Posted on 04/02/2010 6:45:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
The citizens of South Korea would disagree. And but for fifth columnists at home, South Vietnam would be free. But it’s nice to see taht some are consistant in their desire to see the rest of the world enslaved and America surrounded by enemies.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what the citizens of South Korea think. Let them fight their own battles.
It is ironic that you make this argument after your ad hominem attack on Buchanan in post 32.
More from the man who thinks Churchill and not Hitler is responsible for WW2. Pat can always be counted to support our enemies and side with their grievances.
Don't be too hard on yourself, Columbia is not what it used to be.
Ad hominem attack that has no validity. You are losing the debate, so you are accusing me of being dishonest.
Your position here is quite differnt from saying that our fight in Korea was pointless. And I fail to see how not fighting communism could be in our interests.
Fighting communists is not always in our best interest, otherwise we would have invaded Cuba and Nicaragua. My position has been consistent. The Vietnam and Korea conflicts have affected the US negatively. We lost about 100,000 men in those conflicts.
What did we gain? Nothing. Making our involvement pointless.
However keyboard commandos cannot stop projecting the US into every armed conflict. Our military consists of people, not pawns on a chess board.
It was an ad hominem attack on Buchanan. You criticized his views on WWII in order to find fault with his position in the article. The very definition of ad hominem.
The promotion of war with Iran without actually having to partake in the invasion yourself, means that you would have others fight your battles. Your disability is not an excuse. People who advocate a position such as yours are disparagingly referred to as "chickenhawks". It is meant to shame them and to point out that it is mostly people unaffected by war who are the ones who clamor for it.
I noticed that you attacked Riodacat for stating that only those involved should get to make the decision. While I don't totally agree with him, I wouldn't call his opinion "stupid leftist twaddle". He obviously thinks that people fighting the wars might actually have a more informed opinion than the keyboard commandos and armchair generals who sit in the comfort of their homes making decisions based upon what they read in the NY Times or on the internet. A valid point.
It won't be easy, but it sure won't be like taking on a first tier nation.
We could do something similar, but it would have to be done first before we struck nuclear facilities. First after hitting SAM sites that might be covering the docks that is. Of course while all this is going on the Iranians are doing whatever they can to mitigate the damage that will happen to the nuclear sites when the aircraft shift targets. It'll be pretty messy.
Although I dont agree with everything you say, I always thought Iraq was a bad move and was not real happy about Afghanistan.
Heres a question that might get some good responses.
What would you have done after 9/11?
I would have started a manhatten project for becoming more self reliant on oil. That would eliminate much of their funding. That means we would have stop importing so much from China. We would have to bring manufacturing back in the name of national security.
I would have spent money on intelligence and strenghting our ties with allies.
All our troops would be on the southern border to protect us from the violent third world narco war going on in Mexico.
It was obvious that the war was about something other then protecting us from terrorists when they did nothing to secure our borders, let alone identify all the illegals (middle eastners as well as Mexicans)that are already in Country.
Bush could not even identify whom we were at war with.
Islam is a peaceful religion.
Then the feds decide to do one of the very few jobs the Constitution gives them the power to do by starting homeland security. What a joke, right down to the name.
I have not mentioned the Patriot Act. That will be used against American citizens who dare to question the State.
What would you have done to satisfy the countries demand for retribution for 9-11?
Asking everyone on board for my oilhatten project would help galvanize the masses. Making them feel as if they can contribute something unlike todays situation in which all we have contributed is our liberties..
Wouldn’t satisfy me.
Plus there should have been a huge expansion into nuclear energy and alternative fuel sources by private industry if the government would allow it.
As far as military action, I was in favor of bombing Afghanistan into oblivion until they either gave up bin Laden and al qaeda or their country was uninhabitable. That military action in conjunction with heavy political pressure on our Middle East allies as well to put an end to these terrorist groups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.