Posted on 01/14/2008 8:04:27 PM PST by forkinsocket
Maybe we can defeat our enemies in a brisk game of tiddlywinks. Would that be what you regard as “conservative?” Was Patton a liberal? Was Neville Chamberlain a conservative or a CINO? How about the paleosurrendermonkeys and Al Qaeda mouthpieces against America in time of war? Are they conservative??? I read your editorial. I await what you may regard as facts.
tpanther: Gee, I have heard that John F’n Kerry served in Vietnam. The only question was in which cause. Actually, we know that too, he served the cause that the paleotreasonweasels would have served enthusiastically. Call it the Abbie Hoffman/paleomoonbat axis. Note how anxious the paleos are to mindlessly grant the assumption that modern liberals or modern paleos are capable of being patriots or of being men in any sense in spite of their total lack of spines or chins.
I tried to interview Saddam Hussein the other day as to whether we have won any wars since WWII but he was not available. It is true that we have not fought nearly as often as we should have and our politicians have no nerve or staying power.
Half a century before the Spanish American War, we intervened and invaded Mexico. Lincoln (the same guy who perpetrated the invasion of the Southland and our bloodiest war to date) had a cow as a one-term Congressman, sniffling and wailing against the war effort in Mexico blubbering "this chamber stands knee deep in blood." During Vietnam, Senator McGoo (Commiecrat-SD) repeated Lincoln's speech without attribution on the Senate floor. So as to the history of American interventionism, you need re-education camp.
As to the fifty years of future presence in South Korea (if it takes that long), the beauty part is that the paleos also get to pay the taxes for exercises in patriotism, rage though they may against them.
No, because since they are declaraed by the Congress, they represent the commitment of the people to winning.
In any war, the will to win is crucial.
I tried to interview Saddam Hussein the other day as to whether we have won any wars since WWII but he was not available.
I did not realize the war was fought to kill Saddam.
We could have done that in 91, but when the armed engagement ended Bush Sr. suddenly realized that Saddam was not Hitler incarnate after all, due to the pressure of our Arab 'allies' and left him in power to continue to murder more people.
He even let him have some heliocopters to spread the poison gas with.
Ofcourse, the Bush admininstration believed that those heliocopters were only going to be used for medical reasons!
It is true that we have not fought nearly as often as we should have and our politicians have no nerve or staying power.
Why should they, with apologists such as yourself who think they do not have to follow the Constitition when they send our troops in harms way for a prolonged time.
Half a century before the Spanish American War, we intervened and invaded Mexico. Lincoln (the same guy who perpetrated the invasion of the Southland and our bloodiest war to date) had a cow as a one-term Congressman, sniffling and wailing against the war effort in Mexico blubbering "this chamber stands knee deep in blood." During Vietnam, Senator McGoo (Commiecrat-SD) repeated Lincoln's speech without attribution on the Senate floor. So as to the history of American interventionism, you need re-education camp.
No, that wasn't a foreign intervention, since we were involved in an U.S. issue, not trying to overturn the Mexican government.
Fighting a foreign nation doesn't rate as interventionism.
Trying to create an empire by overturning other nations governments does.
As for Lincoln, he was, as were the rest of the Whigs, suspious of the motives of the Democrats who had an agenda to conquer the SouthWest to be used as slave states.
How many men died in Vietnam for nothing!
So, the only one who has to stop his blabbering is you and it is you who needs to get some education on when the United States became an imperial nation, and that was in the Spanish American War.
As to the fifty years of future presence in South Korea (if it takes that long), the beauty part is that the paleos also get to pay the taxes for exercises in patriotism, rage though they may against them.
No, the evil of it is that the United States will be drained and become bankrupt and your children and grandchildren will pay the bill with a lower standard of living.
The Koreans will thank you though.
George Washington thought in terms of principles that were good for any nation at anytime.
But it would make sense that you would even reject his sage advice using the excuse of changing times.
