On Dec 22, 10:17*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote:
Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no
military?
What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country.
Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some
third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a
military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the
Russians.

What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or
fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which
was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration.

We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country
armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and
followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea.

The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only
with the help of many allies around the world.

Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George
H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart
enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get
out.

Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would
just let them shoot back

Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting
back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big deal..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as
effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less
individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2.