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???


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.

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.

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.

If the place has never been stable and the only places that are stable
now are the places where we have overwhelming force on the ground, I
do sound like I know.
I am not the only person who thinks Afghanistan is a fools errand,
unfortunately Obama is just not listening to them.

Give him a call. I'm sure he'll take your views under advisement,
since you're such an expert!


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

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.

That's because you can't think.
He increased humanitarian aid to Africa by about 3 billion per year.
Designated around 190 million square miles of ocean as national
preserves.
Doubled funding for for community health care centers.
Etc.

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...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:40:14 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:03:12 -0700, wrote:

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...

I am not the guy who is defending Bush but you assume it is a zero sum
game so if I say Obama is screwing up I must think Bush was smart.
I haven't liked anyone in the White House for the last 20 years. They
are all pretty much the same to me.


Still waiting... What has Bush done right? Come on... it can't be that
hard.

You just got done defending him.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:47:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:36:47 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:40:14 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:03:12 -0700, wrote:

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...

I am not the guy who is defending Bush but you assume it is a zero sum
game so if I say Obama is screwing up I must think Bush was smart.
I haven't liked anyone in the White House for the last 20 years. They
are all pretty much the same to me.


Still waiting... What has Bush done right? Come on... it can't be that
hard.

You just got done defending him.

It is all in your imagination that I defended either of the Bushes.

So, when you said that you think Bush might have made the right
decision about Iraq, you were kidding?

Bush I basically did the right thing. Bush II was a liar, and he
screwed us and the Iraqis over.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:15:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:44:54 -0700, wrote:

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.

He barely dodged a bullet he fired himself. The Cuban missile crisis
was all JFKs doing, thinking with his dick and not his head. In the
end, we took the same deal from the Soviets they wanted before the
whole thing started (removing missiles from Turkey). Basically they
pushed and we backed down, in spite of all the saber rattling.

Nonsense. He was a new president and was pushed by the generals to do
more than was right. He did everything right after that wrt the
Russians, despite your views.

Space program to go to the moon.

He made the challenge but had very little to do with actually
implementing it.

Sure... whatever. I guess you think he was supposed to be out there on
the pad filling the fuel tanks or something.

Civil Rights, which LBJ finished.

That was all LBJ, JFK resisted that legislation.

Total nonsense. I guess you don't know much about history, even recent
history, like him bringing in the Fed marshals and nationalizing the
Alabama Nat. Guard. Oops... try again.

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.

Did I ever say that? I probably have better environmental credentials
than you do. How many hours did you volunteer for your DEP last month?
Last year? This decade?

Doubtful. You'd like to see them both disbanded I'm sure. I don't need
to brag about how much time I spend volunteering. I have a business. I
don't have retirement time. You do.

You want to coddle China?

What does changing China from a cold war enemy to a trading partner
have to do with Coddling? That was Clinton who signed the disastrous
trade deal.

You and your right-wing buddies believe that China is going to rule
the world, so I guess you're not coddling them. My mistake. You're
just being paranoid.

So, Nixon "opened up China" but Clinton created a trading partner? How
did Nixon "open up China"? He visited? That's it? He got on a plane?

The Republicans
nearly botched the latest arms control treaty.

That is not what we are talking about is it?

You mentioned the Start 1. So, it is what we're "talking about' even
if you want to claim I've "changed the subject."

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

See previous.

What is still relevant today, again?

In your mind, nothing. That doesn't make it reality.

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

You are doing it again, that is not what we are talking about it.
You are certainly a one trick pony. No matter what we are talking
about, you come back to GW Bush. You are simply obsessed.

I'm sorry if you're unable to answer a simple question.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:14:35 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:56:28 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:15:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:44:54 -0700, wrote:

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.

He barely dodged a bullet he fired himself. The Cuban missile crisis
was all JFKs doing, thinking with his dick and not his head. In the
end, we took the same deal from the Soviets they wanted before the
whole thing started (removing missiles from Turkey). Basically they
pushed and we backed down, in spite of all the saber rattling.

Nonsense. He was a new president and was pushed by the generals to do
more than was right. He did everything right after that wrt the
Russians, despite your views.

That was a year and a half into his presidency. The fact remains, the
only reason there were ever missiles in Cuba was a response to our
obsolete missiles in Turkey that were scheduled to be removed and if
we had simply pulled them out when Krushchev asked us to, there would
have been no Cuban missile crisis. In the end that was exactly what we
did.

