The “Apology” Obama Should Have Given Afghani President Karzai

by lewwaters

This young lady speaks well and sees clearly that we are all Americans.

66 Responses to “The “Apology” Obama Should Have Given Afghani President Karzai”

  1. Boy, she sure hit the nail on the head. Hat’s off to the young lady!

    Like

  2. You go girl, this needs to hit Drudge, no one else would have the guts to allow it.

    Like

  3. KEEP OUT OF FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS!

    Like

  4. How about keeping them out of America, Martin?

    Like

  5. We are NOT the World’s policeman. Spreading democracy is NOT our destiny. We do NOT know how other cultures should live.

    America’s best interests can be served from 30,000 ft. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

    Like

  6. 1. Defending those who desire freedom is not “Policing the World.” Ask some of the Vietnamese refugees in our community, specifically any that were Boat People if they thought we were “Policing the world.”

    2. No, you don’t spread democracy, you give people support to be free if they choose. I can imagine many from Rwanda would have like a little “Policing” from the West.

    3. We don’t tell other cultures “how to live.” We give them assistance in cleaner water, better food and better medicine. Those that would keep their people in slavery to the master are the problem.

    4. Bombing from 30,000 feet is not only expensive monetarily, it doesn’t discriminate on who is being killed or maimed. That is why no matter what is used, that Infantry squad still must go in the finish the job and get what is missed from 30,000 feet.

    5. Currently, we are whimpering and cutting our stick in pieces. So much for Teddy Roosevelt today. He advocated a strong military, far different than what today’s Democrats want, who every time they gain power, do what they can to weaken our Military and abandon our allies.

    Like

  7. Lew, with modern drone technology we’re no longer limited to 30.000 feet, we can now be effective at 100 feet. And with the new crop of microdrones we’ll soon be effective at 3 feet. That is one area where i favor increasing our military expeditures.
    Meanwhile as the lady’s video so accurately points out, there is absolutely nothing in the Afghanistan $#!7hole that is worth losing one more of our best and brightest young people. And the idea that this collection of illiterate savages with AK47s and Korans are a serious threat to our shores is laughable.

    Like

  8. 9/11 wasn’t “laughable”, Tom. All it takes is a few suicidal “savages”.

    Like

  9. Hey Tom, since you all oppose an income tax or taxation at all for that matter, how do you propose covering the $4.5 million to $10 million cost for each? What do you propose for whatever the drones miss? Or, collateral damage?

    As for Afghanistan, no, there’s nothing for us there, other than denying the Taliban and Al Qaeda a place to train to attack us again.

    The biggest mistake being made again, we want to rely on modern technology while they go low tech and slip in under our radar.

    I might also ask how you can speak of Ron Paul and Afghanistan when Ron Paul voted against Florida Republican Congressman John Mica amendment to H.R.1540, requiring “that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions?”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/77_of_democrats_and_ron_paul_voted_against_rules_of_engagement_that_protect_our_troops.html

    Like

  10. I guess some people didn’t learn anything from Vietnam, Lew.

    Like

  11. I don’t oppose all income taxes Lew, just those that get spent on stupid or unconstitutional stuff.
    As to the legislation you cite:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:7:./temp/~c1126L0ErM:e82491:
    it appears to have well over 30 separate provisions and hundreds of pages of text. How do you know which of those RP opposed? “Bill Stuffing” is common.
    As to relying on modern technology, I think that’s exactly the right thing to do in fighting todays asymetric threats. The problem we sometimes run into is not caused by relying on modern technology, but rather by fighting the last war(s) rather than this one.

    Like

  12. Btw, Breitbart has a link to this video on his website.

    Like

  13. I oppose income taxes because they are nothing more than “Socialist engineering”. There is absolutely no reason that one American should have to pay a greater percentage of his income in taxes than any other American. All Americans are equal, therefore all Americans should pay the same tax.

    Period.

    Like

  14. How do you manage to separate income taxes, Tom?

    As for the legislation, did you miss where I said it was the amendment put forth by Florida’s John Mica? That should narrow it down a bit, don’t you think? But here it is, it said;

    H.AMDT.318 (A018)
    Amends: H.R.1540
    Sponsor: Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] (offered 5/25/2011)

    AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
    Amendment requires that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.

    AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
    An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:18:./temp/~bdbfSr::

    The Roll Call vote shows Ron Paul clearly voting with the Democrats in trying to deny our Troops having Rules of Engagement that allow them to proactively defend themselves in hostile actions.

    If you want to stop another 9/11, it is going to take boots on the ground intelligence over there to see what they are planning. If they don’t use cell phones or the internet and rely on couriers instead, how do you propose picking up what they are doing?

    That’s no fighting the last war, it’s fighting this one. Trip a circuit breaker and we go blind. They light a candle and attack.

    Like

  15. Jack, 9/11 was carried out by rather well-educated Saudi islamo-maniacs, not Afghanis. I do think that Saudi Arabia is potentially a real threat to the security of the US, which Is why Ifreally question the wisdom of this sort of thing:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?pagewanted=all
    http://middleeast.about.com/od/saudiarabia/a/saudi-arabia-military-aid.htm

    Like

  16. Lew, doing a quick Google I can’t determine why RP voted against .AMDT.318 (A018). If that is in fact what happened, and in the absence of any explanation, I can only say that isn’t the way I would have voted. I don’t pretend to agree with all of RPs positions.

