command and control of its forces.

The intent of the military operation in question was seek-out and engage enemy forces. It was not a campaign to use force and violence against the indigenous population in order to attain political goals, religious conversion, or a change in the ideological in nature of the hamlet through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.

Do you suspect your opinion would be different if you had been born in Vietnam?

(COMMENT)

Probably not. The Vietnamese people saw much worse over a much longer period of time, committed by multiple forces. My Lai was a much bigger event for America than it was for the Vietnamese. It showed that America is not always the good guys.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...

"The Geneva Conference (April 26 – July 20, 1954[1]) was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina.The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference..."

What moral authority did the Soviet Union, US, France, and the UK have to authorize a government in Vietnam, particularly one presided over by a corrupt puppet like Ngo Dinh Diem?

Depending upon how you define "invasion" (A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.) it seems pretty clear half-a-million Americans didn't suddenly decide to vacation in Vietnam.

It seems equally clear they were there to alter the government preferred by the vast majority of Vietnamese unless you think Diem would have defeated Ho in a free election?(which Diem refused to participate in, as I recall).

Geneva Conference (1954) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

You are trying to apply little definitions to a set of political issue that just happen to focus on Vietnam.

This was a much bigger set of power plays between the various global powers. Interventionism was the order of the day. In the US, the "Whiz Kids" wisdom had the influence. And their legacy lives on even today.

Indochina was a French Colony, the US was the Principle Allied Power that liberated Indochina from the Japanese, --- hell - my Dad and I use to laugh at the fact that his unit dropped supplies in and a doctor for Ho Chi Minh, a US ally during WWII, and 2 decades later I go to help fight his forces). The Soviets and the UK were the other two Principle Allied Powers. Who were they and why were they there deciding the fate of Indochina --- well they ruled the day. And each was vying for influence and power.

Was it right? Well I don't know. What I came to learn was that Vietnam was going to turn Communist no matter what we did. The "Cold War" was what it was.

Remember, the US has an interventionist backbone to its foreign policy.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...that "interventionist backbone" to US foreign policy seems to reward those who invest in war and cripple many of those who actually fight the wars. Do you think it's likely that PTSD comes from witnessing or participating in war crimes? Have you ever read the Pentagon's "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection?"

"To call it, you know, an information treasure trove is the wrong phrase. It was a horror trove. These were reports of massacres, murders, mutilation, torture.

"And these were investigations that were carried out by the U.S. military during the war.

"A collection of documents called the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection.

"And this was a task force that was set up in the Pentagon. And it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the My Lai Massacre."

Nick Turse and the Real Vietnam War - Truthdig

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

These are all good questions. But it has nothing to do with terrorism.

georgephillip, et al,

A little off-topic, but ---> I'll answer.


(COMMENT)

The US entering Vietnam was not an "Invasion" or "Occupation." US involvement came after the 1954 Geneva Accords which divided Indochina and became Vietnam under President Diem. While my father was there in earlier times, during WWII, helping support Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese Occupation, the post - Gulf of Tonkin operation was at the request of the RVN Government.

US Forces in Vietnam was not a case of the US attempting to transcend national boundaries to intimidate or coerce, a people or a nation. It was the case of a Cold War confrontation between Communism and Democracy.


(COMMENT)

In any extended environment (years) where combat is a daily occurrence, there are bound to be incidence of a heinous and very tragic nature (malum per se). These are not examples of a state intended to coerce or to the local population in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals. This is a case of a large scale criminal action where the command lost control of the good order and discipline of the unit; and not the purpose of the major commander's campaign intent.

For terrorism to work, someone has to be left alive to be coerced and do the bidding of the terrorist; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. The event of My Lai, if anything, made the US Military closely examine the command and control of its forces.

The intent of the military operation in question was seek-out and engage enemy forces. It was not a campaign to use force and violence against the indigenous population in order to attain political goals, religious conversion, or a change in the ideological in nature of the hamlet through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.


(COMMENT)

Probably not. The Vietnamese people saw much worse over a much longer period of time, committed by multiple forces. My Lai was a much bigger event for America than it was for the Vietnamese. It showed that America is not always the good guys.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...

