"What would Goldwater be considered today? Probably a moderate. LOL."
Ha! McCain is what they try to call a moderate these days. So are you trying to tell me that McCain is more conservative than Goldwater? Pul....ease!
"A rather foolish measure to determine the greatness of a President in wartime. I guess Bill Clinton is the greatest wartime President because he defeated the Serbs without the loss of a single American casualty in combat. Gimme a break."
That is a logical statement on the face of it. Afghanistan crippled the Soviet Empire, however. Not to mention, Saddam had a huge army, faced up by what? Three divisions? That's not a major achievement? Kosovo was a bombing raid, nothing more. I'm talking about an actual war. We are in a world war. I dubbed it World War III. Others call it World War IV. Regardless, no president has ever had so much success with such finesse.
The only way we toppled strong regimes prior to this was through blunt force and heavy losses. Perhaps more land was taken more quickly back in World War II, but what do you think the veterans would say about it? "Oh FDR and Truman were great! I just loved D-Day."
Of course, today's success has a lot to do with Weinburger's vision and Reagan's determination.
"To compare the military threat of Iraq and Afghanistan to Germany and Japan is ridiculous. The scale and intensity of today's conflict is a mere pinprick to WWII where almost 60 million lost their lives."
Gee, I wonder how many lives have been lost from the unholy war of Islam?
"The ragtag, third-world, fourth rate militaries of Iraq and Afghanistan have no chance against the world's lone superpower."
Yeah, tell that to the Soviets. You need to develop some historical perspective. The fact we didn't have to conquer Afghanistan is not exactly a mark against a wartime president. Finesse.
"I thought your contention was that the primary was hijacked by some unknown group."
I said nothing about an unknown group. Are you trying to make me sound like a nut? I think you are. Otherwise, your lack of understanding is making me consider repeating my posts. And life is too short. But assuming you are as dense as you are pretending to be:
We have two phases in every election:
1. A primary.
2. Gee what's that other thing? Oh yeah, an election.
You seem to be going around in circles. Now you are comparing Goldwater to McCain. Initially, you made the statement that JFK was more conservative than GWB, which is patently false. JFK's New Frontier became LBJ's Great Society. I never said or suggested that McCain was more conservative than Goldwater.
I would note however, that Goldwater had some views on social issues that might be considered liberal, e.g., gays in the military, his statement in 1989 that the GOP had been taken over by a bunch of kooks, i.e., the religious right, and his urging that Republicans lay off Clinton over Whitewater. In fact, in 1996 Goldwater told Bob Dole, who mounted his presidential campaign with less than ecstatic support from hard-line conservatives, "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"
That is a logical statement on the face of it. Afghanistan crippled the Soviet Empire, however. Not to mention, Saddam had a huge army, faced up by what? Three divisions? That's not a major achievement? Kosovo was a bombing raid, nothing more. I'm talking about an actual war. We are in a world war. I dubbed it World War III. Others call it World War IV. Regardless, no president has ever had so much success with such finesse.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Removing the Taliban from Afghanistan or Saddam from Iraq is not like fighting the Wehrmacht. Saddam's army was easily defeated during Desert Storm a decade earlier. They were surrendering to reporters. The technological and command-in-control edge the US has over Iraq made it like shooting fish in a barrel. The outcome was never in doubt. Your contention that Bush is our greatest wartime President is just simple nonsense.
Yeah, tell that to the Soviets. You need to develop some historical perspective. The fact we didn't have to conquer Afghanistan is not exactly a mark against a wartime president. Finesse.
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan the same way we lost in Vietnam. The public will and support was lost in a struggle that was draining resources, men and materiel. The US had a lot to do with the Soviet loss in Afghanistan. We supplied weapons such as Stinger missiles to knock out Soviet helicopters and money and training to foreign jihadists who traveled to Afghanistan to fight alongside the resistance. In Vietnam, the Soviets and Chinese supplied weapons and trained personnel to the North to fight against us. Neither the Soviets or ourselves were ever defeated in any significant military engagement with the enemy.
Gee, I wonder how many lives have been lost from the unholy war of Islam?
How many? Don'tyou know?
I said nothing about an unknown group. Are you trying to make me sound like a nut? I think you are. Otherwise, your lack of understanding is making me consider repeating my posts. And life is too short. But assuming you are as dense as you are pretending to be:
You said, "At the same time, we need to look hard at how the 2000 primary was hyjacked [sic], or the same thing will happen in 2008. But who realizes we were hyjacked [sic]?" My question was pretty straightforward. Who hijacked the 2000 primary?