On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:33:54 +0000, Steve wrote:


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...............

Nukes in a guerrilla war? Yup, that would work.

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:35:04 -0500, HK wrote:


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


That blood is not on GW's hands. You know who wears it.


It happened on Bush's watch, and we still don't know what he was told,
intel-wise. We know what he did, and that was nothing.

For better or for worse, and obviously for worse, Bush has been captain
of the ship of state since January 2001. When something goes horribly
wrong on a ship, who do you think is held responsible?

I do believe Bush should take some responsibility for the 9-11 attacks,
but he never will. He has been an absentee president since the day he
took office.

Steve wrote:
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.


The war against Iraq and its aftermath is squarely the fault of Bush.

On Dec 22, 3:57*pm, wrote:


Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary
communications??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ask me, I know.

Is it the same person who lives an imaginary life in rec.boats?

On Dec 23, 7:35*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
On Dec 22, 3:57*pm, wrote:



Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary
communications??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ask me, I know.

Is it the same person who lives an imaginary life in rec.boats?

And constantly spews insults and trolls on the level of an 8 yo. I
think the last time I misspelled someones name to insult them, I still
had recess and nap at school. I get the feeling that this is a very
scared little man...

"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.

JimH wrote:
"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.

And that is a bad thing?




No, of course not, but in the fact of that, making outrageous claims
about the abilities of forces not tested against serious adversaries
seems a bit absurd.