    Like

  17. Tom, care to say what went on in Vietnam between April 1975 to Clinton’s efforts to normalize trade with them?

    http://www.boatpeople.org/a_true_story.htm

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/30/fall-of-saigon-revisited/

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080629224134/http://www.ndqsa.com/myth.html

    http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts

    http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/dickeymf/_Years_after_Fall_of_Saigon,_75_Million_Murdered.shtml

    http://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When_we_knew_what_happened_in_Vietnam.htm

    http://www.pbs.org/vietnampassage/City/city.after.html

    The last one I will give you was written by a young Vietnamese woman, married to a much older pilot I served with. She was born after the fall of Saigon and grew up in the “benevolence” of the communists.

    http://rightinaleftworld.blogspot.com/2008/07/do-you-really-want-to-rear-your-child.html

    Ron Paul chooses to ignore that. He would just let people the world over, when they cry out for help, fall to their fate.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me. Martin Niemöller

    Like

  18. Puhleeze, Tom, “if he voted against it?”

    I gave you the link to bill with a link to the roll call vote to see for yourself.

    Like

  19. Tom, that most of the 9/11 terrorists were born in Saudi Arabia means nothing, didn’t then and doesn’t now.

    That is like saying if a Black Gang murders some whites, then all Blacks are to fault.

    Bin Laden had already been stripped of Saudi citizenship. Al Qaeda is not a governmental organization.

    Like

  20. Tom, the obvious lesson of Vietnam is “don’t tie the hands of our troops”. If we’re going to fight a war, then get in it to WIN. Piss on “political correctness” and “Kumbaya”.

    Like

  21. Tom, keeping the “savages” from having any “training grounds” is a noble purpose. We need to stamp them out whenever and where ever they pop up.

    Like

  22. Jack I agree with your last two posts completly. The second goal, in my opinion, can be accomplished in large part by remote UAVs using current technology.
    http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=37072
    Now will they be 100% as good as boots on the ground? Probably not. But good enough works for me.

    Like

  23. Lew your links regarding Vietnam refer to the horrible things that happened after we left – not what would have happened had we never paticipated in the first place. Seems to me that we always get into trouble, when we try to “win” someone else’s civil war. Mainly because, in a civil war setting, we aren’t allowed to pull out all the stops to gain a relatively quick victory.

    Of course it’s impossible to really know what would have happened, but there is no doubt the NV were really bad actors, and that the SV were really corrupt. I do resonate to your comments regarding calls for help. The problem I have is my sense that much of the impetus for our participation had less to do with calls for help, than with Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and their advisors like Kissinger, Rusk and McNamara’s interest in actualizing their geopolitical theories. Reasonable men can disagree, of course.

    From Wikipedia:

    1955 — North Vietnam launches an ‘anti-landlord’ campaign, during which counter-revolutionaries are imprisoned or killed. The numbers killed or imprisoned are disputed, with historian Stanley Karnow estimating about 6,000 while others (see the book “Fire in the Lake”) estimate only 800. R.J. Rummel puts the figure as high as 200,000.[2]

    June 1961 — Kennedy said, “Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place” to James Reston of The New York Times (immediately after meeting Khrushchev in Vienna).

    May 8, 1963 — Buddhists demonstrate in Huế, South Vietnam after the display of religious flags were prohibited, during the celebration of Vesak, Gautama Buddha’s birthday; but, Catholic flags celebrating the consecration of Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, brother of Ngo Dinh Diem were not prohibited. The police of Ngô Đình Cẩn, Diem’s younger brother, open fire, killing nine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War

    Like

  24. Tom, a partial history that leaves out much of what Vietnam was about. No, the leaders weren’t perfect, but the people were not enslaved as they became under the communist. Millions wouldn’t have just disappeared, either under the South Vietnamese. They were suffering growing pins that were completely denied and people subjected to tyranny once we abandoned them.

    It was never a civil war, but outright communist aggression from the start.

    Gia Long’s successors, however, distrusted the French and, more specifically, their Christianity and, by 1820, they were expelling French missionaries and imprisoning or exe¬cuting Vietnamese converts to Christianity. The French re¬sponded militarily and, with Napoleon III on the French throne, set about establishing French colonial rule. This French intervention superseded domestic, north-versus¬-south politics for over 100 years, commencing in 1847. Although Vietnam was occupied by the Japanese in World War II, the French quickly reestablished control at the end of the war. The Communist Viet Minh forces, which had fought against the Japanese, now turned their attention to the French.

    Weapons captured by the Communist Chinese in Korea began to flow to the Viet Minh in the early 1950s. The French and their Vietnamese allies fought a seesaw battle with the Viet Minh forces. In France itself, the French Communist Party was a major political force committed to the support of the Viet Minh. America, concerned about the Soviet threat to Europe and keen to have a strong, non-Communist France, increasingly financed the French effort but stayed out of di¬rect involvement.

    The French eventually tired of the struggle, disheartened by their defeat-in the battle of Dien Bien Phu, which took place deep in the north of the country. A cease-fire was signed in Geneva in 1954, establishing the 17th parallel, that same narrow stretch of Coastal plain where the Nguyens had built their defensive walls and pre¬viously fought the north¬erners, as the border separating the southern Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) and the northern Democratic Re¬public of Vietnam (North Vietnam). Elections were scheduled to be held in two years.

    While the French had tired of the struggle and no longer backed the fight, the Communists, too, had suffered massively in their battles. Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs make it clear that the Com¬munist troops were at the point of exhaustion and needed the cease-fire in order to regroup and rebuild. Even their own official history, written in 1970, makes reference to the fact that the Communists were not then strong enough to seize the whole of Vietnam.

