[rightwing2]

Its foolish to surrender to communist they will give you no quarter better dead then red.

Well, to be honest the UNITA commanders saw the writing on the wall. After witnessing Bush's failure to even mention, let alone criticize Dos Santos and his Communist MPLA regime for assasinating their leader, a faithful US ally of some 27 years, the remaining UNITA leaders were so demoralized that they gave up the fight. They actually have a greater chance of surviving by surrendering now unconditionally, then being ambushed and assasinated by the militarily superior Communist Angolan MPLA later on.

To be fair to Bush, he is not the only President to betray our faithful anti-Communist allies to the Reds. Truman was the first President to do so when he betrayed the Chiang Kai Shek's Nationalist anti-Communist freedom fighters to Mao's Red Army back in the 1940s. Ever since, it has become a disturbing and maddening trend in US policy.

[weikel]

Personally I would not surrender.

[GOP_1900AD]

So what will WE do about it? I know you to favor a fortress America approach. Isn't that likely to speed the roll back (of Freedom, that is)? We'll have a fine time trying to deal with it when only a small enclave around the USA are still free. My approach is one never before tried. Instead of cowering in our corner, let us hit the beast face on. The way we should have in '45 in E. Europe, in '52 in the PRC, in '65 in Indochina, and, of course, in a number of other particular places and times. How can you criticise an approach that have never even been tried? The approach is the proactive destruction of all enemies of Western Civilization. You know what this means. I know you do.

The Final Phase