"The Geneva Conference (April 26 – July 20, 1954[1]) was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina.The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference..."

What moral authority did the Soviet Union, US, France, and the UK have to authorize a government in Vietnam, particularly one presided over by a corrupt puppet like Ngo Dinh Diem?

Depending upon how you define "invasion" (A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.) it seems pretty clear half-a-million Americans didn't suddenly decide to vacation in Vietnam.

It seems equally clear they were there to alter the government preferred by the vast majority of Vietnamese unless you think Diem would have defeated Ho in a free election?(which Diem refused to participate in, as I recall).

Geneva Conference (1954) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

You are trying to apply little definitions to a set of political issue that just happen to focus on Vietnam.

This was a much bigger set of power plays between the various global powers. Interventionism was the order of the day. In the US, the "Whiz Kids" wisdom had the influence. And their legacy lives on even today.

Indochina was a French Colony, the US was the Principle Allied Power that liberated Indochina from the Japanese, --- hell - my Dad and I use to laugh at the fact that his unit dropped supplies in and a doctor for Ho Chi Minh, a US ally during WWII, and 2 decades later I go to help fight his forces). The Soviets and the UK were the other two Principle Allied Powers. Who were they and why were they there deciding the fate of Indochina --- well they ruled the day. And each was vying for influence and power.

Was it right? Well I don't know. What I came to learn was that Vietnam was going to turn Communist no matter what we did. The "Cold War" was what it was.

Remember, the US has an interventionist backbone to its foreign policy.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War

Most Respectfully,
R

What I came to learn was that Vietnam was going to turn Communist no matter what we did.

BTW, whatever happened to that "domino theory" that the war mongers were trying to sell us?

 

[georgephillip]

I think the (South) Vietnamese invaded Orange County (California).
Stay tuned.

 

[Hossfly]

I think the (South) Vietnamese invaded Orange County (California).
Stay tuned.

No way, George. It was an invasion by an army of crackheads.

 

[Hossfly]

I think the (South) Vietnamese invaded Orange County (California).
Stay tuned.

I guess if you were fortunate enough to have a car, you could have gone down to Little Saigon and celebrated the New Year with them. You do miss out on a lot of fun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICvzOo2uY0]Little Saigon New Years 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Interesting!

Rocco...that "interventionist backbone" to US foreign policy seems to reward those who invest in war and cripple many of those who actually fight the wars. Do you think it's likely that PTSD comes from witnessing or participating in war crimes?

(COMMENT)

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in the family of "anxiety" attacks. In my family, it is most associated with the gentler gender and not (so much) the guys. My experience has been, that if you were not subject to "anxiety attacks" before Vientman (Iraq, Pakestan, or Yemen), the exposure of the deployment wouldn't have a debilitating effect after the deployment. "Fear" and "shock" are different things.

Have you ever read the Pentagon's "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection?"

"To call it, you know, an information treasure trove is the wrong phrase. It was a horror trove. These were reports of massacres, murders, mutilation, torture.

"And these were investigations that were carried out by the U.S. military during the war.

"A collection of documents called the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection.

"And this was a task force that was set up in the Pentagon. And it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the My Lai Massacre."

(COMMENT)

I have never read any works by Dr Nick Turse. He sells books on the plane of emotion. He writes provocatively on controversial subjects. While he claims to be a "investigative journalist, historian and essayist," he is just a book (quasi-documentary) author --- writing about a subject and time for which he has no personal experience. People that lean towards favoring Anti-government stances, people holding anti-war postures, and people who are enamored by conspiracy theories tend to be more attracted to his writing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Rocco...that "interventionist backbone" to US foreign policy seems to reward those who invest in war and cripple many of those who actually fight the wars. Do you think it's likely that PTSD comes from witnessing or participating in war crimes? Have you ever read the Pentagon's "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection?"

"To call it, you know, an information treasure trove is the wrong phrase. It was a horror trove. These were reports of massacres, murders, mutilation, torture.

"And these were investigations that were carried out by the U.S. military during the war.

"A collection of documents called the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection.