    Ho Chi Minh’s government was installed in North Vietnam, while the government of one-time emperor (1925-1945) Bao Dai was installed in South Vietnam. While it is often said that Ho Chi Minh could have won an election in 1954, when South Vietnam was in chaos and he was riding a crest of pop¬ularity from having ousted the French, the situation changed quickly. Within a few weeks, 850,000 people fled from North Vietnam to South Vietnam, most of them Catholics and small landowners fearful of the Communists. Only some 80,000 people went to the North, almost all of them guerrilla cadres who had fought the French.

    The actual effect of this massive population shift was never tested at the polls. The elections were not held. South Vietnam, which had not signed the Geneva Accords, did not believe the Communists in North Vietnam would allow a fair election. In January 1957, the International Control Commission (ICC), comprising observers from India, Poland, and Canada, agreed with this perception, reporting that nei¬ther South nor North Vietnam had honored the armistice agreement. With the French gone, a return to the traditional power struggle between north and south had begun again. At the 15th Meeting of the Party’s Central Committee in May of 1959, North Vietnam formally decided to take up arms against the government of South Vietnam.

    The war against South Vietnam was fought by the Hanoi¬ backed, southern-born Viet Cong as well as directly by the North Vietnamese Army itself. The goals of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam were parallel but not identical. The Viet Cong sought to achieve power in South Vietnam; the North Vietnamese sought to annex the South and “unify” Vietnam. Viet Cong Minister of Justice Truong Nhu Tang summed up the Southern viewpoint by saying that historically “. . . there were substantial economic, social, and cultural distinctions between North and South (let alone the ethnic minority regions) that argue for a regional rather than a centralized ap¬proach to unity.” But North Vietnam, despite its protestations at the time, sought to have both North and South Vietnam ruled under the North Vietnamese flag. The two forces’ “marriage of convenience” would last only briefly; but, while it did, they would mount savage attacks on South Vietnam.

    Unlike the French previously, the United States in the 1960s did not seek colonies or an empire. Rather, the United States was committed to backing any nation that opposed Communism. The Korean War was still fresh in American memories and only an uneasy truce had stopped the fighting there. Soviet tanks had crushed the Hungarian revolution only five years before and now sat poised to launch an attack against western Europe. Tensions in Europe were at their peak. Within months these tensions would result in building the Berlin Wall dividing Communist East from democratic West. With this backdrop of global military confrontation between the superpowers, President John F. Kennedy viewed the situation in South Vietnam with increasing concern as spring turned to summer in 1961.

    Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973, page 3 to 7, Mark W. Woodruff.

    Ask the Hmong and Montagnards whether or not we should never have gotten involved.

    This is a bit lengthy, but will give you a good look at the intent of the Communists back in the 1950’s and on: http://www.vietfederation.ca/30-4-00/TonThatThien.htm

    Contrary to what the anti-war left convinced many, Vietnam was a just war and a necessary war to stop the spread of communism. Had we not gone there, even though our hands were tied behind our backs, they would have been enslaved under communism much sooner, most likely back in the 1950’s. Ron Paul would allow people wanting only to be free to languish, while enemies trying to enslave them received support and armament from the communist Soviets (at the tie) and Chinese.

    “As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, “our most significant success.”

    ===============

    “The KGB campaign to assault the U.S. and Europe by means of disinformation was more than just a few Cold War dirty tricks. The whole foreign policy of the Soviet-bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world Communism.”

    http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

    Ion Mihai Pacepa was acting chief of Romania’s espionage service and national-security adviser to the country’s president. He is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc.

    Ron Paul still believes in some of that old Soviet disinformation and speaks it.

    Here too is a 1964 booklet (38 pages)addressing communist aggression then in Vietnam http://ia600505.us.archive.org/34/items/CommunistAggressionAgainstTheRepublicOfViet-nam/carv3_text.pdf

    Like

  25. Beautiful … Simply beautiful. Thank you saying/posting this.

    Like

  26. Lew, what if the Leftists in this country “asked for help” from a foreign military power to help America become Socialist because they believed that was best? After all, our nation doesn’t supply healthcare to everybody and some people want to force women to have babies they don’t want.

    IT ISN’T UP TO THEM! We’ll solve our own problems – or not. Same with the rest of the world. The hubris required to think we know best, and we’re just doing a holy favor for poor people who ask us is ridiculously condescending.

    Like

  27. Unfortunately, Martin, your analogy falls flat, considering that in order for America to gain independence from Britain we relied on help from Spain, France and the Netherlands, just to mention a few.

    If we were a struggling third world country being attacked by elements supported, trained and armed by a nefarious super power, like China or the Soviet Union did with Vietnam, would you tell those willing to help defend our freedoms to screw off, we’ll take care of ourselves?

    I find defending people’s freedom and liberty to be a tad more than just “ridiculously condescending.”

    Fortunately for us, so did France, Spain and the Netherlands.

    Like

  28. Lew somewhat off-topic but as an interesting historical side-note, between around 1780 and 1812, the French launched an all-out assault on American commercial shipping and sank hundreds of American merchant vessels, leading to substantial loss of American life and property. Why? Because we tried to stay neutral in the hostilities between France and GB. French assistance during the revolutionary war turned out to be a double-edged sword.

