Partisan political comment prompted by recent news events

[Joseph]

Netanyahu and his bunch were terrorists, and they knew the consequences of their actions if they were caught. Had the Geneva Convention existed at the time, it would have availed them

Netanyahu?

Oops. Sorry - I meant Menachem Begin. He was a terrorist. Hell, so were the Sons of Liberty, for that matter. Whether or not you agree with their methods, my point is they knew they faced the noose if caught. Now it seems the worse noose terrorists face is a dog collar - and then we punish the soldiers who use it.

Joseph

[Ira]

Approaching this like a high school debate is easy--especially since there are no moderators here to confirm the facts.

The joy of the Internet is that the facts are immediately available for confirmation or refutation.

No, they're only confirmed or refuted by the websites you wish to reference. You more than anyone should know that 90% of the information you find on the web is pure crap. Unless it confirms your view--then it's okay.

But this fact is undeniable--one that this dope of a president of ours

Digressing slightly, I love how Bush is such a dope, and Kerry is so smart. So how come according to the Boston Globe their GPAs at Yale for basically the same course of study were virtually identical? But back to the matter at hand...

Huh? You're quoting the Boston Globe? So am I allowed to quote OTHER things they publish?

Joseph, have you heard both of these guys speak? Am I living in a parallel universe, where I HAVEN'T heard Bush actually try to put words together to construct a gramatically correct sentence? Let alone a cohesive argument for anything? Let alone not sounding like he's preaching to the idiotic "unenlightened" who simply don't agree with him?

You lose on this one. As far as Commander in Chiefs go, he is the stupidest one, obviously, since George Washington. Who wasn't stupid--he was just the first. For God's sake, Bush can't even pronounce the names of 75% of the countries int he world without practicing them the night before.

has uttered time and time again prior to the Iraqi invasion:
"Iran, North Korea and Iraq represent the 'axis of evil' in this world."

"So what? Like they've had nice things to say about us at any time in history? The fact is, HE'S RIGHT when he said that! Now Hussein's Iraq is down and North Korea and Iran are on notice. Hell, even China is worried about North Korea.

So what you say? The most powerful nation in the world basically declares war on these countries, and you don't expect them to respond forcefully? And sorry to take this bone away from you--China is not at all that worred about North Korea. Just look at the resolution.

Gee, is it any WONDER what's happening in these countries now?

Oh - like if he'd have said they were a great bunch of fellas then everything would be just hunky-dory.

We went fishing for trouble, and we're going to get it. Basically, no one gives a crap about Iraq, North Korea or Iran--as long as they don't bother us. However, this Republican administration has twisted EVERYTHING to make everyone believe that we're doomed if we don't do soemthing. It's so much of the same, tired-old script of keeping people frightened, keep them in line, because only we REPUBLICANS can defend the American people from certain destruction. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence, and coming from THIS guy, Bush, it's as transparent as Lexan.

And why we have NO moral high ground to stand on?

Just like we had no moral high ground to attack Germany after we were attacked by Japan in WWII. Germany wasn't bothering us...

Wait--you HAVE to elaborate on this further, because this point is FASCINATING!!!

Germany is allied with Japan, Japan bombs us, and we're not supposed to attack Germany? PLEASE DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY NOW, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT MODERN WARFARE!!!

But what you propose about not fighting Germany has some historical justification:

We only interned Japanese-Americans in detention camps, not German-Americans. But do you think this had anything to do with wartime strategy? Or just ignorant racism?

For Christ's sake,

If you don't believe in Him, kindly abstain from using Him to back you up...

I'll abstain from evoking his name when the rest of the bullshit artists here who claim to believe in him stop evoking his name as well. At least I'm honest about it--whereas so many others are simply scared that they're going to hell if they DON'T believe in this nonsense fairly tale story.

this shmuck has FLAMED the hostilities where we didn't need them flamed. Yet he expects the leaders of these countries to listen and obey him?

Hardly. I don't think President Reagan expected the Soviet Union to "listen and obey him" when he called them the "evil empire" either. It's called "putting your enemies on notice."

But Presidents Reagan and Bush are not the first to put our enemies on notice. "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union." President John F. Kennedy, October 22, 1962.

Why in the HELL don't we have balls like that anymore?! We spend all our time worrying about how we might be offending our enemies! No wonder they think we're such fools...

Balls? Is this what this is all about?

