Yes we can. 2/12/08

[nailz]

Originally Posted by Magius

We didn't have to be in WW I. Wilson used an excuse of Germany sinking a British ship with about 100 Americans on board to get involved. His Secretary of State resigned in protest.

Are you saying then it was a bad call?

WW II was an inevitability. And the US didn't mop up for the French. We saved their asses, again!

Thats really what I meant. Also, not a bad idea to stop a power hungry madman from taking over the world and killing ... you know.. an entire fucking religion. However, before you go making the comparison, he was actually well on his way before we did anything about it.

Got into the cold war? Regan? WTF are you talking about? The cold war was a term for the miltary buildup and political tensions between NATO lead by the USA and Warsaw Pact countries led by the USSR. It was not a military conflict like Korea.

The cold war started immediately after the conclusion of WWII... that would be in the mid 1940's. Forty years before Regan was President.
Regan won the cold war and and the USSR crumbled, and the Warsaw Pact countries regained their independance from the Communists.

Thanks for the info. I guess I really didn't know much about it. I should have kept my mouth shut on this one.

Korea and Viet Nam on the other hand started for much the same reason Afganistan and Iraq. They were started to stop the spread of Communism instead of Islamofacism, but the basic premis was the same: Stop the spread of a preceived threat/evil.

So.. if Dems started wars for the same reasons republicans did.. ...

Interesting that this family is carrying out a vendetta, while two Democrats get a pass.

I'm not arguing that maybe the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict were wrong, but we knew when the hell to leave, and lets face it, we all know how awful the 'Nam war was run. N. Korea is still a huge threat. What I want to know, is they HAVE nukes, we KNOW they have nukes, yet... somehow.. we're in Iraq for that reason? Which.. they don't have them? At all?

The President of the United States of America from 1976 to 1980 was one James Earl Carter. A Democrat who dismantled the military, ruined the economy, allowed Communism to spread unchecked throughout the world, and more importantly, the Americas.

I was never one to say Democrats are perfect. Look at 2004. It was a horrid year for Dems in the election. They couldn't win that election with Kerry if he ran unopposed.

Yeah and JFK is probably spinning in his grave to see what the Democrats have become. The liberal socialist welfare state the Democrats tout is much the brainchild of Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's VP. The two men hated each other passionately, and Johnson was only VP at the insistance of the DNC. If you believe in conspiricy theories, well... that's another story.

... I agree, both parties have basically ruined the government.

Nevertheless, it's been a long time since any Democrat said "Ask not what your country can do for you..."

And a long time since a republican didn't say "Shut up and do what I tell you! Go die for the USA so I can get caught in gay and child sex scandals!"

Again, WTF? Nazi's? Serbs and Albanians have been at each others' throats since the 16th or 17th century. They had to play nice while they were under the iron fist of the USSR, but when the Soviets released them they went right back to killing each other.

Another subject I admit I know very little about.

Democrat Bill Clinton involved the US in that war, but there were absolutely no US interests at stake. The US involvment in a war did, however, distract the American people's attention away from the Lewinski scandal for a while. The movie "Wag The Dog" was about a American President who concocted a war to distract from a sex scandal. Sound familiar?

Never saw it, and never really understood why the Sex scandal was so absolutely rediculious. You know, honestly, I don't think whatever war Bill got us into made the news much, because I really don't have any rememberance of it.

It's true that the world would be a much different place than it is if history hadn't happened the way it did. However, the bottom line is that of all the wars that Democrats got the US involved in only WW II was truly justifiable and necessary at the time.

Frankly, I think there's a lot to be said about stopping a tyrant in WWI too. I think if Vietnam came out better it would've had a happier place in histroy, and I'm sure the South Koreans are thankful.

That said, I have no problem with Desert Storm and Protecting Kuait. (sp?) ... I don't have a problem with being in Afghanistan. I didn't really have a problem with invading Iraq. I didn't like it, but I figured we'd be in and out in 3 years. I'm pissed because I feel we're only there for special interests. And I don't care WHO The president claims to answer to, thats not right.