    Like

  29. Lew, China WON in Vietnam! It didn’t make a hill of beans worth of difference to us or anyone else.

    Most of the World finds liberty appalling. They can’t believe that a nation would make an individual’s rights superior of the needs of the group. Why do you insist on spreading what our single nation believes in as if it’s a religion?

    p.s. Remember, I’m a liberty junkie, but I know what it’s weaknesses are too. Most of the World isn’t willing to make the sacrifice.

    Like

  30. Tom, did it not dawn on you that you are describing a non-interventionist policy as causing the war that shortly broke out?

    Besides that, a huge difference is that America does not war against those we have helped and who decide to oppose us later, just because we feel they owe us.

    As Colin Powell said, “So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don’t think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.”

    “We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.”

    Or, the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”
    =========
    “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.”

    Like

  31. Martin it’s pretty clear from Lew’s links that it made a hill of beans and a lot more difference to the South Vietnamese. However the larger point is correct – the Domino Theory was proven to be fallacious, and the loss in Vietnam didn’t end up mattering much to the rest of the world.

    Like

  32. Martin, maybe it didn’t make a “hill of beans” to you and the Democrats, who held congressional power and voted to abandon Vietnam, reneging on our agreement to entice (read force) South Vietnam into accepting Kissinger’s Paris Peace Accords, but I can bet you it amounted to more than a “hill of beans” to millions of innocent South Vietnamese and Cambodians as well as untold hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese “Boat People,” many who perished in rickety boats floating in the South China Sea or under went unspeakable horrors in refugee camps.

    It also amounts to much more than a “hill of beans” to me as I personally knew at least 13 from my unit whose names appear on the wall in D.C. and a few more I went to school with.

    I totally disagree others find liberty appalling. Maybe a few who wish to enslave others and they succeed by keeping strong nations from interceding on behalf of liberty seekers.

    If most of the rest of the world was not willing to make the sacrifice, we would have absolutely no allies from Muslims who joined us in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Thanks to bleeding hearts and very vocal anti-war morons, backed by a highly supportive lamestream media, others who want freedom know that America will not stand with them and will leave them floundering, just as we did to Vietnam.

    Dark forces of Jihad and Communism are winning because people like you falsely believe we are trying to force others to be free.

    If you really feel as you say, why do you not oppose elections? Why not just knuckle under to tyrants and dictators and be what our founding fathers fled?

    Like

  33. Lew the reason we chose the neutral policy was because G. Washington felt (correctly I think) that we were in no position to challenge the Brits at that time. Now with the strongest military in the world by orders of magnitude, we no longer have that concern. And I want us to continue to have the strongest military in the world. I just have a different philosophy than you do on how, when, and where to engage it.

    Like

  34. Sorry Tom, but the “Domino Theory” was proven true: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19750608&id=I7QsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lQoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4924,1458059

    “The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America’s commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism.” From a speech by General William C. Westmoreland before the Third Annual Reunion of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association (VHPA) at the Washington, DC Hilton Hotel on July 5th, 1986 (reproduced in a Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Historical Reference Directory Volume 2A)

    How quickly people have forgotten Cambodia and Laos falling to Communism, North Korea kicking up her heels, Thailand teetering then and the fighting in Indonesia by Communist and today radical Jihadists.

    Like

  35. I would think after over 20 years of increasing terrorist attacks upon our interests, twice within our own borders, it would dawn on people that rolling over and going back to sleep wa not working.

    Nov. 4, 1979 – Iran Hostage Crisis, After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release Jan. 20, 1981.

    April 1983 – A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.

    October 1983 – A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.

    June 1985 – A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.

    August 1985 – A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.

    October 1985 – Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.

    November 1985 – Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.

    December 1985 – Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.

    April 1986 – An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.

    Dec. 21, 1988 – A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.

    February 26, 1993 – A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York’s World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

    Nov. 13, 1995 – A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The “Tigers of the Gulf,” “Islamist Movement for Change,” and “Fighting Advocates of God” claim responsibility.

    June 25, 1996 – A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

    June 21, 1998 – Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

    Aug. 7, 1998 – Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

    Oct. 12, 2000 – A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

    September 11, 2001 – Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.

    America Needs to Wake Up

    And, before you come back with the expected, ‘they attack us because we are over there” meme, you need to consider why the same Jihdists attack those who oppose our policies or going into the middle east. They aren’t “over there” and they too have been attacked.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1933229/posts

    Like

  36. Lew, it’s interesting that I can look at Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq as proof of my position, and you can look at the same data and come to the conclusion that we should have sent more troops, spent more money, been more involved!?

    I look at Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, & Bosnia as successful – and you see them as failures!?

    It’s actually stunning.

    Like

  37. Martin, how can you say “Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, & Bosnia are successful” and the people are being oppressed as never before?

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/02/christian-persecution-continues-amid-egypt-turmoil/

    http://www.persecution.org/2012/02/11/arab-spring%E2%80%99-becoming-nightmare-for-christians/

    http://www.persecution.org/2012/02/08/middle-east-christians-keep-wary-eye-on-arab-spring/

    Do you believe supporting those that attacked us on September 11, 2001 is a success?

    And, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq are failures? Maybe after we tie the hands of our troops again or as we leave a vacuum the Jihadists swiftly step in.

    http://www.wbur.org/npr/145954251/suicide-blast-kills-32-in-baghdad

    “After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows……would run in defeat.” Osama bin Laden, Esquire December 1998

    http://www.meforum.org/article/435

    By restricting our Troops in prosecuting the wars, they are lengthened and cost a great deal more lives. A fact few ever looked at, there were only some 14,00 or so American deaths when the ill-fated Tet 0f 68 offensive happened, where the Viet Cong was destroyed and the NVA so defeated it would take 4 years to regain strength, with the full support of the Soviet Union and China.