"And this was a task force that was set up in the Pentagon. And it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the My Lai Massacre."

Nick Turse and the Real Vietnam War - Truthdig

SFB, you can ask Seal, who never participated in war crimes, what helps cause PTSD. I have had PTSD since November 1965 and will be medically treated for life. And in 2 years of combat and 13 months on the Korean DMZ, I personally have never seen an American take a civilian life. Your charges are false and I hope you air those charges to a combat veteran.

 

[ima]

I think the (South) Vietnamese invaded Orange County (California).
Stay tuned.

No way, George. It was an invasion by an army of crackheads.

We've been invaded by Mexico and they're trying to destroy us with meth. It seems to be working. Stay tuned.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you got me there.

BTW, whatever happened to that "domino theory" that the war mongers were trying to sell us?

(COMMENT)

This is a case where the science was right, and all the calculations and formulae made sense. Come to find out, they were using imaginary numbers. Poof!

And for my next trick, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat...

Must have been the wrong hat!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...that "interventionist backbone" to US foreign policy seems to reward those who invest in war and cripple many of those who actually fight the wars. Do you think it's likely that PTSD comes from witnessing or participating in war crimes? Have you ever read the Pentagon's "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection?"

"To call it, you know, an information treasure trove is the wrong phrase. It was a horror trove. These were reports of massacres, murders, mutilation, torture.

"And these were investigations that were carried out by the U.S. military during the war.

"A collection of documents called the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection.

"And this was a task force that was set up in the Pentagon. And it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the My Lai Massacre."

Nick Turse and the Real Vietnam War - Truthdig

SFB, you can ask Seal, who never participated in war crimes, what helps cause PTSD. I have had PTSD since November 1965 and will be medically treated for life. And in 2 years of combat and 13 months on the Korean DMZ, I personally have never seen an American take a civilian life. Your charges are false and I hope you air those charges to a combat veteran.

Define "civilian."

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

Interesting!

Rocco...that "interventionist backbone" to US foreign policy seems to reward those who invest in war and cripple many of those who actually fight the wars. Do you think it's likely that PTSD comes from witnessing or participating in war crimes?

(COMMENT)

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in the family of "anxiety" attacks. In my family, it is most associated with the gentler gender and not (so much) the guys. My experience has been, that if you were not subject to "anxiety attacks" before Vientman (Iraq, Pakestan, or Yemen), the exposure of the deployment wouldn't have a debilitating effect after the deployment. "Fear" and "shock" are different things.

Have you ever read the Pentagon's "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection?"

"To call it, you know, an information treasure trove is the wrong phrase. It was a horror trove. These were reports of massacres, murders, mutilation, torture.

"And these were investigations that were carried out by the U.S. military during the war.

"A collection of documents called the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection.

"And this was a task force that was set up in the Pentagon. And it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the My Lai Massacre."

(COMMENT)

I have never read any works by Dr Nick Turse. He sells books on the plane of emotion. He writes provocatively on controversial subjects. While he claims to be a "investigative journalist, historian and essayist," he is just a book (quasi-documentary) author --- writing about a subject and time for which he has no personal experience. People that lean towards favoring Anti-government stances, people holding anti-war postures, and people who are enamored by conspiracy theories tend to be more attracted to his writing.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Advancing in small squads, the men of the unit shot chickens as
they scurried about, pigs as they bolted, and cows and water buffalo
lowing among the thatch-roofed houses.

"They gunned down old
men sitting in their homes and children as they ran for cover.

"They tossed grenades into homes without even bothering to look inside. An
officer grabbed a woman by the hair and shot her point-blank with a
pistol.

"A woman who came out of her home with a baby in her arms
was shot down on the spot. As the tiny child hit the ground, another
GI opened up on the infant with his M-16 automatic rifle.

"Over four hours, members of Charlie Company methodically
slaughtered more than five hundred unarmed victims, killing some
in ones and twos, others in small groups, and collecting many more
in a drainage ditch that would become an infamous killing ground.

"They faced no opposition.

"They even took a quiet break to eat lunch
in the midst of the carnage.