[freakchylde]

Originally Posted by nailz

I'm not arguing that maybe the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict were wrong, but we knew when the hell to leave, and lets face it, we all know how awful the 'Nam war was run. N. Korea is still a huge threat. What I want to know, is they HAVE nukes, we KNOW they have nukes, yet... somehow.. we're in Iraq for that reason? Which.. they don't have them? At all?

Yes, Nam was run so badly that we were winning all but the media war. We made a promise to protect the people of S. Vietnam afterwards, failed to do so, because Congress decided to cut funds, while Russia and China were increasing funds to N. Vietnam, then decided to let those folks fend for themselves when N. Vietnam attacked again.....Makes me wonder about that whole "ever vigilant" phrase. Scott has some really good links, that I think he should post here, about now would be a good time.

As for "who came first". N. Vietnam didn't start seriously posturing till after the whole Afghanistan/Iraq blow-up. And that's a country that's well aware of playing up the American media game (they managed to win a war that they were losing, thanks to it). We can posture around to keep N. Vietnam at bay for a while, because if they do attack any neighbors with nukes, they'll have the rest of the world calling for their head. Not the case in Iraq, which is an immediate issue that needs to be resolved in some way that protects the people there, and protects their neighbors. Now, we can yank all our troops back home, and display the fact we failed to learn from Vietnam, or, we can keep going, adapt when/where necessary, and possibly keep that place from sliding all the way back to the dark ages. I, personally, would rather see us act like an adult country and finish the job. Rather than throw a kiddie temper tantrum and take all our toys home, because either way we do it, the rest of the world is going to find something to yell at us. The question is, would you rather tell the world we're willing to let them fix our mistakes, or that we're willing to work on them, too?

Note: I do not think Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes, the only mistakes I think we made, were in trying to appeal to the Annan-led UN Council, and allowing Congress to dictate how a war is fought.

[Ascension]

Originally Posted by freakchylde

Note: I do not think Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes, the only mistakes I think we made, were in trying to appeal to the Annan-led UN Council, and allowing Congress to dictate how a war is fought.

Amen. Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war.

[TheWhisper]

Why is it that every time I see/hear Obama speaking I hear Living Colour's 'Cult of Personality' playing in my head?

[Pellaz]

Originally Posted by TheWhisper

Why is it that every time I see/hear Obama speaking I hear Living Colour's 'Cult of Personality' playing in my head?

Damnit!

Now you've got ME playing it in MY head!





That's okay, I like the song....but I like that damned 'landlord' song they did more.

[nailz]

I think they canceled that show when I was 4.

[Magius]

Originally Posted by nailz

Are you saying then it was a bad call?

Thats really what I meant. Also, not a bad idea to stop a power hungry madman from taking over the world and killing ... you know.. an entire fucking religion. However, before you go making the comparison, he was actually well on his way before we did anything about it.

Not a bad call in either case. I actually support the reasons the US entered into all the conflicts being discussed here regardless of which party the President belonged to, or the outcome. Clinton's Balkans War being the exception.

The point is, as Emerald Sword pointed out, it's hypocritical to call Republicans warmongers, when Democrats have involved the US the majority of conflicts. You may not have used the word 'Warmonger," but your quote further down is fairly analogous.

Fortunately history, not the Media, looks back and decides what the right thing to do was. Had the Media of today witnessed the slaughter of thousands of Amercans on the beaches of Normandy WW II would have been lost that day.

I'm not arguing that maybe the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict were wrong, but we knew when the hell to leave, and lets face it, we all know how awful the 'Nam war was run. N. Korea is still a huge threat. What I want to know, is they HAVE nukes, we KNOW they have nukes, yet... somehow.. we're in Iraq for that reason? Which.. they don't have them? At all?

When did we leave Korea? Last I checked the DMZ is still seperates the largest buildup of opposing forces in the world. American troops still make up a large part of that contingent.

The problem with Vietnam wasn’t knowing when to get out. The problem was the Armed Forces weren’t allowed to fight the way they should have been. When that’s the case there shouldn’t be any troops there in the first place.

North Korea built their Nuke program under Clinton, while he "negotiated" "agreements" to get them to stop. Agreements they broke as soon as the ink was dry on the paper they signed, because the Clinton administration didn’t verify or enforce those agreements. Not that the Media would report good news on the Bush front, but you might be interested to know that N. Korea has now stood down its nuke program.

