Pattern Recognition

[Michael Tee]

<<The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience.  It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.>>

It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that neither the Framers of the Constitution nor the U.S. electorate had any problems  with a civilian of no military experience whatsoever holding the office of President.  You might as well argue that since the federal government is responsible for dealing with other states, the President must have diplomatic experience.  The Framers trusted in the wisdom of the common man and did not like to exclude him from any office in favour of "experts" of any kind.  As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be.  It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing.  The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.

<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam.  We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>

Ha ha ha.  No?  Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary.  Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going, also that the Korean cease-fire was not agreed to until after the North Korean forces and China's PLA drove American forces from the Yalu River to south of the 38th parallel.  It was the failure to achieve victory in battle that led to the political discord that you refer to, not the other way round.  It was the casualty rates among U.S. troops that led to the growth of the desire for peace.  When American forces are winning, the public supports them.  The American public will NOT, however, back a bunch of losers - - not over any extended period of time, at least.

[Stray Pooch]

The entire Iran Hostage affair was a conspiracy planned by the Oligarchy to remove Carter from office. Kissinger told Carter that he had to keep those people in that Embassy, when it was clear that the Revolutionary Guards were likely to grab them as hostages. Kissinger has always worked for the Rockefellers and Exxon. That was Carter's mistake.

Oh please.  Weird conspiracy theories aside, what made Carter acquiese to the Soviet presence in Cuba?  Was that Kissinger?  What made him give up the spy satellite secrets?  Yeah, musta been that old Kissinger fella.  Dismantling the intelligence apparatus?  Bet that was a Republican plot, too.  Giving up the Panama Canal?  Turning his back on Taiwan?   Not his fault.  You look close enough, I'll betcha Alexander Haig planted the damn rabbit.

Carter was an abysmal President.  Nixon was no fool, but he was dishonest.  Carter was not dishonest, but he was a fool.

Carter was no more to blame for the helicopter collision in the Iranian desert than Juniorbush was for 9-11, or even less so.

Yes, I forgot that Bush ordered the terrorists into action after first waffling about it for months, then sent in an ill-equipped small force to accomplish a stealth mission right in the middle of the country.  Carter ORDERED the mission - he was responsible for its execution and outcome.  Bush gets blamed for all of the setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan - even now that Obama is in charge.  Don't try to defend Jimmy "That rabbit was a danjah to nashnul sec-yoo-ity"  Carter by blaming the ghosts of the Nixon administration.  That argument has so many holes in it, it ain't a bucket - it's a net.

Osama bin Laden accomplished what Jimmy Carter couldn't.  He changed the world with a small force of well-trained, properly-equipped men.  Osama bin Laden was a better commander-in-chief than Jimmy Carter.  Carter had the assets of a once -proud army (not to mention lots of large, explosive-laden missiles to play with) and couldn't even bother the regime, much less rescue the hostages.  

Carter 8
Juniorbush over 3000, plus all those lost in an unnecessary war with Iraq.

Carter -1 toppled major middle east allied regime, -1 Taiwan, - 1 major strategic asset in Central America.
Oh, but one plus - an established Soviet military presence in Cuba.  He evened the "blink" count.

Bush   +2 toppled, middle east enemy regimes, plus bringing Christianity to Qaddafi ("Oh Sweet Jesus, I'd better straighten up!") and causing Syria to mill about around the chapel doors.

Oh, and the first Bush term led to a SECOND Bush term.  The first (and only) Carter term led to Ronald Reagan.

OK, Carter wins that one.    

[Stray Pooch]

<<The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience.  It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.>>

It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that neither the Framers of the Constitution nor the U.S. electorate had any problems  with a civilian of no military experience whatsoever holding the office of President.  You might as well argue that since the federal government is responsible for dealing with other states, the President must have diplomatic experience.  The Framers trusted in the wisdom of the common man and did not like to exclude him from any office in favour of "experts" of any kind.  As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be.  It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing.  The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.

That was the idea.  It hasn't been that way in a very long time.  Your assessment of American history is idealistic and romantic, as was that of the people who fought the revolution.  They would be taking up arms again if they were here.  You're right about the intent, but then the original framers never really envisioned us as the world's military or industrial superpower.  I can't get my America head around the idea of a non-civilian controlled military.  Cripes what if a Patton could rise to power under such a system?  Wonderful general, but like any pitbull needed to be on a leash.
 