"Along the way, they also raped women
and young girls, mutilated the dead, systematically burned homes,
and fouled the area's drinking water."

Rocco... do you think those who applied the "mere gook rule" in Pinkville were subject to anxiety attacks before their exposure to deployment? How about afterwards? "Fear" and "shock" are much different things to victims and perpetrators. I'm pretty sure you and your dad wouldn't have found much to laugh about if you had been on the receiving end of US pro-war postures.

"Kill Anything That Moves" Military Doctrine Began in Vietnam

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

You are confusing global assessments and individual events.

I'm pretty sure you and your dad wouldn't have found much to laugh about if you had been on the receiving end of US pro-war postures.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between laughing at incomprehensible foreign policy shifts over time at the global or macro level, and the individual assessment of actual event that are personal in their impact at the micro level.

Just as scientist have shown that deeply religious people have brain activity that is different from those that have no religious belief; so it is with different people with different experiences in combat --- or other highly volatile environments.

Whether it is a US bullet --- or a Vietnamese, Yemenis, Iraqi or Afghani Bullet, makes no difference. When it hits your armor or zooms by your head, the fear and anxiety is the same; "US pro-war postures not withstanding." It doesn't change based on the source, it point of origin, it politics or political policy. The anxiety and fear induced is exactly the same.

War is nothing more than the outcome of a failure in diplomacy. Whether it was WWI, WWII, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, where ever, international conflict is not an uncommon net result when diplomacy fails. The difference to us is the relative impact. There are only a few people sensitive enough that develop the scope and magnitude of anxiety that is generated by the fear and shock from reading about combat, as distinguished by the impact one experiences from being in combat.

Rocco... do you think those who applied the "mere gook rule" in Pinkville were subject to anxiety attacks before their exposure to deployment?

(COMMENT)

Yes, certainly before and after.

Just as paratroopers experience anxiety before a jump, or the service member in an escape chamber has controlled panic as the ice cold water floods in, or each time you enter a battle-space anticipating fire, they is anxiety and the unmistakeable pangs of fear. It's all about how we handle these feelings that makes a difference.

When riot crowd behavior takes over from the discipline of unit behavior and cohesion, it is often described as irrational, instinctive, animalistic, or horrific, driven by emotions that are disconnected from social standards we consider reasonable, acceptable and moral.

How about afterwards? "Fear" and "shock" are much different things to victims and perpetrators.

(COMMENT)

The behavior you noted are not much different from the average people becoming involved in a riot at a soccer match, the lethality because of the tools at hand were different. But it must be remembered that most of the atrocities reported start similarly.

The victims are, like any victim, traumatized.

(QUESTION)

What is the point you are trying to make? That war is bad? Yes , of course it is. Is it that America is the only country that has been involved in such incidents? Probably not. These types of incidents pre-date Alexander the Great.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Rocco...that "interventionist backbone" to US foreign policy seems to reward those who invest in war and cripple many of those who actually fight the wars. Do you think it's likely that PTSD comes from witnessing or participating in war crimes? Have you ever read the Pentagon's "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection?"

"To call it, you know, an information treasure trove is the wrong phrase. It was a horror trove. These were reports of massacres, murders, mutilation, torture.

"And these were investigations that were carried out by the U.S. military during the war.

"A collection of documents called the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Collection.

"And this was a task force that was set up in the Pentagon. And it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the My Lai Massacre."

Nick Turse and the Real Vietnam War - Truthdig

SFB, you can ask Seal, who never participated in war crimes, what helps cause PTSD. I have had PTSD since November 1965 and will be medically treated for life. And in 2 years of combat and 13 months on the Korean DMZ, I personally have never seen an American take a civilian life. Your charges are false and I hope you air those charges to a combat veteran.

Define "civilian."

Look up the word in a dictionary, Georgie Boy. You seem to be stuck on Viet Nam like nothing else ever happened in this world. What stopped you from joining the Coast Guard? Weren't you even brave enough for that? Why not get out of your little apartment once in a while so that you can think of other things besides the same tired things you keep on bringing up like the Viet Nam War? Or are you even afraid to be out on the street and feel so safe staying in, maybe hiding under your bed at night.