The concern with Iraq wasn't about Nukes. It was about the possibility of Saddam providing chemical and biological weapons to terrorists, which was a grave and frightening possibility in the wake of 9/11. Ironically even though incorrect intelligence was the deciding factor, Saddam would still be in power there had he not hindered the UN inspectors from verifying that he didn’t have them.

I was never one to say Democrats are perfect. Look at 2004. It was a horrid year for Dems in the election. They couldn't win that election with Kerry if he ran unopposed.

... I agree, both parties have basically ruined the government.

Both parties have much to answer for; however, in the history of the United States it is the Democrats that socialize the country in huge chunks at a time. This is one of the most ironic things I have ever noticed whenever discussing politics, especially with Democrats. I hear or read how individuals hate the government, and they think that Big Brother should stay out of our lives. Yet they vote for the party that invariably increases their dependence, and everyone else’s for that matter, on said government. Examples include Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and in the possible future Healthcare. Big Brother has hooked millions of people on government dependency, and yet the Democrats want to expand that dependency yet again.

All of those programs are ineptly run and Social Security is doomed to fail within 20 years. That’s not fatalism, it’s math. Few people realize that already over 60% of the federal budget now goes to paying entitlements. That number is going to grow exponentially as the baby boomers start collecting their share. Do people really want to add 12% of the entire GDP to the already out of control entitlement spending? Do people really want the government in control of their Healthcare? Unbelievable.

And a long time since a republican didn't say "Shut up and do what I tell you! Go die for the USA so I can get caught in gay and child sex scandals!"

Brilliant Nailz. That’s your reponse to the fact that the Democrats have gone from the party who’s leader made the “Ask not…” speech to the party of huge giveaway programs?

First, one really has nothing to do with the other.

Second, it’s interesting that your statement comes so few posts after you stated “edit: Also I don't see republicans as warmongers...” Yet even after it’s been adequately pointed out to you that Democrats have sent most soldiers into war it’s Republicans who say "Shut up and do what I tell you! Go die for the USA so I can get caught in gay and child sex scandals!"

Third, you want to lay sending people to die for sex scandals at the Republicans' doorstep? One word, Nailz: Kosovo.

Unbelievably your next statement is…

Never saw it, and never really understood why the Sex scandal was so absolutely rediculious. You know, honestly, I don't think whatever war Bill got us into made the news much, because I really don't have any rememberance of it.

I don’t suppose you notice much of a double standard there?

Just for the record the Sex Scandal really wasn’t that big a deal. Bill Clinton could have fucked every intern, secretary, housekeeper, and donut in the White House if he wanted to. What was a big deal was a President perjuring himself before the congress regarding that Sex Scandal.

I suspect that a lot of people would consider it relevent that Bill Clinton is the only elected President in the history of the United States to be impeached. Not for sex. For perjury.

What you choose to listen to or watch is entirely up to you. I can assure you that Clinton's wars were damn sure covered in the news during the 1990's. Both in the Balkands and Somalia. Enough so that a fairly prominent project was based on each of them. Savatage's "Dead Winter Dead," which in turn spawned TSO, was a concept album based on the Balkans War. TSO still refers to the Balkands War and Sarajevo to this day in the narration during their live shows. "Blackhawk Down" was a true story of an incident in Somalia.

Frankly, I think there's a lot to be said about stopping a tyrant in WWI too. I think if Vietnam came out better it would've had a happier place in histroy, and I'm sure the South Koreans are thankful.

That said, I have no problem with Desert Storm and Protecting Kuait. (sp?) ... I don't have a problem with being in Afghanistan. I didn't really have a problem with invading Iraq. I didn't like it, but I figured we'd be in and out in 3 years. I'm pissed because I feel we're only there for special interests. And I don't care WHO The president claims to answer to, thats not right.

The reasons we are there can be argued forever to no conclusion. Support the war or not the fact is WE own it. We started it and are therefore obligated to finish it. The more important thing is that if we leave Iraq in chaos the consequences will be severe.
Not even Hilary is that stupid. Obama can talk about hope and change all he wants. Gasoline costing $6 per gallon will bring about much change, and quickly crush hope for many.