    Changing tactics to target Americans with more of a harassment over heads-up battles, 5 years later there was over 58,000 American dead. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

    Colonel Bui Tin, former Communist North Vietnamese officer who accepted the surrender of Saigon and since defected to France, disillusioned with the communist takeover said in an August 1995 interview said of the Tet offensive, “Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.”

    He also said, “We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.”

    Appearing in the October 2005 issue of Vietnam Magazine, North Vietnamese General Nguyen Duc Huy was asked, “After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive were so devastating that if the Americans had kept up that level of military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?”

    He replied, “If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don’t know. Maybe. I can’t say what would have happened.”

    Democrats who continue to restrict our Troops and weaken our Military did not learn a damned thing from Vietnam. They wish to repeat it, it seems.

    Like

  38. And that, is the “lesson of Vietnam”. One of them, anyway.

    Like

  39. C-SPAN: What did you think the impact of the press was?

    McNAMARA: “Well, I think two things. Number one, this was the first war — and people don’t understand this to this day — the first war in which the press acted without censorship, and I think that was good.

    The second point is that many people today — and I’ve heard it expressed within the last week or so — believe that, well, it was the press that lost the war, that if they’d just kept their mouth shut, the people wouldn’t have turned away from it and we’d have had the American people behind it and we could have won. That is totally wrong.

    We were fighting — and we didn’t realize it — a civil war. Now, true, obviously there were Soviet and Chinese influence and support and no question that the communists were trying to control South Vietnam, but it was basically a civil war.

    And one of the things we should learn is you can’t fight and win a civil war with outside troops, and particularly not when the political structure in a country is dissolved. So it wasn’t the press that was the problem. The problem was that we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics.”

    Like

  40. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48974/douglas-brinkley/the-stain-of-vietnam-robert-mcnamara-redemption-denied

    Now you don’t have to agree with Robeert McNamara – but you can’t deny that he cetainly has the credentials.

    Like

  41. Puhleeze, Tom, Robert Strange McNamara, one of Johnson’s lefthand henchmen who played a major role in escalating Vietnam? Only to come out later and say it was all wrong? Surely you are not that desperate?

    If he really had those doubts, why did he wait almost 40 years to speak them?

    As Secretary of Defense, he was the primary war manager for both Kennedy and Johnson. He was the freakin architect of that war and towards the end of his life, he recants all that he did, basically laying it all on us? He was a Kennedy “whiz Kid” who came to Secretary of Defense from Ford Motor Company.

    If you want to rely on McNamara, you may as well quote Walter Cronkite or Hanoi Jane.

    Vietnam was no more a civil war than was Korea. The only difference was the communists had not devised the plan they used in Vietnam in 1950.

    If McNamara ever really believed we “were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics,” then why in the hell did he send us there to fight with his tactics?

    The anti-war left fails to think about that as they embrace his appeasing of them.

    Like

  42. So Lew you’re saying that someone either has to realize they were wrong in real-time, or they can’t possibly have been wrong at all? What rational basis is there for tha belieft, or is it just that RM’s point-of-view is inconvenient to you?

    Like

  43. Lew you can’t seriously just hand-wave away, the major architect of the Vietnam war strategy’s late-life opinion – you lose much of your credibiity by so doing.

    Like

  44. Tom, how do you not see the phoniness of his book?

    He is who escalated the war and he devised the tactics. Good lord, man, he was the Secretary of Defense during that war, until Nixon came in!

    If he truly felt as he wrote later, why did he stay in office and prosecute it as he did? Why did he not resign in protest?

    What the hell kind of person escalates a war to over 250,000 Military men and then ties their hands, only to come back later and say we never should have been there?

    May 1962 – Defense Secretary McNamara visits South Vietnam and reports “we are winning the war.”

    March 6, 1964 – Defense Secretary McNamara visits South Vietnam and states that Gen. Khanh “has our admiration, our respect and our complete support…” and adds that, “We’ll stay for as long as it takes. We shall provide whatever help is required to win the battle against the Communist insurgents.”

    Following his visit, McNamara advises President Johnson to increase military aid to shore up the sagging South Vietnamese army. McNamara and other Johnson policy makers now become focused on the need to prevent a Communist victory in South Vietnam, believing it would damage the credibility of the U.S. globally. The war in Vietnam thus becomes a test of U.S. resolve in fighting Communism with America’s prestige and President Johnson’s reputation on the line.

    August 5, 1964 – Opinion polls indicate 85 percent of Americans support President Johnson’s bombing decision. Numerous newspaper editorials also come out in support of the President.

    Johnson’s aides, including Defense Secretary McNamara, now lobby Congress to pass a White House resolution that will give the President a free hand in Vietnam.

    August 6, 1964 – During a meeting in the Senate, McNamara is confronted by Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon who had been tipped off by someone in the Pentagon that the Maddox had in fact been involved in the South Vietnamese commando raids against North Vietnam and thus was not the victim of an “unprovoked” attack. McNamara responds that the U.S. Navy “…played absolutely no part in, was not associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese actions, if there were any…”

    December 1, 1964 – At the White House, President Johnson’s top aides, including Secretary of State Dean Rusk, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and Defense Secretary McNamara, recommend a policy of gradual escalation of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.

