Posted on 05/20/2007 6:19:09 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
Yeah, you’re in a bad place, especially if he’s behind you.
Sullivan thinks Moslem terrorists should enjoy the rights under our constitution that tax-paying US citizens enjoy. Who let him in, by the way?
What “deep involvement” are you claiming? Is sponsoring the Shah’s coup against Mossadegh “deep involvement”?
The joint effort with Stalin to occupy Iran that you mention was an Anglo-Soviet affair, and Eisenhower was an American last time anyone checked. Maybe no one “forgot” anything, you simply have a muddled idea of history.
Yes, but Eisenhower was the man who carried it out. The old “I was only following orders” line didn’t work for soldiers on the “other side”.
Not exactly. Both parties had subscribed to liberal internationalism since the days of Wilkie and Vandenberg, which means the early 40s. Robert Taft is often tagged as an isolationist, but in the 1952 primary he claimed Douglas McArthur for his running mate.
Eisenhower was picked to put an end to the liberal Truman administration's highly unpopular Korean War, and that's what Ike did. He wasn't as interventionist as the Democrats.
That sounds like you are being more than a messenger. As far as the reference to the Spaniards and Australians is concerned, they didn't have troops stationed on Saudi soil but they got hit anyway in Madrid and Bali.
Andrew Sullivan.....
I mean, who cares what this narcissistic faggie thinks?
Thank you Ron Paul for joining in with the demonrats as they continue to try and demoralize our dedicated military............
No doubt they let him in on the secrets, and most likely the planning.
Hardly. And I'd venture to say you're not very familiar with his career as SACEUR. Maybe you should try reading his Crusade in Europe as a start.
Eisenhower was in operational command of the American and British armies in Europe. He didn't set strategic goals, which were decided upon by FDR, Stalin, and Churchill, and were forwarded to General Eisenhower by his immediate military superior, General Marshall.
In October 1944 Churchill met Stalin in Moscow and worked on the Percentages Agreement to decide postwar spheres of influence for the two countries. Now you may think they deferred to an American general who wasn't there and who worked for one of them, but I'd say it's unlikely.
FDR executed German spies who had arrived here via U-boat. In his day capital punishment of all sorts was carried out in less than a year.
The Japanese Americans suffered but they fared better than Americans who were drafted and killed in battle. Moreover the resettlement camps were instituted to provide a cover for the arrest of spies that were discovered via the Purple and MAGIC code intercepts. If only the spies were arrested then the Japanese would have been alerted to the fact we could read their codes.
And you dropped the bar of soap.
it was the naked pig pile of sweaty arab men he longed for.
“Eisenhower was picked to put an end to the liberal Truman administration’s highly unpopular Korean War, and that’s what Ike did. He wasn’t as interventionist as the Democrats.”
History in rewrite ...
Ike had interventions in iran, lebanon, gautemala, dominican republic, sent a few folks to Vietnam even. Using CIA enabled us to do most of these interventions on the cheap.
But we also had the massive American military stationed in Europe and the constant Cold War developments of weapons etc.
Alas, early success led to hubris and also led to the Bay of Pigs in 1960.
It’s a pity the CIA got so incompetent in the Clinton era and since that we cant pull that kind of stuff off anymore.
Ike did make *one* mistake of *non*-intervention and that was Hungary. had we helped hungary in 1956 when they attempted to throw off the USSR’s yoke, the cold war would have been about 40 years shorter.
Comparing Presidents in different times is a bit unfair.
I would suggest that Ike wouldnt have responded to 9/11 attacks the way Obama or Al Gore would have. When Ike decided to topple govts, he toppled govts.
Truman only got into the korea mess because he ‘lost’ China and his state dept didnt appreciate the real threat there from north Korea.
Ike got us out because the oppty for victory had been squandered in late 1950 anyway.
The Bay of Pigs occurred on JFKs watch and failed largely because he didn’t follow Ike’s plan. Eisenhower was going to employ airpower to protect the beachhead. Kennedy got cold feet and apparently didn’t want to risk linking the invasion back to the US, as if that were an issue. He canceled the air support and the invasion force was left vulnerable to Castro’s troops.
Hungary would have been very difficult to do anything about. Eisenhower knew supply lines and internal lines of support. The Soviets had them in spades in Hungary and we didn’t. We would have risked igniting a major war with the USSR on their field of advantage, at a time when we were trying to rebuild Germany, France, and Britain. Intervening in Hungary would have risked the loss of all of western Europe, hardly a good gamble on our part.
One of my father’s classmates at staff and command college had just returned from a year in Vietnam in 1956. We had military advisors there from the time the French left after Dien Bien Phu. But Eisenhower wasn’t one to be sending combat troops there. Korea still had most of their attention in Asia, they expected the North was capable of launching another war.
Iran and Guatemala removed leaders we thought were prone to communist subversion and installed regimes friendly to us. Lebanon had its first muslim rebellion and its Christian President asked Ike for help in putting it down. I don’t recall Ike in the Dominican Republic but I do recall LBJ intervening in one of their periodic crisis.
I'll have more enthusiasm for the war fighting wing then they start fighting the old fashioned way. Like when taking fire from a fortified position (house, office, mosck) call in artillery and take the damn building out. But as long as they make criminals out of Marines and soldiers DOING THIER JOB I have a hard time finding anything nice to say. Arming the insurgents after the first battle of Falluja told me they were way too PC and were going to lose, again.
Shifting out of messenger mode and letting you know how I really feel: Personally, I think the muslim religion is extremely aggressive and expansionist, backwards, brutal, and dangerous, and has been since the beginning. The good muslims I know who just pray and that's it aren't real muslims and would be killed along with the rest of us because they made friends with Jews, Christians, Hindus, and everyone else. As to the jihad muslims around the world they will be a constant problem for civilization until doomsday. I don't know why we are continuing to let them into the country. They come here and set up terrorist training camps and we don't bat an eyelash. If they were militia freemen studying the constitution, they'd have their compound burned down and bulldozed by now. While the guys in Iraq fight, the jihadi move quietly and illegally into this country across our open borders.
If our policy makers wanted us to get our ass kicked, could they do any more to encourage trouble than attack a muslim territory while leaving the borders open?
This is why Pauls message rings with me. I don't see us fighting to win. I don't see us closing the border. I see us being set up to fail. I don't want us to get our asses kicked because a few civilian morons got us into a war they don't have the first clue how to fight.
WHAT?
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.