Heck, now that North Korea has a nuke, we're gonna soon learn A LOT about balls. We are NOT the masters of the globe any longer, and unless we want to end up like Rome, we better understand that.

While the majority of Americans AGREE that he's a worthless putz?

Actually, the worthless putz was his predecessor. The fact is, Bush ran twice on platforms that spelled out exactly what he was going to try to accomplish instead of trying to hide his agenda like the last gentleman he ran against. And both times when elected he set about at least trying to do exactly what he promised. Our problem is, we expect this to be like TV or the movies - over and done in an episode or maybe at worst at the end of a mini-series. Life ain't like that, and President Bush has never said otherwise.
Sorry--even the majority of Republicans thinks Bush is a putz, and you just can't escape that fact. Just like us Democrats knew that Carter was innefectual. Facts are facts.

We're doomed.

Only if we give up.

No, only if we don't wise up. And staring the facts straight in the face without being influenced by the bullcrap propaganda coming from this adminstration will save us.

If some want to die in this ridiculous war in Iraq, where there has been NO connection established to 9/11 at all--go and have a ball.

But please leave my kids and my friends' kids out of it. It's total bullshit.

[Ira]

Oh--and as far as Begin goes, he wasn't a terrorist:

Great Britain had no real claim to Palestine, and they never claimed to have one.

They were an occupying power--kind of the same reason WE'RE getting our asses kicked in Iraq.

Will ANYONE look at history and learn from it? Or is it just us Americans who are so stupid?

[sdtripper2]

I have spent some time trying to figure out about Binyamin Netanyahu and
haven't found any real tie to terrorism ...

opps Joseph replied back... and said
Manachem Begin and not Binyamin Netanyahu .... good cause I wasn't finding nota to validate that view~

I would let the rational person decide if these two men fit the profile of
terrorists.

Leaders of Israel = Arab Palestinian leaders in attitude:
(Here in the USA our media and politicians usually paint
the Palestinian leaders as the bad leaders)

Two supposed examples below of terrorists who have ruled Israel:

Manachem Begin (Prime Minister 21 Jun 1977 – 10 Oct 1983)
http://tinyurl.com/ekrhh
http://tinyurl.com/hl7b7
(British wanted poster Manachem Begain Terrorist )
http://tinyurl.com/fwgvy

Ariel Sharon (Prime Minister 7 Mar 2001 – 14 April 2006)
http://tinyurl.com/qvzz

[Ira]

Steve, according to my understanding, here's the short answer, based on history and current events:

You can't be a terrorist if you're an elected representative of a recognized state taking actions on behalf of that state, whether seemingly justifed or not.

And you ARE a terrorist if you target civilians in any recognized state and you're not wearing a uniform.

That's it. It's not too complicated.

Except we came up with this definition ourselves because it suits our interests.

However, Sharon is off the hook because he was Prime Minister during atrocities that occurred under his watch; Begin is off the hook because he targeted MILITARY personnel before the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably the King David Hotel, and the U.K. was an occupying power in Palestine at the time, with no true right to be so.

[sdtripper2]

Ira & Anyone following this thread:

Imperialist actions have carved uP maps of the world and through brute
force have claim of land throughout history British rule did in fact have
Palestine and through back door agreements with Zionist leaders seek to
take lands that belonged to the Palestinian people for a thousand years
and give it to people who owned it a thousand years before so to speak.
From the onset of these back door agreements out of the light of day did
the owners of this land protest. The Palestinians were not listened to and
their land was basically given to others who in a Zionist religions fever
would do anything to have the Palestinian lands. The Zionist leaders of the
day did in fact do terrorist activities towards Britain when it was perceived
that Britain was even thinking of backing out on the deal to give the land
to the Zionist interests. (See The Biltmore Program below for a perspective)



History seen through another perspective:

Time line starting from 1917 with Imperialist British rule in Palestine
http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_timeline.htm

The Balfour declaration
November 2,1917
http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

The Biltmore Program
May 11, 1942
http://tinyurl.com/flso7

[Ira]

Palestine and through back door agreements with Zionist leaders seek to
take lands that belonged to the Palestinian people for a thousand years
and give it to people who owned it a thousand years before so to speak.

Can you tell me when THIS happened? That the British GAVE land to the Jews?

This is an intriguing viewpoint for me to hear.

When the U.K. pulled out around the time of the U.N. mandate, thousands of Jews were slaughtered by the Arabs. And BEFORE they pulled out, before 1948 and before we won the war in Europe, the British wouldn't allow a single Jew into the area for fear of alienating their Arab "allies."

