"HK" wrote in message
. ..


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.



Both were limited wars. We weren't out to "win" either one.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

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.



Both were limited wars. We weren't out to "win" either one.

Eisboch





Yes, well, we weren't about to use nuclear weapons. That's all that was
left.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Actually the military did not lose Vietnam. Was a Democrat POTUS and a
Democrat Congress that lost Vietnam.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
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.


Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists.

This line of yours is incredible:

" less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2."

3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this*
administration.

Lets count 9/11 as one attack. The last one had an attack on the WTC, the
USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not recall
at the moment.

On Dec 22, 1:42*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..





wrote:
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.

Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists.

This line of yours is incredible:

" less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
*administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2."

3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this*
administration.

Lets count 9/11 as one attack. *The last one had an attack on the WTC, the
USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not recall
at the moment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry has comprehension problems when it comes to ideology, and he
calls me simple...

Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Actually the military did not lose Vietnam. Was a Democrat POTUS and a
Democrat Congress that lost Vietnam.




The serious part of the war in Vietnam lasted from 1965 to April 1975.

There was a Democratic president until January 1969, and a Republican
president until the end of the war.

Despite the hundreds of thousands of troops we had in Vietnam, and the
55,000 deaths our nation and their families suffered, we had our butts
handed to us militarily and politically. Perhaps if we hadn't been so
eager to support a corrupt, right-wing dictatorship in South Vietnam, it
might have turned out differently.

Of course, we support a corrupt, right-wing dictatorship in Cuba, too.
And in Iran, too - remember the Shah? And of course, we supported a
right-wing dictator in Iraq, aka Saddam.

Maybe in the future we'll support the people somewhere against the
right-wing dictators... :}

On 22-Dec-2007, HK wrote:

Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists.

This line of yours is incredible:

" less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2."

3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this*
administration.

It isn't Bush's fault alone - it's the soft belly bedwetting "American"
public that demands gentle battle. You hear the same kind of crap from the
scum in congress, daily.

The Iraq war, which never should have happened, was nevertheless over in
3-1/2 weeks. What has been going on for the subsequent 4 years is
attempting to civilize the savages while ****ing hundreds of billions of
dollars down the ****ter so the enemy will have better infrastrucre when the
US leaves in 2090. By then, the average Walmart voter will not remember all
the excuses about why we went there in the first place.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:42:39 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


Lets count 9/11 as one attack. The last one had an attack on the WTC,
the USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not
recall at the moment.

Well, if we are talking embassies, let's not forget the 2002 bombing in
Karachi.

Then there's:
The 2003 bombings Riyadh.

The 2004 kidnapping of Paul Johnson (an American).

Again, in 2004, the storming of the consulate in Jeddah.

In 2005, bombings of the Radisson, Grand Hyatt and the Days Inn all in
Amman.

Comparing terrorist attacks under Bush or Clinton's watch, really is
silly. We all know, or should know, Reagan holds the record.

On Dec 22, 3:51*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:42:39 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:
Lets count 9/11 as one attack. *The last one had an attack on the WTC,
the USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not
recall at the moment.

Well, if we are talking embassies, let's not forget the 2002 bombing in
Karachi.

Then there's:
The 2003 bombings Riyadh.

The 2004 kidnapping of Paul Johnson (an American).

Again, in 2004, the storming of the consulate in Jeddah.

In 2005, bombings of the Radisson, Grand Hyatt and the Days Inn all in
Amman.

Comparing terrorist attacks under Bush or Clinton's watch, really is
silly. *We all know, or should know, Reagan holds the record.

Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary
communications??

On 22-Dec-2007, HK wrote:

Yes, well, we weren't about to use nuclear weapons. That's all that was
left.

There is a broad range of offensive options between Meals-on-wheels and
nukes.

What's wrong with nukes, anyway - the Japs got the message real
fast...............