So, you believe in a policy of appeasement.

It was just JFK's lack of willingness to do anything the Soviets
wanted, even if it was in our best interest that caused the problem.
Pure testosterone, no brains.

According to you, expert in all things.

The real screw up was at the beginning of JFKs term when he failed to
honor our commitments to the Bay of Pigs. All he was supposed to do
was provide a no fly zone (before that term was popular) and take out
a little of Castro's armor. He didn't . If he had done that, we
probably would not have had a Castro.

So, we should have continued a war in Cuba? Yet, they hadn't attacked
us, so it sounds like your hypocrisy is showing.

By withholding the promised air cover, we doomed a lot of people to
die on the beach.

Not our war... remember comments like that from.... wait for it....
YOU.

Space program to go to the moon.

He made the challenge but had very little to do with actually
implementing it.

Sure... whatever. I guess you think he was supposed to be out there on
the pad filling the fuel tanks or something.

I just do not think he contributed anything but the vague idea,
similar to Bush promising we will go to Mars
I suppose if Bush had been shot we might go.

Sure, Mr. Expert. You're in denial.



Civil Rights, which LBJ finished.

That was all LBJ, JFK resisted that legislation.

Total nonsense. I guess you don't know much about history, even recent
history, like him bringing in the Fed marshals and nationalizing the
Alabama Nat. Guard. Oops... try again.

Find me the links to his name or his endorsement on any of the
legislation.

Changing the subject. Address my comment.

In 1963 he was afraid that legislation would sink his second term and
he ran from it like a scalded dog.
Why do you think he was in Dallas smooching with Connally? It was to
prop up the southern vote.

And, that has to do with Civil Rights how?


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.

Did I ever say that? I probably have better environmental credentials
than you do. How many hours did you volunteer for your DEP last month?
Last year? This decade?

Doubtful. You'd like to see them both disbanded I'm sure. I don't need
to brag about how much time I spend volunteering. I have a business. I
don't have retirement time. You do.

In other words you are an armchair environmentalist who really doesn't
do anything but talk about it.

According to you. You know practically nothing about me, and I don't
wish to brag. Feel free to tell us how much money/time you spend on
all those great things.


You want to coddle China?

What does changing China from a cold war enemy to a trading partner
have to do with Coddling? That was Clinton who signed the disastrous
trade deal.


So, Nixon "opened up China" but Clinton created a trading partner? How
did Nixon "open up China"? He visited? That's it? He got on a plane?

That is like saying Carter took Begin and Sadat on a picnic in
Maryland. There was a lot accomplished in the talks with China.

Really? Like what? Human rights? Name something substantive that we're
still benefiting from.

The Republicans
nearly botched the latest arms control treaty.

That is not what we are talking about is it?

You mentioned the Start 1. So, it is what we're "talking about' even
if you want to claim I've "changed the subject."

It is hard to talk about Nixon (which is exactly what we were talking
about,) without talking about Start 1

Which leads right to the current treaty that the Republicans almost
ditched... all for politics because their #1 priority is to get rid of
Obama at any cost.



You are doing it again, that is not what we are talking about it.
You are certainly a one trick pony. No matter what we are talking
about, you come back to GW Bush. You are simply obsessed.

I'm sorry if you're unable to answer a simple question.

You and Harry did a pretty good job of saying the good things Bush
did.

So, you refuse to answer. No thoughts of your own I guess.


I am still not sure how Iraq will be scored. It was the worst war we
had at the time but Afghanistan is still young and we don't know what
will happen in the future.

Iraq: Bush's war.
Afg.: Bush's fault.

Iraq might be looked on as a huge success if all of this "peace
keeping" you seem to like, works and Iraq is the first truly
democratic Muslim country. It will all depend on whether democracy
actually does spread across the dictatorships that dominate the middle
east. History could call the toppling of Saddam as the first step to
the new age of democracy in the middle east. (especially if the
Americans get to write it)

So, you are defending Bush... a guy who lied to get us into a war we
didn't need.

History has a way of glossing over screw ups if things come out OK.
Just look at the "missile crisis".

If any good comes out of the Iraq war, it won't be because of Bush.

Now you're equating the missile crisis with Iraq??? GOOD GRIEF!