Please see the movie "Exodus," or better yet, read the true history of what happened on that ship, that sailing, or read the death lists of all of the people whom the British sent back to Nazi Germany for inevitable admission to the concentration camps.

We're talking about hundreds of families, with hundreds of children, and the British basically said, "Drop dead and go back to Germany! Your plight is a problem for us, and we want nothing to do with you! You're hurting us politically!"

This is what happened.

The U.K. as a government was no friend to the Jewish people or to the creation of the state of Israel. But on their behalf, neither was the U.S.

However, hundreds and hundreds of British military personnel, not mostly Jewish, totally defied orders and ferried THOUSANDS of Jews from Eastern Europe to Palestine once they occupied those countries. And they did it because they felt it was the right thing to do, despite their government's orders.

So they pretty much washed the stain clean, and there are now thousands upon thousands of those descendants who owe their heritages to those British soldiers.

Yep--fact is a lot more interesting than fiction.

[sdtripper2]

Ira:

Following your logic, you give a free pass to men that did things in a time
frame that falls out of your predisposed limits.

Steve, according to my understanding, here's the short answer, based on history and current events:

You can't be a terrorist if you're an elected representative of a recognized
state taking actions on behalf of that state, whether seemingly justified or not.


And you ARE a terrorist if you target civilians in any recognized state and you're not wearing a uniform.

That's it. It's not too complicated.

I am saying I guess that people have to rationally examine the goings on
over there. Why has this tit for tat blood feud gone on and on for so long?

I am saying there are two sides to this story. That is it ~
Why should these men as leaders of the state of Israel who while wearing
uniform or not did in fact kill many civilians and in effect do ethnic
cleansing get off free of criticism.

I am sure that the blame is on both sides of this fence. We here in the USA
tend to hear a one note sound with our media and Government firmly in
the pocket of the Jewish lobby. But for those families that have lost people
and their land on the other side our press seems almost mute or not to
care as much for that point of view.

Cleansing has gone on over there ... most any thinking person can
look at the history and even our media points to those events.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
http://tinyurl.com/ffmya
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h123002.html
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h011303.html

[Ira]

Steve, I'll leave you with this, because I'm starving and I have to eat:

Palestinians had, have and will ALWAYS have full rights as Israeli citizens, and anyone who denies this claim just doesn't know what they're talking about.

I can't give you numbers, but there are untold numbers of Palestinians who have lived fruitfully and in peace FOREVER within the Israeli state.

However, the mere EXISTENCE of a Jewish state is unacceptable to so many that the problems have continued and highly escalated.

Heck, we're talking about the PLO here.

I mean, come on-- to kill Isreali athletes at the Munich Olympics? Could anyone come up with a justification for this animal behavior?

[sdtripper2]

Ira:

You are firing back fast and furious... and da Tripper is having a time getting
my posts to match your furry.... so bear with me please.


Your question:

Can you tell me when THIS happened? That the British
GAVE land to the Jews?

Please note these back door Imperialist dealings and then back slides that
Britain had a hand in. The Jews were intent on getting their homeland that
just happened to lay where for 1000 years someone else had hung their hat.
When the British intoned that they were dragging their feet on this deal,
well, Manachem Beginn and others came out to say hi ... in a typical
terrorist way of prodding. Note: The hotel bombing Andrew mentions many posts back.

Ira: Please read these two items to get where I am coming historically:

The Balfour declaration
November 2,1917
http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

The Biltmore Program
May 11, 1942
http://tinyurl.com/flso7

The Haganah was started to enforce Jewish interests and against British interests.
http://tinyurl.com/fx4ok

[Joseph]

Ira, I'll answer your long post later.

Oh--and as far as Begin goes, he wasn't a terrorist:
Great Britain had no real claim to Palestine, and they never claimed to have one.
They were an occupying power--kind of the same reason WE'RE getting our asses kicked in Iraq.

