Replies

Reply #21: (its Somalia, not Somolia)I've never agreed that this was the right use of the military. This article is crapola because it gets the history wrong: "President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country" is wrong. Bush Sr made this order. And this first phase of the Somalian operation went smoothly. Then Clinton came into office and engaged the military in nation building. During this second phase is when most of the American lives were lost. I don't believe that either Phase I or II use of the military was right. The article just gets its history wrong - thats why its garbage: revisionism as an attack on the military at the same time trying to (incorrectly) portray Clinton as a hero.

Reply #22: Who were we saved from? Duh.

Reply #23: What assertion? The article directly states: U.S. intervention in World War I actually contributed to the conditions of chaos and instability that gave rise to Adolf Hitler and World War II as well as to the rise of the Soviet Union and the threat of international communism. US intervention ended a stalemate that had been going on for three years. In that sense, the US ended the ongoing "chaos and instability". It was a lack of US involvement, and European "ostrich-diplomacy" that led to WWII. The Russian revolution took place two months before the United States declared war, so communism was already on the rise. This article is revisionist garbage.

It was a lack of US involvement, and European "ostrich-diplomacy" that led to WWII.

You asserted that the author of this piece stated that US presence is what caused WWII. This is not what he stated as evidenced by your quote. That you will not concede the point proves that you are being disengenuous. Furthermore, your assertion that it was Chamberlain's fault that WWII occurred along with American resistence to get involved ignores all of the history leading up to WWII including the treaty of Versailles. You cannot pick out a small piece of history and argue that it makes your point while refusing to look at the rest.

This article is crapola because it gets the history wrong: "President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country" is wrong.

Does the fact that this statement doesn't exist in the article bother you? It should. It is starting to look like you are not a truthful person.