On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:48:13 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:41:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:54:22 -0700, wrote:

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

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 ended up with a deal in the cease fire that we could have had
50,000 dead GIs before that. That idiot Mac arthur kept telling Truman
that he could conquer all of Korea and he damned near lost it all.
In the end we were on the 39th parallel and that was a deal they would
have taken early on.

So, Truman being a Democrat, it must have been his fault.

Still don't know what point you're trying to make. We need to be there
to prevent the North from starting something stupid.

In real life a state of war still exists and we are just in a cease
fire.
Who knows what would have happened if the north and taken over the
whole country and they grew up into capitalism from within, like
Vietnam managed to do in a decade.

Sure. Believe what you want. VN and Korea are quite different.

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.
I will even blame Nixon for not stopping it like he said he would but
that is Deja Vu all over again isn't it?

That's mighty big of you to blame the other criminal Nixon. Try
blaming the more recent criminal, Bush.

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.
I imagine I watch far more news than you do and it is never fox.
Right now, AlJazeera has the best coverage of what is going on in
Libya.

I said read not watch. FYI, Fox News doesn't count. Try NPR if you
have "watch" something. I'm told you can even listen to them on the r
a d i o.


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.
The French are providing air support.

As are we. And, the UK has a sub and planes.

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?
I will give you my JFK challenge. Name 3 great things he did.

Averted a nuclear exchange with the Russians.
Space program to go to the moon.
Civil Rights, which LBJ finished.

Nixon is easy (Legislation like EPA and OSHA, opening up China, SALT 1
with the Soviets) These are things that are still relevant today.

Yet, you hate EPA and OSHA. You want to coddle China? The Republicans
nearly botched the latest arms control treaty.

What did we get from JFK that is still relevant today? Cuba?

See previous.

Now it's my turn... list three things Bush II did right.


He funded AIDs research.

I can't think of anything else.

He did other things, but there were usually very nasty strings
attached... e.g., AIDS education/prevention in Africa, but only if
abstinence only was taught exclusively, No Child Left Behind, but
didn't do anything about the lack of funding for it, and there were
probably a couple of other things as well.

But, I was asking Greg for what _he_ thought Bush did right...