We are NOT occupying Iraq, any more than we're occupying Saudi Arabia. We are assisting their new government get on its feet until they can fend for themselves. Hell, we did no less for Japan & Germany! And contrary to popular belief, we are not getting our asses kicked, any more than the Brits were from the IRA. Yes, there's a lot of sectarian violence that invariably makes the headlines, but that's predominently against Iraqis. US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, recently addressed the Senate. The whole thing is worth a read but he sums it up nicely, "In closing, I want to emphasize that despite the present difficult situation, a path exists to success in Iraq. Moreover, the success of Iraq is critical to the evolution of the Middle East. Most of the world’s security problems emanate from the region from Morocco to Pakistan, and shaping its evolution has become the defining challenge of our time. The struggle for the future of Iraq is vital to the future of the world. If Iraqis work together against terrorism and sectarianism, and if Americans and other friends of Iraq support them, we will succeed."

Will ANYONE look at history and learn from it? Or is it just us Americans who are so stupid?

At no time in history has appeasement ever led to peace.

Steve, according to my understanding, here's the short answer, based on history and current events:
You can't be a terrorist if you're an elected representative of a recognized state taking actions on behalf of that state, whether seemingly justifed or not.

Except at the time, Israel was not a state, recognized or otherwise.

And you ARE a terrorist if you target civilians in any recognized state and you're not wearing a uniform.
That's it. It's not too complicated.

Pretty good, but I'd say if you're not part of a recognized state and targeting anyone, miltary or civilian, you're a terrorist. Terrorism is defined as using violence to effect a political outcome. Which is why I lumped the Sons of Liberty into that category - revolutionaries are basically terrorists. Why do you think the French Revolution was called "The Reign of Terror?"

Except we came up with this definition ourselves because it suits our interests.

OK, now you lost me. When you say "this definition" are you referring to yours? You haven't mentioned any other definition.

Joseph

[Elumia]

so, given the definition of a terrorism as noted, our country was founded on those basic principals as a means of dealing with an unjust regime?

Mark

[angib]

Assorted thoughts (well, OK, half an essay) on this subject, with no particular political aim - that is allowed here, right? Please add in your mind "I think..." to the front of every sentence - I don't know the answers, I just think I do.

You can't fight a war against terrorism - that's just a slogan. If you want to use military force, you need to give the military an identifiable target and terrorists don't present one. It makes as much sense as shooting clouds. You could attack the civilian population that contains the terrorists, but that tends to make things worse not better. It also makes part of you think that you're as morally bad as them, whether you're called a terrorist or not.

You can send in the military to be a passive target and in the process hope to show that you're 'fighting terrorism'. It's difficult to see what this achieves, though I guess you could say at least you don't look as though you've given in or run away.

Resisting terrorism is just that, resisting. It's a passive, patient, almost unendurable effort consisting only of pain and with no discernible gain. The way it's done has to not contradict your own principles, whatever the temptation, otherwise you sap your (collective) will to resist by losing the moral upper hand.

Combatting terrorists requires intelligence - I don't mean being bright, I mean finding out who they are and what they're going to do before they do it and stopping them. Infiltration is the main way to do this, which takes a long time, and of course is unimaginably dangerous work. Offering money looks like it might work, but I don't think it often does.

But modern terrorists have learnt from the past and they organise themselves in isolated cells, so that you have to infiltrate every cell to succeed. This isn't really a practical proposition.

Terrorists are loonies, psychopaths, etc. However they are always the tip of a much bigger iceberg - a whole or part of a population with the same grievances or objectives, who won't pick up a gun or a bomb to get what they want, but who also won't give the terrorists away.

This much larger group do not feel that they have any way of getting what they feel they're entitled to (power, peace, respect, land, freedom, whatever), so although they may not approve of terrorist methods, they do think they're the only people looking out for them.

All disputes like this have historic supporters elsewhere, so finding money to buy weapons isn't a problem. Never assume this does not include you or me - somebody in my town and your town is willing to support some terrorist group, or their just-politically-acceptable ally, in some fight somewhere (else) in the world.

The only way to defeat terrorism is to engage this civilian population in political dialogue and to try to reach a compromise that they can accept (no side ever gets all they want). Only then will they withdraw their support for the terrorists. Both sides will have to give the other something before they get anything in return - that's just how it always seems to work out.

The representatives of the civilian population are likely to be the brothers and sisters of the terrorists. Negociating with them will be unacceptable..... until the terrorism has gone on long enough and cost enough lives that the other side values an end to bloodshed more than they value their pride.

If you think any of this is a veiled reference to current events, it's not. It's entirely written about the 30-year terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. Most of what's above is written about the things my country did wrong - this is not an exercise in showing-off! You are welcome to say "Ah, that's different, that was morally acceptable terrorism to right a genuine wrong" and I will say "That's what all terrorist supporters say". Also, it's quite likely I'll agree.