    January 27, 1965 – Johnson aides, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, send a memo to the President stating that America’s limited military involvement in Vietnam is not succeeding, and that the U.S. has reached a ‘fork in the road’ in Vietnam and must either soon escalate or withdraw.

    April 20, 1965 – In Honolulu, Johnson’s top aides, including McNamara, Gen. Westmoreland, Gen. Wheeler, William Bundy, and Ambassador Taylor, meet and agree to recommend to the President sending another 40,000 combat soldiers to Vietnam.

    November 30, 1965 – After visiting Vietnam, Defense Secretary McNamara privately warns that American casualty rates of up to 1000 dead per month could be expected.

    December 7, 1965 – Defense Secretary McNamara tells President Johnson that the North Vietnamese apparently “believe that the war will be a long one, that time is their ally, and that their staying power is superior to ours.”

    February 1966 – The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. J. William Fulbright, holds televised hearings examining America’s policy in Vietnam. Appearing before the committee, Defense Secretary McNamara states that U.S. objectives in Vietnam are “not to destroy or overthrow the Communist government of North Vietnam. They are limited to the destruction of the insurrection and aggression directed by North Vietnamese against the political institutions of South Vietnam.”

    May 2, 1966 – Secretary of Defense McNamara privately reports the North Vietnamese are infiltrating 4500 men per month into the South.

    November 7, 1966 – Defense Secretary McNamara is confronted by student protesters during a visit to Harvard University.

    August 9, 1967 – The Senate Armed Services Committee begins closed-door hearings concerning the influence of civilian advisors on military planning. During the hearings, Defense Secretary McNamara testifies that the extensive and costly U.S. bombing campaign in Vietnam is failing to impact North Vietnam’s war making ability in South Vietnam and that nothing short of “the virtual annihilation of North Vietnam and its people” through bombing would ever succeed.

    http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html

    And now I am supposed to accept his words that he felt it was wrong all along?

    Like

  45. How can you claim I lose credibility and assign credibility to that puke McNamara?

    I know you want to support Ron Paul’s anti-war leftist views, but relying on Robert Strange McNamara’s book leaves you looking totally desperate.

    How do you hand-wave away the words of former Communist North Vietnamese officers in favor of McNamara’s late life book?

    http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm

    If anything i to be learned from McNamara, it is that we should never trust Liberals to prosecute a war. They are not only clueless on how to do it, they will stab us in the back after they fail.

    Like

  46. “What the hell kind of person escalates a war to over 250,000 Military men and then ties their hands, only to come back later and say we never should have been there?”

    A man who screwed up then and realized it later?

    Like

  47. For another perspective on RM, which may explain his idea that it was appropriate to fight a war of attrition – which I thought was a terrible idea even back then:

    Robert McNamara was the head of the Ford vehicle division and was one of the earliest proponents of safety in automobiles. Bob believed that Ford had a responsibility to its customers in 1955 that was years ahead of its time. Ralph Nader would not take up this battle until 1965. He put seatbelts in his cars and advertised safety features, which ostracized him from the Detroit community that didn’t want to scare its customers. 17

    He was named President of Ford Motor Company in November 1960, just as JFK was elected. A few weeks later, he would leave the position to serve as the Secretary of Defense for JFK and later Lyndon Johnson.

    When he first met JFK to discuss the Secretary appointment, he asked the President-elect only one question: “Did you write Profiles in Courage?” The book had impressed McNamara. It adeptly dealt with the conflict between principles and expediency but Bob had heard rumors that it was ghost-written and wanted to make sure he was working for an honest man. JFK was surprised by the question but answered in the affirmative. 18

    As a side note, Jack did write the book. The idea for it came to him when, as an early term senator, he was stuck in bed recovering from an outbreak of one of his many health problems. He recalled Eleanor Roosevelt’s quote about how polio had strengthened her husband’s resolve and gave him courage and strength that he didn’t have when he was healthy. Still, he relied on the research and drafts of a number of assistants, who he acknowledges debts to on the book’s first page. Today, we might ascribe the title “editor” or “lead author” to his role. 18a

    What went wrong with Vietnam? McNamara has since stated that he knew by 1965 that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable militarily. 19 This was an impressive insight at such an early date; the numbers and analyses had served him well. The problem was that he believed that by simply treading water in Vietnam – ie neither winning nor losing the war – we were preventing the fall of all of southeast Asia to communism. He believed that once the dominos started to fall in Asia, the Soviet Union could move their missiles and influence closer and closer to Europe and the US, thus risking a much larger nuclear war. However, as he realized twenty years later, Southeast Asia didn’t want to fall to the communists. In Vietnam we were caught in a nationalistic civil war; we were not defending the world against a larger war.

    McNamara never questioned the assumption of the domino theory. He never asked, “Do we know that Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, and even Australia would fall to the communists if Vietnam does?” He likely didn’t rigorously question the assumption because it could not be answered quantitatively: to answer it meant to understand and empathize with the leaders and people of that area of the world. Had he insisted on answering it, the entire argument for our involvement in Vietnam after 1965 would have fallen apart.

