"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.

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... :}

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
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.



We never last a major battle. Was the politicos micro managing the war into
a no win situation. We were not allowed to be the aggressors, only
defenders. And by the time Nixon got in, we had politically lost the war.
And which party was the one setting up the right-wingers? And which party
use to be a party of the working people, the blue collar workers?

Calif Bill wrote:



We never last a major battle. Was the politicos micro managing the war into
a no win situation. We were not allowed to be the aggressors, only
defenders. And by the time Nixon got in, we had politically lost the war.
And which party was the one setting up the right-wingers? And which party
use to be a party of the working people, the blue collar workers?


The north vietnamese whipped our butts. Stop rationalizing.

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



We never last a major battle. Was the politicos micro managing the war
into a no win situation. We were not allowed to be the aggressors, only
defenders. And by the time Nixon got in, we had politically lost the
war. And which party was the one setting up the right-wingers? And which
party use to be a party of the working people, the blue collar workers?

The north vietnamese whipped our butts. Stop rationalizing.


That's simply not true Harry. Not to open old wounds, but virtually every
combat vet that survived Vietnam came home frustrated that we fought a
limited, restricted war and were not allowed to "win". Like the Korean
Conflict, a tightrope was walked with fear of starting WWIII and Armageddon.
South Korea was invaded by the North and the UN had a mandate to respond.
The US bore the major responsibility. Vietnam was a similar situation.
Invaded by the North, we were obligated to defend without triggering a full
scale war with China or the Soviet Union.

Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought
by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident.
The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the
world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder.

I just watched the Charlie Wilson story on the History Channel last night.
Interesting guy and details of his activities that were never made public
were presented. Talk about having your ass handed to you .... the Soviet
Union was stomping on Afghanistan big time, slaughtering over a million
defenseless people until we provided US made weapons (Stinger missile)
instead of giving them surplus Russian made equipment. Once the Stingers
arrived, the Soviets went home with their tail between their legs, and they
finally dissolved completely as a government. That hasn't happened to us.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought
by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident.
The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the
world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder.


The military forces of the United States have not faced a serious
adversary in more than 30 years. We may have the most expensive
technology, but there is at least one country on this earth that would
fight us to a draw in a war on or near its turf, and we wouldn't be able
to throw nukes, because they could toss them right back.

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

Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare
fought by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results
are evident. The US military and the technology it possesses is second to
none in the world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation
builder.


The military forces of the United States have not faced a serious
adversary in more than 30 years. We may have the most expensive
technology, but there is at least one country on this earth that would
fight us to a draw in a war on or near its turf, and we wouldn't be able
to throw nukes, because they could toss them right back.


Fortunately for all of us, cool heads have prevailed. The closest we came
was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Eisboch