And the good news? This week, 10 years from the start of the process, the international monitoring body has decided that the main terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland has definitively given up its methods of violence and its 'military' hardware - it has become a peaceful organisation committed to achieving its ambitions by democratic means. Please note the timescales involved.

Andrew

[Ira]

I'll get back to Joseph's most recent post tomorrow from the office.

I'm not avoiding it--but my wife may indeed bless me with nuptual relations in a few minutes, and that's more important to me right now than solving the world's problems.

Because I want to solve MY special problem right now instead of the world's.

However, I mentioned something above which is so elementary, so obvious, so widely accepted by everyone from every party, that it baffles the imagination how time and time again, it is totally ignored:

"Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to relive it." (Okay, I paraphrased here, but I wouldn't be the first.)

For the Yurps, do you know that a LOT of people here in the states still believe that we could have WON the Vietnam War? In other words, if we dropped the nukes, even though that meant killing everyone we were purportedly there to save from communism, we would have triumphed in the conflict?

Isn't that a brilliant way to look at it? And isn't it brilliant how a majority of people here still think we could have won that war? Although we got our asses kicked fair and square? The way the mighty Russian army got their asses kicked by the Taliban in Afghanistan? The way the U.S. is getting its ass kicked in Afghanistan AND Iraq?

Hey, it's great to think that we live in the most powerful country in the world, able to meet any challenge by sheer determination and military might, but those days are long, long gone.

Heck, we can't even help our own people from a disastrous hurricane.

I guess that's just not a Republican priorty.

[Joseph]

No, they're only confirmed or refuted by the websites you wish to reference. You more than anyone should know that 90% of the information you find on the web is pure crap. Unless it confirms your view--then it's okay.

No, the facts are out there for those with the intellectual honesty to look for them. So much so that outfits like the Encyclopedia Britannica are pretty much abandoning print media and converting to an on-line service. When I cite a source, it’s usually a hard credible source, not somebody’s blog.

Huh? You're quoting the Boston Globe? So am I allowed to quote OTHER things they publish?

I figured if I quoted it from the Washington Times you might not buy it. But if even the Globe admits Kerry wasn’t any brighter than Bush, then I’d say that pretty much seals it.

Joseph, have you heard both of these guys speak? Am I living in a parallel universe, where I HAVEN'T heard Bush actually try to put words together to construct a gramatically correct sentence? Let alone a cohesive argument for anything? Let alone not sounding like he's preaching to the idiotic "unenlightened" who simply don't agree with him?

That last bit sounds a lot more like Kerry. In fact, it sounds like every member of the leadership of the Democrat Party talking to us poor unenlightened Red-State, NASCAR watching, pickup driving, redneck rubes who didn’t know what’s good for us and vote for Kerry. As for making a cohesive argument, I’ll bet I can take one of Clinton’s speeches making the case for attacking Iraq and post it side by side with one of Bush’s and you couldn’t tell me which was which.

You lose on this one. As far as Commander in Chiefs go, he is the stupidest one, obviously, since George Washington. Who wasn't stupid--he was just the first. For God's sake, Bush can't even pronounce the names of 75% of the countries int he world without practicing them the night before.

I’ll readily admit that he’s not the easiest person in the world to listen to, but that doesn’t does not equate to stupid. Sorry, you don’t win this one either.

So what you say? The most powerful nation in the world basically declares war on these countries, and you don't expect them to respond forcefully? And sorry to take this bone away from you--China is not at all that worred about North Korea.

I beg to differ. North Korea has screwed things up royally for the Chinese. Check this out from the Taipei Times.

Just look at the resolution.

The UN resolution? You’ve got to be kidding me. If we learned nothing else from Iraq it’s that the UN is a joke and their resolutions not worth the paper they’re printed on. The Republicans made such a fuss about John Bolton’s appointment, like he was going to be able to accomplish something. Frankly, I thought it was much more appropriate when Shirley Temple was our UN Ambassador. I say we should appoint the Dixie Chicks!

We went fishing for trouble, and we're going to get it. Basically, no one gives a crap about Iraq, North Korea or Iran--as long as they don't bother us. However, this Republican administration has twisted EVERYTHING to make everyone believe that we're doomed if we don't do soemthing.

You saw 9-11. You saw the blown-up trains in Spain. You saw the results of the bombs in London. What the hell does it take to convince you that these guys mean to bring down the entire Western world and will stop at nothing to do so? Do you really believe there is no threat from these people?

