On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:23:15 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:20:18 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:38:49 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:51:59 -0700, wrote:

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?


See above.
We don't know what would have happened if we had not intervened in
ther civil war.

Oh come on. You're just trying to support an untenable argument at
this point. You're not making much sense... see what happens???

What was the difference between Vietnam and Korea?
We fought to a draw in Korea and it turned out horribly.

Really? I don't think the S. Koreans agree with that.

We gave up and left Vietnam and things are about as normal there as
they are in anywhere in the East. There is peace, capitalist and they
have become a trading partner. Wasn't that our objective all along?


Feel free to blame LBJ for escalating the war. You're not going to get
me to object.

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.

Bull**** The US is the hammer for the UN. Nobody else can come close
to providing the logistic support, the air power or the mechanized
ground troops.

We're supplying logistics and air power. We are part of the UN force.
So, no bull****, as you put it.

What are the other countries providing? At least Gene posted the
statistics about the coalition in Afghanistan (basically it is mostly
English speaking people doing the fighting and dying)

Read the news. It's amazing what you'll find.


No other country has a credible naval force either. (Reagan's 600
ships)
Basically we go in, clear the zone and the UN/NATO puts in guys in
blue helmets when the place is so safe we don't even want to pay
"danger pay" to our troops.
(according to your article)

Yet there are other ships in the area, and they've launched missiles.


Who?

French for sure. Not sure if the UK is sending navy. Other countries
are using their air bases. Feel free to Google at your own speed.


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

Of course it was JFKs goal. What other reason would he have to
continue lying about a missile gap, after he got his presidential
briefing?
The fact was that the Soviets only had about 6 missiles capable of
hitting any part of the US and the process of fueling and firing them
was more like a moon shot than pushing a button.

Kennedy knew this on January 20 1961 but it was not public knowledge
because we did not want to disclose the fact that we were still
illegally flying over USSR and taking pictures. We also did not want
to expose the Corona program (space surveillance)

Feel free to blame JFK for all your problems. I don't think he cares
at this point.

So you agree again? You certainly have no evidence to prove me wrong.

Feel free to claim victory. JFK... such a terrible president, esp.
compared to who.. Nixon?