Chinese / Russian Joint Statement on the "New World Order"

I'm all for that! We won the war in Iraq in 21 days, defeated their army and sacked their capital. So what are we still doing there? I agree with you, let's get out as soon as possible!

Clinton did the smart thing in Somalia, Ronald Reagan did the same smart thing in Lebanon, and Bush 41 did the same right thing in Kuwait. We withdrew and didn't try to occupy the place because we didn't need it and it wasn't worth American lives and treasure. The people hated us and kill our soldiers who were there to help them in the first place. If that's the way they want it then just leave the bloody mess to them! We didn't lose any of those wars, we quit them because there was nothing to gain and only American lives and treasure to lose.

OK, this is the question nobody will answer for me here. What exactly constitutes victory in Iraq? Be specific. We've already won the war militarily. Now it is an occupation. We can't win and we can't lose--the generals even have said that. All we can do is hang around and take casualties for 8 years until even folks like you come around to the fact that is costs us much and gains us nothing to be there. The ragheads don't want democracy, they want us gone. And we want to be gone, too. So tell me what exactly becomes "victory" in your eyes? If you are waitng for a Jeffersonian democracy to break out we will never leave Iraq. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the arab world, including our "friends".

Yes, it was a mistake to go into Iraq, but it is a colossal blunder to stay there and take casualties and spend billions on islamic ragheads who hate us, just because Bush can't admit a mistake and correct it. Meanwhile Osama runs free.

That just ain't the way it happened, bud. How old are you anyway? Your lack of knowledge about Vietnam is really immense. You seem to get your facts from Hollywood. :lol:

Well, I listed the best respected histories of the Vietnam War in an earlier post, and they say different. Tell me of a Vietnam history that reaches your conclusion, just one. You can't because you are just dead wrong. Nixon extended the war for 6 years and we suffered 102,385 casualites on his watch including 15,315 KIA. A revisionist history is the one that teaches that "hippies" were responsible for the Vietnam debacle. Go ahead, list for us the "true" Vietnam histories that you advocate.

You have made well-crafted, legitimate points on several threads recently, craig, and I appreciate your passion for your beliefs. But you're off on a tangent this time.

 

Where is Osama hiding? Where do the top Al Qaida leaders live? Where does the Taliban operate openly? Who has burned an American embassy to the ground, killing a Marine? Who already possesses Islamic nuclear bombs? Who already possesses ballistic missiles capable of hiting US forces? Who is also responsible for selling nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea? What is the country most likely to undergo the next islamic revolution?

Pakistan.

 

I didn't say that. Bush sent us into Somalia, not Clinton. I said Clinton made the right decision not to try and occupy the place when we did not need it and the Somalis did not appreciate our help. It wasn't warlords who dragged American soldiers bodies in the street, it was Somalia civilians, including cheering children. You can love them if you want to. I say fugg 'em, leave 'em to their own devices. Reagan did the same damn thing in Lebanon, did you forget that?

In other words you can't back up your imagination with any documentation. I knew you couldn't.

Wrong again. We lost 30,844 men under Johnston. We lost the other 15,315 under Nixon.

I don't think you do. I don't think you've read anybody's history. You surely haven't cited any. I was around for Vietnam, too, and it just didn't happen that way.

Now you're raving. No one has mentioned Michael Moore here, surely not me. Oh, I see, having failed to back up your statements you are just trying to discredit me by linking me to someone I have never endorsed. :lol:

And because you disagree with my politics then I must be a socialist? Please . . . list for us anything socialist that I have said in this thread or any other. Can't do that either, huh?

McCarthyism
A general term for the phenomenon of mass pressure, harassment, or blacklisting used to pressure people to follow popular political beliefs. The act of making insufficiently supported accusations or engaging in unfair investigations against a person as an attempt to unfairly silence or discredit them.

 

Not exactly.

You asked me where to go to fight the terrorists. I said the terrorists are in Pakistan and gave you a list of other things about Pakistan that we should be wary about.

We should demand that Pakistan root out Al Qaida and Osama or allow us to go in and get them. Simple enough. I also think that money being wasted in Iraq could be spent on a vast covert effort to infiltrate, gather intelligence on terrorist cells internationally, and kill them if possible. We don't need any more Guantanamo prisoners. Better for all of us if the terrorist cells just started disappearing quietly from a huge investment in covert Special Forces action.

Do I think we should invade and take over Pakistan? Of course not, we don't need it and we don't want it. But I do think we should be ready for possible military confrontation with Pakistan. If the Musharrif government falls to islamic radicals that have nuclear weapons, we will surely have to do something about it, before al Qaida ends up with them. We need to be ready with all of our forces and not be tied down somewhere else.

And when we must act, we should do as you propose and I have advocated before. Go in with everything we've got, win quickly and leave the mess for the ragheads to sort out. We don't need to go around trying to occupy countries. It is costly and rarely succeeds as planned. We go in for a quick win, get what we want, and then leave.

I have never advocated "peace" and I'm not anti-war. I'm anti stupid war. I'm a supporter of a larger military, especially the navy, and I think it is vital that they are used properly in short, violent wars that benefit us as in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Panama, Kosovo, and Grenada. Not squandered in prolonged occupation of hostile lands that damage us, as in Vietnam and Iraq.

 

I didn't offer leftist websites, I offered two academic histories on the subject and a famous book by a highly decorated participant. I will be disappointed if you offer only right-wing websites for "evidence"

No, I agreed with you about Johnson. The politicians, Johnson and Nixon, were responsible for the debacle and both interferred with the military decisions in the field. Linebacker II was a Nixon decision. The Invasion of Cambodia was a Nixon decision.

What I asked for was evidence that "hippies" were responsible for the war. I think that is absurd. Opposition to Vietnam was almost universal and much broader a spectrum than that.

But opposition did not lose the war. America quit the war because it was unwinnable. If we had been winning, there would have been no opposition. But it eventually became clear to all that the politicians were just defending their failed policies.