"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.