<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam.  We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>

Ha ha ha.  No?  Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary.  Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going, also that the Korean cease-fire was not agreed to until after the North Korean forces and China's PLA drove American forces from the Yalu River to south of the 38th parallel.  It was the failure to achieve victory in battle that led to the political discord that you refer to, not the other way round.  It was the casualty rates among U.S. troops that led to the growth of the desire for peace.  When American forces are winning, the public supports them.  The American public will NOT, however, back a bunch of losers - - not over any extended period of time, at least.

Pup is right.  We were not defeated in battle (including the infamous Tet offensive) and were not driven out of the country.  We lost the war, in the sense that you have suggested, by unloading our guns and walking away.  The casualty count was not what did it.  We have less than a tithe of that count in this war and people are grousing.  You and Osama are right - our people lack the stomache to accept death as part of the sacrifice for freedom.  But it is the whining of leftists using those statistics to beat an anti-American drum that "inspired" the largest generation in American history to start chanting the idealistic slogans of the sixties (not to mention the increasing fear of cowards who ran from the draft). 
We didn't lose, we forfeited.

If given free reign our military has both the manpower and the technology (that latter being a massive force multiplier) to defeat anyone and impose our governments wherever we want.  But the check we have to that kind of tyranny (as it would become regardless of how benign any original intent) is the power of the press and the people to speak out.  It sucks, it TRULY sucks, to have to appease whining pacifists but in the end it nevertheless beats the hell out of the other extreme.  I'd rather have to be very careful about how many soldiers die and how many innocent civilians die than be given free reign to create My Lai's without concern for the consequences.  You greatly exaggerate the degree to which soldiers commit - or are willing to commit - atrocities.  But you are certainly correct that some soldiers ignore the barriers in place to prevent those atrocities.  There is no question that would become much worse if those barriers were removed.   So I'll take the whiny leftists in the streets.  They are nowhere near as effective as they dream they are, and they shouldn't be.  But they do give us pause, and that - I must grudgingly admit - is a service to freedom.

As to the Michael Tee Dictionary definition of loser, does it include a nation that has been unable to accomplish anything in over half a century except starving its people, wasting its resources and spouting off blustery threats to the point where even its budding-superpower protector is getting sick of it?  Yeah, we totally lost the Korean war.  Occasionally, we and the prosperous portion of that peninsula stop and think about that.  Then we get distracted by something more important.  We had a north and south war in the US too.  The losers still grouse generations later.  The winners forgot about it and went on with life.  I can just hear the frantic voices in Korea:  "Save your anti-capitalist phrases, comrades, the North will rise again!"

[Stray Pup]

<<The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience.  It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.>>

It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that neither the Framers of the Constitution nor the U.S. electorate had any problems  with a civilian of no military experience whatsoever holding the office of President.  You might as well argue that since the federal government is responsible for dealing with other states, the President must have diplomatic experience.  The Framers trusted in the wisdom of the common man and did not like to exclude him from any office in favour of "experts" of any kind.  As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be.  It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing.  The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.

This is not a classist argument.  I'm not saying anything like we should reinstate a caste system, I'm saying I wouldn't hire a doctor to build my house or a lawyer to do my yardwork (or a lobbyist making my pizza  ).

The person who runs the military should know what he is doing militarily.  He should also be a great politician and diplomat, as you say. 

You know there are eight different titles for the POTUS?  Among them are Chief Citizen and Commander-In-Chief.  One man must be many things.

<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam.  We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>

Ha ha ha.  No?  Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary.  Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going, also that the Korean cease-fire was not agreed to until after the North Korean forces and China's PLA drove American forces from the Yalu River to south of the 38th parallel.  It was the failure to achieve victory in battle that led to the political discord that you refer to, not the other way round.  It was the casualty rates among U.S. troops that led to the growth of the desire for peace.  When American forces are winning, the public supports them.  The American public will NOT, however, back a bunch of losers - - not over any extended period of time, at least.

Stray Pooch took the words right out of my mouth.

[Michael Tee]

<<Your assessment of American history is idealistic and romantic, as was that of the people who fought the revolution. 

The other side of that coin is that modern-day Americans are cynical and mercenary.

<<You're right about the intent, but then the original framers never really envisioned us as the world's military or industrial superpower. >>

They didn't WANT to be the world's military superpower, they just wanted to defend themselves against encroachments on their sovereignty by the European powers of the day.  As far as world's industrial superpower, fuhgeddabaowdit.  The Chinese are about to relieve you of that title if they haven't done so already.

<<I can't get my America head around the idea of a non-civilian controlled military.  Cripes what if a Patton could rise to power under such a system?  Wonderful general, but like any pitbull needed to be on a leash.>>

Patton would have been a non-starter as top dog without civilian control.  He was a certifiable nut-case and I think even he must have recognized that fact at some level.  Even inside the military, with civilians in control at the top, he needed a soldier with better judgment at the other end of his leash to save the civilians the headache.  Think General Douglas MacArthur if you want to keep your speculations within the realm of the possible.  Or Eisenhower.  They both had a good deal more common sense than Patton would ever have been capable of.

<<Pup is right.  We were not defeated in battle (including the infamous Tet offensive) and were not driven out of the country.  We lost the war, in the sense that you have suggested, by unloading our guns and walking away.  The casualty count was not what did it. >>

No, eh?  Funny how that casualty count just kept rising and rising, and all the time it was rising, the anti-war feeling was rising too, at the same time.  Personally I think the steady stream of returning body bags had a lot to do with the growth of popular revulsion at the war.  This wasn't the mercenary, all-volunteer force of motherless thugs and hoodlums that nobody gives a shit about, this was a draftee army of Americans with mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who took the loss of their drafted sons in a pointless war of unprovoked aggression kind of seriously.  Not that the Powers That Be really give a shit about what the public wants or doesn't want, but they can't just totally ignore it, either.

<<We have less than a tithe of that count in this war and people are grousing.  >>

That is just misleading bullshit.  The "grousing" of "people" is a tiny fraction of the massive anti-war protests of the Viet Nam War.  Nobody gives a shit about the dead because they were all dumb enough to volunteer for this crap and so deserve whatever they get.  THAT is one reason why there is no real popular outcry.  What kind of pathetic losers will volunteer for an occupation whose main objective is to kill and maim other human beings?   These guys die with no particular public outrage or protest because, in truth, their deaths are no great loss to anyone.  Other reasons for the absence of massive popular protest are the drastic consolidation of the MSM that has taken place since the mid-Seventies and the administration's stranglehold on the press, using the new techniques of pool reporting and embedding, which has cut down enormously on the breadth and depth of media war coverage and virtually guarantees a pro-military slant in all reporting from the war zones.

<<You and Osama are right - our people lack the stomache to accept death as part of the sacrifice for freedom.>>

More BS.  Neither OBL nor I have said anything about sacrificing life for freedom, precisely because neither the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan has anything at all to do with "freedom."  Let's quit characterizing these wars of unprovoked aggression as wars of "freedom."  That's total crap and nonsense.  The invasion of Iraq was built up on a superstructure of outrageous lies and bullshit claims about non-existent "weapons of mass destruction"  that were not even "discovered" as a threat before Bush and his henchmen had already decided to invade Iraq on a pretext that would be invented as and when required.  The invasion of Afghanistan was even more ludicrous - - supposedly, the Americans "justified" it by the Afghans' refusal to hand over OBL, when in fact the Afghans had already offered to turn him over if the Americans would first produce their evidence of his guilt - - something the American government never did, probably because it had no evidence.

<<But it is the whining of leftists using those statistics to beat an anti-American drum that "inspired" the largest generation in American history to start chanting the idealistic slogans of the sixties . . . >>

Really?  Maybe you could explain how outrage over the pointless sacrifice of American lives becomes an "anti-American drum?"    What would you consider a "pro-American drum," the desire to see even more dead Americans coming home in body bags?  And how do you really know what "inspired" the chanting of anti-war slogans - - what makes you think it was "whining leftists" use of the casualty statistics rather than genuine outrage over the war itself, the massive number of civilian casualties, the use of torture on prisoners of war, the napalming of villages, the massacres of civilians as, for example, in the My Lai Massacre, that drove the antiwar movement just as much as the weekly toll of dead Americans?  How do you know what drove the protestors?  Were you one of them?


<< (not to mention the increasing fear of cowards who ran from the draft). >>

Still more bullshit.  A coward who ran from the draft did not have to join the protest movement.  He could have found other ways to keep his ass safe from the hazards of war.  He could even have supported the war, while scrupulously avoiding any personal involvement in it - - as did George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and most of the "Chicken Hawk" generation of the GOP.  What proof have you that it was cowardice and not idealism that drove anyone into the anti-war protest movement?

<<We didn't lose, we forfeited.>>

LMFAO.  The time to "forfeit" was before you entered the match, certainly before you lost the 57,000 American lives thrown away.  That was hilarious.  But maybe you're right, maybe a more factual description exists for what happened to you in the Viet Nam War.  Something that would satisfy both of us and yet avoid the illusory duality of terms based on winning and losing, as in recreational or professional athletics.  How be instead of claiming, say, that the Vietcong "beat" you, we were to say merely that they whipped your scurvy, sorry ass, does that work for you?

<<If given free reign our military has both the manpower and the technology (that latter being a massive force multiplier) to defeat anyone and impose our governments wherever we want.  But the check we have to that kind of tyranny (as it would become regardless of how benign any original intent) is the power of the press and the people to speak out.  It sucks, it TRULY sucks, to have to appease whining pacifists but in the end it nevertheless beats the hell out of the other extreme.  I'd rather have to be very careful about how many soldiers die and how many innocent civilians die than be given free reign to create My Lai's without concern for the consequences.  You greatly exaggerate the degree to which soldiers commit - or are willing to commit - atrocities.  But you are certainly correct that some soldiers ignore the barriers in place to prevent those atrocities.  There is no question that would become much worse if those barriers were removed.   So I'll take the whiny leftists in the streets.  They are nowhere near as effective as they dream they are, and they shouldn't be.  But they do give us pause, and that - I must grudgingly admit - is a service to freedom.>>

Well, now, you just . . .   Uhh, that is just pure bullshit because, umm . . . Mmmmm, see . . .   Uh, Pooch, are you feeling OK?  Because what you just said in that last paragraph actually makes some kinda sense.  Sorta.  Mostly.  You sure you don't want to reconsider?

<<As to the Michael Tee Dictionary definition of loser, does it include a nation that has been unable to accomplish anything in over half a century except starving its people, wasting its resources and spouting off blustery threats to the point where even its budding-superpower protector is getting sick of it? >>

Uh, no, it doesn't, actually.  A loser is an army or a country that gets its ass whipped and then quits the fight and goes home.  The U.S. Army came to Korea to fight.  They fought and then they got sick of fighting and quit.  They all went home except for a small garrison force, which doesn't want to fight any more, and hasn't for over 50 years.  The North which they invaded remains independent half a century after they were driven out by force of arms.  Well, anyway, that's how MY dictionary defines "loser."  Sorry about yours.

BTW, for a nation that "has been unable to accomplish anything," I was kinda wondering what is with their nuclear weapons?  Were they found growing in the wild under lily pads or something?  Did these "wild nukes" grow their own delivery vehicles and triggers so as to create the illusion of successful weapons tests?  inquiring minds need to know.

<<Yeah, we totally lost the Korean war.>>

Well, ya got that right.  Or at least, ya lost the North.

<<Occasionally, we and the prosperous portion of that peninsula stop and think about that.  Then we get distracted by something more important.>>

Yeah, I get it.  You lost the war.  And once in awhile, you think about losing the war.  But then you get distracted by "something more important."  Of course, many things are probably "more important" than the wasted lives of thousands of American boys.   Sunday afternoon football for example.  Must be lots of stuff that distracts you.  It is all very understandable.

<<We had a north and south war in the US too.  The losers still grouse generations later.  The winners forgot about it and went on with life.  >>

God, I hope you copied this to plane.

<<I can just hear the frantic voices in Korea:  "Save your anti-capitalist phrases, comrades, the North will rise again!">>

You're lucky.  I don't speak Korean.

[Stray Pup]

Rather than fruitlessly trying to get you to see what I believe to be an error in your way of thinking, I would like to address one particular quote:

Maybe you could explain how outrage over the pointless sacrifice of American lives becomes an "anti-American drum?"    What would you consider a "pro-American drum," the desire to see even more dead Americans coming home in body bags?

Are you saying that deaths caused by a (in  your mind) not pointless war would be treated with less outrage?  Soldiers die, it's the sad reality of life.  37,000 soldiers dead in three years is tragic.  Nobody wants to see soldiers die on both the "pro-" and "anti-" american side.

Frankly because of the efforts in Korea at least half of the country remained free.  It's not a complete victory sure, but (and I speak on behalf of my South Korean friends whose families were free to move the US) I'd call that a victory.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Carter was only a fool for trusting the lying Kissinger. As for Cuba, Castro came to power there in 1959, Carter became president in 1977. All he did in Cuba was to leave it alone, and welcome the Mariel refugees, which was perhaps a mistake, but that old bastard Reagan said "we should welcome them with one arms."

Note that the hostages were released about ONE MINUTE after Reagan took office. I bet you are going to tell me that that was just a coincidence. Later, Reagan sent the ayatollah a cake and sold him a mess of used Israeli weapons. There was that whole Iran-Contra mess.

 

[Plane]

<<We had a north and south war in the US too.  The losers still grouse generations later.  The winners forgot about it and went on with life.  >>

God, I hope you copied this to plane.

Good Greif!

Your great Grandfathers won.

Getoveryourself.

[Plane]

It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing.  The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.

Well said  , color me surprised at who it was who said it , but well said.



<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam.  We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>

Ha ha ha.  No?  Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary.  Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going,....

Yes, unfortunately for those who were thereby trapped in Vietnam.

Do you think we would have liked to trade the casualty numbers of ours for the casualty numbers of theirs?

We did not walk away winners , but we left aware that we had stayed long after the point of diminishing returns .

But I would not want to trade the state of our economy , morale , social organisation or anything at all with the state  Vietnam was in, the winners walked away with their hard won victory and used it to construct a neat little hell. We didn't want that , too bad the evil side was able to exact a pyrric victory.

There were not a million boat people trying desprately to escape the US in the following decade , now was there?

You can force me to admit that the Vietnameese communists acheived thair aims and were the victors , but it is also quite clear that they paid too much for it and that the victory of the Communists was the loss of the people.

[Michael Tee]

<<You can force me to admit that the Vietnameese communists acheived thair aims and were the victors . . . >>

Thank you, plane, that is making considerable progress.

 << . . . but it is also quite clear that they paid too much for it >>

Unlike the Americans who mindlessly parrot Patrick Henry speeches while they follow their country's wars on the TV, as their government's agents pore over their library cards and e-mails, the Vietnamese are a people that in fact had to fight for their freedom from foreign occupation and paid the price in blood.  In all honesty, they set the price that they were prepared to pay and the chickenshit Americans, who ran like whipped dogs before they lost even 60,000 men, don't have the right to any opinion at all as to whether the price was too high or too low.  Many good Communists died in that struggle, every one of them a martyr and a hero.  They really believed in "Give me liberty or give me death" whereas the Americans are nothing but bullshit artists and phonies who talk big but live small.

<< . . . and that the victory of the Communists was the loss of the people. >>

"Loss of the people" my ass.  The only people who lost were the French-educated élite who the French had left in power behind them as they pulled out.  Everyone else supported Ho Chi Minh and the Communists. 

[Plane]

<<You can force me to admit that the Vietnameese communists acheived thair aims and were the victors . . . >>

Thank you, plane, that is making considerable progress.

 << . . . but it is also quite clear that they paid too much for it >>

Unlike the Americans who mindlessly parrot Patrick Henry speeches while they follow their country's wars on the TV, as their government's agents pore over their library cards and e-mails, the Vietnamese are a people that in fact had to fight for their freedom from foreign occupation and paid the price in blood.  In all honesty, they set the price that they were prepared to pay and the chickenshit Americans, who ran like whipped dogs before they lost even 60,000 men, don't have the right to any opinion at all as to whether the price was too high or too low.  Many good Communists died in that struggle, every one of them a martyr and a hero.  They really believed in "Give me liberty or give me death" whereas the Americans are nothing but bullshit artists and phonies who talk big but live small.

<< . . . and that the victory of the Communists was the loss of the people. >>

"Loss of the people" my ass.  The only people who lost were the French-educated élite who the French had left in power behind them as they pulled out.  Everyone else supported Ho Chi Minh and the Communists.  

What elese could they do ?

Take to the sea in tiny boats a million at a time?

"Everyone" that supported the communists got the little hell that they deserve .


There are a lot of people in the US who are disatisfied , but there arn't a million at a pop risking very likely death to boat away from here. What the Vietnameese Communists offered was Communism and that is not liberty, it is slavery.

Compare the state of the looser and the state of the winner , there isn't a huge number of Americans migrated to Vietnam trying to stay alive or seeking freedom.

I wouldn't trade half as good as the US for ten times better than Vietnam, and for this crud they paid such a price?

[Plane]

Carter was only a fool for trusting the lying Kissinger. As for Cuba, Castro came to power there in 1959, Carter became president in 1977. All he did in Cuba was to leave it alone, and welcome the Mariel refugees, which was perhaps a mistake, but that old bastard Reagan said "we should welcome them with one arms."

Note that the hostages were released about ONE MINUTE after Reagan took office. I bet you are going to tell me that that was just a coincidence. Later, Reagan sent the ayatollah a cake and sold him a mess of used Israeli weapons. There was that whole Iran-Contra mess.

 

Are you guys speaking of James Earl Carter the chief architect of the demise of the Soviet Union? Zibignew Brezniki was a great idea man , but it was Carter that realised that the Soviet Union was more vunerable to a Vietnam like catspaw than the US ever was.

Soviet Authoritys kept the conflict in Afganistan a secret from the Soviet public in a way that the US never could , but this turned out to be no advantage . That they found out the scope of the losses seemingly suddenly compressed the Vietnam experience for the Soviet people.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Brezenski, not Carter, was the guy who got the Saudis to send guerrillas and missionaries to Afghanistan. The US had previously tried to provoke a Muslim fundamentalist rebellion in Afghanistan with the help of the Saudis. The idea was Saudi money, Afghan and Paki guerrillas turned fanatics. This was a CIA plan that want back into the late 60's. Brezenski wanted revenge for the Katina Forest massacres in the days of Stalin. Guys like the Pipes (father and son)were in on this in the Ford Administration. The plan was to cause the Soviets grief, not only in Afghanistan, but in the Soviet "stans" that surrounded them: Uzbek, Tazik, Kazakh. So the Soviets took over Afghanistan, and naturally got mired down there. Carter should have told Brezinski to go fuck himself, but instead, he appointed him to the Cabinet. That was dumb and naive, I will admit. Carter was a trusting soul and he was surrounded by traitors like Kissinger and guys with a hateful agenda, like Brezinski.

This was a typical stupid  and cruel CIA plan that has resulted in millions of Afghans, Soviets, Pakistanis and others being killed and their lives ruined. What we are facing now in pakistan and Afghanistan is blowback to this stupid CIA plan, just like the Ayatollah and the Iranian Revolution is blowback for the stupid CIA/MI5 overthrow of the sectarian and democratically elected government of Mossadeagh in Iran.

The Soviets also had dirty tricks as well, but most of their sins were more overt, along the lines of "wake the town and shoot the people".  Where the Soviets tended to be cruel, the CIA was tricky and cruel. And doing their nefarious deeds on MY nickel.

[BT]

As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be.  It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing.  The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.

Good to see you are rethinking your position re:Palin

[Michael Tee]

<<Are you saying that deaths caused by a (in  your mind) not pointless war would be treated with less outrage? >>

Sure, if he died in a good cause, he died a hero.  If he died for a pack of lies and bullshit, he died a schmuck.  Nobody's outraged when their son dies a hero, but a lot of people are outraged when their son dies as a schmuck.  Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

<< Soldiers die, it's the sad reality of life.  37,000 soldiers dead in three years is tragic.  Nobody wants to see soldiers die on both the "pro-" and "anti-" american side.>>

You are wrong.  Same reasoning as above.

<<Frankly because of the efforts in Korea at least half of the country remained free.  It's not a complete victory sure, but (and I speak on behalf of my South Korean friends whose families were free to move the US) I'd call that a victory.>>

South Korea was a dictatorship when the Korean War began and remained a dictatorship till relatively recently.  Overall, there was more freedom in the South than in the North, but in both countries opponents of the ruling power were arbitrarily arrested, tortured and murdered.  Ask your South Korean friends how "free" they were to demonstrate in the streets during the years of the dictatorship.