In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "traveler" <Vallecito@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1166931902.949171.295110@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... ... >> Sheesh. Lennon was merely another example of a guy who was >> > a decent enough entertainer >> >> Ha ha, the leader of the most popular and influential musical group in >> the last fifty years was in your estimation "a decent enough >> entertainer." > Popular and influential, sure? MOST popular and influental? Hell no. Your > whitebread suburban middle-class background is showing. Both Elvis and James > Brown were (and ARE) are more influential. Paul McCartney was at least 75% of the Beatles. Lennon was more than just along for the ride, but not much more. Harrison and Ringo ...knew how to play an instrument. ... >> Speaking of extrapolating one's abilities into an area one doesn't know >> shit about and embarrassing oneself in the process, that is precisely >> what you are doing right here, only the whole world isn't paying >> attention, that much is for certain. I suppose that in your fresh out >> of the chute mentality anyone who spoke against the insanity of our >> incompetent, years long campaign in Vietnam was an "embarrassment," eh? >> Yeah, you gotta love the US military when it comes to getting the job >> done. Is that what they did in 'Nam? > The US military wasn't the problem. It was (and IS) a bunch of meddling > know-it-alls (a la McNamara) who tried to fight wars based on a spreadsheet, > and who never realized how asymmetrical warfare works. The US military learned the lessons of Vietnam, and they weren't that the civilian leadership is the (onla)y reason we lost. Apparently you haven't learned the lessons.

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "traveler" <Vallecito@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1166931902.949171.295110@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... ... >> Sheesh. Lennon was merely another example of a guy who was >> > a decent enough entertainer >> >> Ha ha, the leader of the most popular and influential musical group in >> the last fifty years was in your estimation "a decent enough >> entertainer." > Popular and influential, sure? MOST popular and influental? Hell no. Your > whitebread suburban middle-class background is showing. Both Elvis and James > Brown were (and ARE) are more influential. Paul McCartney was at least 75% of the Beatles. Lennon was more than just along for the ride, but not much more. Harrison and Ringo ...knew how to play an instrument. ... >> Speaking of extrapolating one's abilities into an area one doesn't know >> shit about and embarrassing oneself in the process, that is precisely >> what you are doing right here, only the whole world isn't paying >> attention, that much is for certain. I suppose that in your fresh out >> of the chute mentality anyone who spoke against the insanity of our >> incompetent, years long campaign in Vietnam was an "embarrassment," eh? >> Yeah, you gotta love the US military when it comes to getting the job >> done. Is that what they did in 'Nam? > The US military wasn't the problem. It was (and IS) a bunch of meddling > know-it-alls (a la McNamara) who tried to fight wars based on a spreadsheet, > and who never realized how asymmetrical warfare works. The US military learned the lessons of Vietnam, and they weren't that the civilian leadership is the (onla)y reason we lost. Apparently you haven't learned the lessons.