That is the same excuse that the liberals use to reject the Constitution as our guiding document and say it is a 'living one' that is, it must 'change with the times'.
No more need for that 'archaic' 2nd Amendment!
Oh, that's right, he wasn't caught flatfooted when a million Chinese came across the border!
He then ran to Truman and wanted him to nuke the Yalu!
But as Gen. Bradly stated, Korea was the wrong war, at the wrong time with the wrong enemy, so we were not going to start WWW3 there.
The fact is the Soviet conventional military would have overwhelmed ours and that is why we had plans to use tactual nukes.
As for Iran, no one has said that there may have been immediate needs to stop Soviet expansion, but those decisions did have long range consequences (blow back).
There is no such need today, except to create a new world order based on Wilsonian principles.
Your posts just get more ridiculous, and you are just wasting my time with your excessive, useless, verbage
What bothers me is their living in freedom off of me.
We kept them free and now they should be paying their own way.
S. Korea can afford to defend itself and the only reason U.S. land troops are there is as 'trip-wire' so when they are killed the U.S. would have to commit to defend S.Korea-again.
My grasp of history as a major in that subject got me a magna cum laude added to my BA. If you can say the same, you must have graduated from Patrice Lumumba University or some such place or, like TPanther noted, yours would also be reflective of the gummint edjumakashun ignorance factories known as gummint skewels.
That is the second time you have mentioned your educational qualifications to me in recent posts.
First, you must have never taken any writing courses, because your posts are nothing more then blabbering regurgitation's of your opinions.
Second, I think my M.A. in history outranks your B.A.
Yeah, and if you point out the obvious to the hypocrats they scream: “Are you questioning my patriotism”?
And the Ru Pauly’s scream: “DOCTOR Paul is for defense”!
I guess we’re just supposed to ignore the treasonous comments and calling our troops stupid, and the fact that a real defense of the U.S. includes not fighting our enemies on American soil and the blame America tripe for all the world’s ills.
Well that and smoking crack might help us understand.
It’s refreshing to see someone that actually GOT an education!
Personally I like William Tecumseh Sherman’s: “War is cruel and the crueler it is the quicker it’s over”.
Embellished a bit but you get the gist! ;)
Paul was perfectly content to stock his campaign war chest with money from conspiracy nutcases, anti-semites and racists by putting out newsletter and fundraising appeals in his name appealing to their demented beliefs. He’s a disgrace to the party and unfit to hold any public office, let alone the presidency.
A very rational post!
And you claim to be educated!
By the way, how did your guy Thompson do in Michigan?
He came in behind Ron Paul!
The way it is going, it is more likely your guy is going to drop out before mine will!
LOL!
If that’s the case then you should be pushing to reinstitute the draft so we can get our military adequately staffed and put bases in every country in the world.
>>>>Well why not in every HOME then? I think 3 of every 4 people in the U.S. should be forced to serve!
Happy?
As I said, it would be peachy if the U.N. did it’s job, it would be wonderful if helpless people had a group with the guts to confront evils and help them.
No one said we should fight every single battle, but it makes no sense to confront the evils of the world when they’ve grown so strong the only option is to fight them on U.S. soil.
There’s just no reasoning with the Ru Paul cult.
How did the world ever get along without America on the world stage for all those centuries?
>>>>>Actually the world was a darker place, and now more so than any other time in world history, slavery is down, genocide is down...
So, you’re saying the world isn’t a better place with U.S. intervention?
Thomas Jefferson was a pretend patriot? Who knew?
Nothing wrong with that.
But ignoring they exist at all as Ru Paul would have us do is insane.
Yet another opportunity for your education:
They called it WORLD war 2 because essentially the WHOLE world was involved.
We fought Hitler in Europe, Africa and at least 3 oceans. We didn’t have to fight him in North America only because the Brits held on and they had resources spread out in places just like North Africa.
It’s really not that hard. Just say no to the cult kool-aid!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.