    His focus on “kill ratios” (which was one American or Vietnamese soldier for every 2.6 Viet Cong or North Vietnamese killed) and “People flows” abstracted the war into simple numbers that defied the true story. 20

    In McNamara’s defense, the 1960s was a very complex and precarious time. He claims that very few people appreciate how close we came to nuclear war with the Soviet Union, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The wonderful documentary Fog of War captures his thoughts, memories, and lessons learned from his time at Ford and during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Further, it is not the Secretary of Defense’s role to determine who we are at war with and when to withdraw or deploy troops; it is the Commander-in-Chief’s. McNamara states that he believes, had Kennedy lived, JFK would have pulled our troops from Vietnam and accepted whatever losses were then incurred because the cost of the war was too great and the plausible outcomes of our involvement versus withdrawal would likely have been similar. Lyndon Baines Johnson, on the other hand, with his eye on being elected [for the first time] for a second term in 1964, wanted least of all to be the first American president to give up on, or lose, a war. At the time, the Joint Chiefs acquiesed to political pressure, though luckily there is evidence that they would be less likely to do so today. 21

    President Lyndon Johnson fired McNamara in 1968, offering him the Presidency of the World Bank. McNamara never spoke out against the Vietnam War until the late 1980s when he admitted to be wrong in his assumptions; he has been heavily criticized for not publicly denouncing the war earlier when it may have helped to bring an earlier end to it.

    Like

  48. That’s not his claim. He claims to have known it was wrong and flawed all along.

    He would have done better to apologize to Vietnam Veterans families of the 58,000 on the Wall for tying our hands and restricting where and how we would fight it.

    As for his comments on the press, in October 2000, General Frederick C. Weyand, Vietnam Veteran and Chairman of he Joints Chiefs of Staff from 1974 to 1976 relayed to those listening,

    “After Tet, General Westmoreland sent Walter Cronkite out to interview me. I was in Command of the Forces in the South around Saigon and below and I was proud of what we’d done. We had done a good job there. So, Walter came down and he spent about an hour and a half interviewing me. And when we got done, he said, “well you’ve got a fine story. But I’m not going to use any of it because I’ve been up to Hue. I’ve seen the thousands of bodies up there in mass graves and I’m determined to do all in my power to bring this war to an end as soon as possible.”

    It didn’t seem to matter that those thousands of bodies were of South Vietnamese citizens who had been killed by the Hanoi soldiers and Walter wasn’t alone in this because I think many in the media mirrored his view….”

    “When I was in Paris at the Peace Talks, it was the most frustrating assignment I think I ever had. Sitting in that conference, week after week listening to the Hanoi negotiators, Le Duc Tho and his friends lecture us. Reading from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Herald Tribune, the Atlanta Constitution, NBC, CBS, you name it. Their message was always the same. “Hey, read your newspapers, listen to your TV. The American people want you out of Vietnam. Now, why don’t you just go ahead and get out?” So finally a Peace Agreement was signed that everyone knew would be violated and with no recourse or hope of enforcement on our part.”

    Vietnam protesters fall silent By Quynh Dao

    A Lament for Vietnam By DOAN VAN TOAI

    Like

  49. McNamara, you, Ron Paul or anybody else can do whatever they please to try and clean the blood off of McNamara’s hands, but it won’t work.

    It wasn’t called “McNamara’s War” for no reason.

    If he were still alive, he could take his late life regret and shove it up his ass.

    Like

  50. I have absolutely no interest in “cleaning the blood off RM’s hands,” and neither, I suspect, does Ron Paul. My interest in RM is limited to his perspective on (a) the Domino Theory and (b) the winability of someone else’s civil war (I know you don’t think it was one, but he apparently did). Right or wrong, he was a key player and his opinions on these matters are as weighty as anyone else who was in government at that time.

    Like

  51. Tom, you do yourself a huge disservice calling Vietnam a “civil war.” Anybody who still believes that bit of Communist propaganda is a fool.

    He was much more than a “key player,” he was the architect of the damned war!

    His pitiful effort to cleanse his conscience is pure bullshit. An even today, wars we get involved in are being led and prosecuted in the same half assed way as beheading of our people is excused while we feign outrage of pissing on dead Taliban.

    McNamara was nothing but a Berkeley, Harvard liberal who waited 30 years to write he was a total dumbass who didn’t know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground about Vietnam, but was intrusted to prosecute it by 2 Democrat presidents.

    What he wrote 30 years later means nothing. It’s just another liberal feel good memoir trying to assuage his conscience over all of the death he caused.

    I’m curious though, why do you give him so much credibility and ignore the words of the Vietnamese who defeated South Vietnam?

    Are you trying to give merit to Ron Paul by ignoring what the victors say?

    By the way, a little known fact, just before he quit, LBJ was wondering out loud to others if he was wound too tight and might end up committing suicide.

    Just what we needed, a mental case running the Defense Department and the war.

    Like

  52. Lew I didn’t say that Vietnam was a civil war, I said the RM said so. I also said that I don’t think we as a country do well when we get involved in other countries civil wars because they end up being unwinnable. My belief is that we should not wage war without a declaration of war as is called for by the US constitution. Furthermore, I do not beleive we should send troops into situations that have a high likelihood of dragging out endlessly either for military or political reasons, and with the possible exception of rapid-strike in-and-out operations, any involvement should exhaust every possible non-troop action ranging from cyberwar to countermeasures to drone and UAV attacks to bunker bombs and tactical nukes before any troops whatever are committed.

    Like

  53. Ron Paul said it was a civil war, Tom.

    It would be great to have declarations of war, if we were fighting a nation. We weren’t there to conquer North Vietnam any more than we tried to conquer North Korea. Likewise in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    However, each had congressional approval to engage in Military operations. Please explain what different wording on a piece of paper would have done.

    The only reason our wars are drug out is we tie the hands of our Troops and limit how they may fight it. Our enemies have no such restrictions.

