On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:30:42 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400, wrote:



Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a
humanitarian.

What does Korea have to do with Japan?

Not a thing, but the same argument applies. Should we just abandon the
Koreans? You're quite a humanitarian.

Like I said, changing the subject again.

Like you said, nothing. Sounds to me like you're just unable to keep
up with the conversation.

I guess the real question in Korea is, would the US support another
Korean war right now (perhaps a nuclear war) Would we have really
been better off if we had let the big dog eat in 1950?

So, wipe out S. Korean, forget all the economic benefit that's come
from that country...

The fall of Vietnam did not cause all the problems the hawks predicted
to justify killing 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese.

So? Your point?

Are you changing the subject again?

The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities.

What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send
the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure.

Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia?

Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting
somewhere.

I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like
it.

Didn't you just get through saying we stopped all the genocide and
scolded me because I said they still had two populations who hate each
other.

We stopped it, and we're preventing a redux. It's called peacekeeping.
It's a worthy job. FYI, it's a UN operation, not just the US, but of
course, the facts don't really matter, right? Mostly, it's monitoring,
but like I said, facts don't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...eping_missions

The UN is the US. If we are not providing the lion's share of the
military force, it is a farce.

No, it isn't. Even though you want to believe it it's not true. Talk
to the UK and France about who's been flying.

What is this "valuable job"?


Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break
out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought
Iraq was and would remain a disaster.

Count on it.

No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the
ground.

The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a
place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your
foot out of a bucket of mud.


Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to
be true.

I know a little about the history there. Evidently you don't.

So far, you haven't demonstrated that in this thread.

You tell me a story about anyone who has imposed any real influence
over the tribes in Afghanistan Ms history major.

Which has nothing to do with the subject of stabilization, which takes
time Mr. I Know Everything about Everything.


Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in
Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama
administration.

We have always agreed there.

Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give
our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and
the ability to remain in uniform.

After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in
half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops
like Herring.

We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of
the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program.

Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's.

Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried
to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a
nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped

Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault.

What does Reagan have to do with the arms race? It started in 1960.
Reagan was still making movies.

Nothing. He just increased the Navy to... what was it... 600 ships or
something like that. He was a dove, according to you.

No I am just saying he continued the policy started by JFK

Nope. He didn't. His goal was to increase the military. That wasn't
JFK's goal and you know it.