It's so much of the same, tired-old script of keeping people frightened, keep them in line, because only we REPUBLICANS can defend the American people from certain destruction. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence, and coming from THIS guy, Bush, it's as transparent as Lexan.

So when it came from Clinton and Kerry, it was OK? Sheesh…

Wait--you HAVE to elaborate on this further, because this point is FASCINATING!!!
Germany is allied with Japan, Japan bombs us, and we're not supposed to attack Germany?

Basically all the middle east is allied when dealing with the west. Iraq was the biggest immediate threat. What part of the sixteen UN resolutions that Hussein was thumbing his nose at didn’t you get?

PLEASE DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY NOW, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT MODERN WARFARE!!!

I’ve already retired from the Navy. I think I understand it from the inside a bit better than you.

But what you propose about not fighting Germany has some historical justification:
We only interned Japanese-Americans in detention camps, not German-Americans. But do you think this had anything to do with wartime strategy? Or just ignorant racism?

I have no doubt it was ignorant racism – Japanese are a lot easier to identify on the street than Germans. Although during WWI, Eddie Rickenbacher changed the spelling of his last name to Rickenbacker so it would look less German.

I'll abstain from evoking his name when the rest of the bullshit artists here who claim to believe in him stop evoking his name as well. At least I'm honest about it—

No, they’re the ones being honest – invoking a God in whom you don’t believe isn’t honest – it’s hypocritical.

whereas so many others are simply scared that they're going to hell if they DON'T believe in this nonsense fairly tale story.

Well, that’s their right, isn’t it? Just as it’s yours to not believe it?

Balls? Is this what this is all about?
Heck, now that North Korea has a nuke, we're gonna soon learn A LOT about balls. We are NOT the masters of the globe any longer, and unless we want to end up like Rome, we better understand that.

On that we agree. We are headed down the exact same path as Rome unless we figure out some way to bring these barbarians to heel – which essentially means find them and kill them. And you can bet your ass North Korea will give nuclear technology to Iran who will in turn give it to Al Qaeda and any other terrorist group it can find. When a US city goes up, THEN will you believe?

No, only if we don't wise up. And staring the facts straight in the face without being influenced by the bullcrap propaganda coming from this adminstration will save us.
If some want to die in this ridiculous war in Iraq, where there has been NO connection established to 9/11 at all--go and have a ball.

No connection? Were it not for 9/11, we woudn’t BE in Iraq. Prior to 9/11, we were reactive. Afterwards, we became proactive, and about damn time if it’s not already too late.

But please leave my kids and my friends' kids out of it. It's total bullshit.

Fine, stick your head back in the sand. But understand that these people will give you and your kids a simple choice. Convert to their brand of Islam or die. These are not “live and let live” folks.

I'll get back to Joseph's most recent post tomorrow from the office.
I'm not avoiding it--but my wife may indeed bless me with nuptual relations in a few minutes, and that's more important to me right now than solving the world's problems.

TMI, TMI!!!

For the Yurps, do you know that a LOT of people here in the states still believe that we could have WON the Vietnam War?

Actually, after the Tet Offensive, we HAD won. The VC were on the ropes but the media focused solely on our casualties, which were significant. Hence, the public reaction effectively reversed the effect. Thank you, Walter Cronkite.

In other words, if we dropped the nukes, even though that meant killing everyone we were purportedly there to save from communism, we would have triumphed in the conflict?

I don’t recall any serious consideration about using nukes that didn’t take place on a barstool..

Isn't that a brilliant way to look at it? And isn't it brilliant how a majority of people here still think we could have won that war? Although we got our asses kicked fair and square? The way the mighty Russian army got their asses kicked by the Taliban in Afghanistan? The way the U.S. is getting its ass kicked in Afghanistan AND Iraq?

You’ve really got to stop listening to your own propaganda.

Hey, it's great to think that we live in the most powerful country in the world, able to meet any challenge by sheer determination and military might, but those days are long, long gone.

I sincerely doubt it, but time alone will tell.

Heck, we can't even help our own people from a disastrous hurricane.

Well it’s not for lack of throwing money at the problem. What’s the latest figure, $110 billion in Federal aid? And God (the one I believe in) only knows how much in charitable donations – something around 5 billion?

I guess that's just not a Republican priorty.

We’ve already had that argument. As I recall, MadJack won.

Joseph