    I’m surprised that you do not realize all of our aircraft, Naval power, artillery pieces, bombs what ever we have is there for nothing more than softening the beachhead for our Army Infantry and Marines to go in and seize the objective.

    War is not a video game, Tom.

    “At the Third National Congress of the Lao Dong (Communist) Party in Hanoi, September 1960, North Vietnam’s belligerency was made explicit. Ho Chi Minh stated, ‘The North is becoming more and more consolidated and transformed into a firm base for the struggle for national reunification.’ At the same congress it was announced that the party’s new task was ‘to liberate the South from the atrocious rule of the U.S. imperialists and their henchmen.’ In brief, Hanoi was about to embark upon a program of wholesale violations of the Geneva agreements in order to wrest control of South Vietnam from its legitimate government.
    “To the communists, ‘liberation’ meant sabotage, terror, and assassination: attacks on innocent hamlets and villages and the coldblooded murder of thousands of schoolteachers, health workers, and local officials who had the misfortune to oppose the communist version of ‘liberation.’ In 1960 and 1961 almost 3,000 South Vietnamese civilians in and out of government were assassinated and another 2,500 were kidnaped. The communists even assassinated the colonel who served as liaison officer to the International Control Commission.
    “This aggression against South Vietnam was a major communist effort, meticulously planned and controlled, and relentlessly pursued by the government in Hanoi. In 1961 the Republic of Vietnam, unable to contain the menace by itself, appealed to the United States to honor its unilateral declaration of 1954. President Kennedy responded promptly and affirmatively by sending to that country additional American advisers, arms, and aid.

    “United States Policy in Vietnam,” by Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, 26 March 1964, Department of State Bulletin, 13 April 1964, p. 562

    Tell me again why I should trust anything he wrote in 1995, especially his claim of it being a “civil war” or we never should have gone.

    Like

  54. “The only reason our wars are drug out is we tie the hands of our Troops and limit how they may fight it. Our enemies have no such restrictions.”

    Yes that’s true Lew, but I don’t see that changing. Our troops will always be sent in with one hand tied behind their backs and, increasingly, with everyone second-guessing their every move. And since that IS THE REALITY we have to act accordingly.

    “I’m surprised that you do not realize all of our aircraft, Naval power, artillery pieces, bombs what ever we have is there for nothing more than softening the beachhead for our Army Infantry and Marines to go in and seize the objective.”

    Well I do realize that’s the way it used to be. But that has been rapidly changing, and within the next few years I believe you’re going to see a whole new generation of remote warfare techology allowing us to take even more highly targeted actions where necessary without putting our troops in harms way. Heck, a lot of the development work happening right up the river from us in White Salmon. Can’t happen soon enough for me – I want our troops home to return to civilian life and help build up the economy with their highly developed technical skills, and be available to guard the borders against incursions by armed gangs of mexican drug thugs etc.

    “However, each had congressional approval to engage in Military operations. Please explain what different wording on a piece of paper would have done.”

    The wording on a piece of paper would have shown that Congress was actually taking their responsibility seriously. Their half-assed attitude about this stuff is what lets Obama think he can get way with e.g. Libya without anyone calling him on it.

    Like

  55. Unfortunately, Tom, our enemies in the Middle East succeed against us with their low tech approaches.

    I agree we need high tech weaponry as well, but we cannot ignore the low tech those people use very effectively.

    I also believe we will see more “remote warfare technology” on our side that may have some success against an enemy also using remote warfare technology.

    It might even have limited success elsewhere, as long as someone doesn’t blow a circuit breaker or an enemy doesn’t succeed in cutting our power supply.

    War, as bloody and horrendous as it is, remains its own best deterrent. He more we try to clean it up and try to make it more humane, the more likely we are to have them, I believe. They just become too easy for politicians to say engage.

    Like

  56. My goodness, guys, this is why we should…

    KEEP OUT OF FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS!

    Like

  57. As I said before, Martin, I’m sure glad France, Spain and the Netherlands did not “keep out of foreign entanglements.”

    I take it too you would not honor mutual defense treaties and have no qualms watching as millions of innocent people were being slaughtered as they cried out for help?

    We tried that “keep out of foreign entanglements” before.

    We got World War Two and the Holocaust for our effort.

    Like

  58. When you listen to fortunetellers & soothsayers you give them power over you. NO ONE can tell the future. It’s pure hubris to predict the “domino theory” or “preventing terrorism” or any of the other scenerios that are constantly being promoted by those who want power. We end up arguing who has the best crystal ball.

    “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is simple and effective, and it has less chance of unforeseen side-effects.

    Like

  59. Now all we gotta do is get someone in the White House that has the balls to carry a “big stick” and use the damned thing.

    Like

  60. Martin, it isn’t fortune telling to foresee that a formidable force as the Soviet Union and Communist China had and how they were spreading their influence and conquering lands (although they labeled it liberating) was in effect. It doesn’t take a rock scientist to realize without aid or assistance, smaller third world countries would fall to communism, or as you say you despise, Marxism.

    If you saw an attractive young woman, petite as she is, grabbed by a larger male and dragged towards an alley, would you just walk by, assuming she’ll be okay? Would it take a crystal ball to guess what is happening?

    I too believe in walk softly but carry a big stick. Unfortunately, those in your party believe in whimper and break the stick in two because ours is too big.

    Like

  61. Here’s a further example of what happens when Congress sends a mixed, half-assed message regarding war powers and the need to follow the constitution:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/11133-obama-adm-will-seek-qinternational-permissionq-for-going-to-war

    Like

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: