Bleacher Bums Forum

davep, we sent our troops to their home.  Not surprisingly, they did not welcome us.  Had they landed in the U.S. and begun shooting at us, I would agree with your position.  They did not.

We can not put our troops all over the world and then act surprised when locals who do not want them there shoot at them.  The Viet Cong did not give a damn about our troops, other than the degree to which they interfered with what they were trying to do in their own homeland.

But the real thrust of my last post was to ask you the question which was set off in boldface to make it easier for you to see.  It was the fourth time I asked it in an effort to try to determine how much or how little of a war hawk you might be.  For the fourth time you have chosen not to answer.

It would appear that you don't really want to discuss whether you actually are a war hawk, but simply want to assert you are not and let it go at that.

That being the case I am left with my impression, and feel quite comfortable I have been right from the start, and you have yours, but there appears to be little more to discuss on the issue.

If you were to keep your posts to a reasonable length, you would get more answers for those towards the bottom.

Bold face at the conclusion of a post is not enough?  And 7 lines exceeds a reasonable length?

I was strongly against fighting in Viet Nam, but once there, felt that we should have put the necessary assets into it to end it and go home.  I was never in favor of just giving up without winning, once entered.

Hawkish.

I thought that going into Greneda was silly.

One of the few uses of force I would agree with -- very limited in scope, for the purpose of protecting American life, short in duration, little risk of collateral damage or actual collateral damage, easily justifiable on what amounted to self-defense grounds.

I was against going into Lybia, and am against going into Syria.

.... because?

I have been against almost all limited actions.  We should not put soldiers in harm way unless we plan to put enough resources to win.

Again, a rather hawkish attitude, much like McCain, not a real opposition to using force, but instead an inclination to use a very heavy hand when using force, an inclination to use more force, not less.

I would not use nuclear weapons against a country that had no nuclear weapons.  But I would certainly use all other force to prevent an avowed enemy like Iran to get them.

Is my memory wrong, or have I mis-read your prior posts, or have you not in the past strongly supported Truman's decision to use nuclear weapons to vaporize a couple of hundred thousand civilians in a "country that had no nuclear weapons"?

But I would certainly use all other force to prevent an avowed enemy like Iran to get them.

You seem to miss the irony in Iran being an avowed enemy as a result of our involvement in removing the pre-Shaw government, installing the Shaw, and then propping up the Shaw and his oppressive regime.

Has the Nobel Committee ever asked for a return of the Peace Prize?  Just wondering.

They should have just given it to George W Bush for stopping being US president.

They should have just given it to George W Bush for stopping being US president.

That would have been equally ridiculous.

Who was the last American to really deserve one?  Dennis Rodman?

What, JR, are you suggesting that Al Gore was undeserving?

Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.  Roosevelt was antiwar.  Nixon campaigned on ending the war. 

Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.

Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.  Roosevelt was antiwar.  Nixon campaigned on ending the war. 

Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.

Bull.

Wilson and FDR both WANTED to enter into the war, and Nixon could have ended it at virtually any time on virtually the same terms he DID end it on, which is to say the U.S. simply cutting and running.

None of those three in any way support your contention that, "Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things."

What in the world was accomplished by Nixon remaining in Vietnam as long as he did, other than killing another 35-40K U.S. troops, probably more than another quarter million Southeast Asians, helping Pol Pot come to power and ****ing billions down a rathole?

Staying did not help the South Vietnamese, and the videos of our final evacuation show that we were literally turning and running.

FDR was in no way antiwar, though the nation was, and Wilson merely mouthed promises of staying out of war in order to get re-elected.

It was not that "responsibility" changed their views.  It was simply that they lied to the voters to get re-elected.