The Chinese still can’t understand why we left Korea unfinished… and in truth we fulfilled our first objective (preservation of S. Korea).

Vietnam we gave up on – betrayed by our civilians and by our leaders lack of fortitude.

Report comment to moderator

Reconquista? Come again? You are aware that we started the War of 1812, and that Britain considered us no more than a nuisance on the side; the main show was in Europe, and the main foe was Napoleon (who duped us into attacking Britain for him). By 1812, Britain was over the dream of American colonies. Their attacks on the American mainland were to defeat us in war, not to reconquer us.

Report comment to moderator

Frank: I do appreciate your concern, but no harm, no foul. I think we’re both big boys, and understand that we each might push the boundaries of rhetoric a bit.

Rest assured, my “disrespect” is for your ideas (at least some of them, as expressed in this thread) — not for you personally.

Report comment to moderator

Right after Harrison posted this thread about Kauffman’s book Ain’t My America, I caught the tail end of Mickey Edwards on the Diane Rehm show discussing his new book, Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost — And How It Can Find Its Way Back:

The former Republican congressman explains his belief that the conservative movement has abandoned its principles and transformed from the best defender of the Constitution to its most threatening opponent.

As with Kauffman, I’d never heard of Edwards, either. I learned that he was one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation and once served as national chairman of the American Conservative Union — no socialist think tanks, agreed?

I would ask my fellow conservatives with whom I frequently disagree to give the show a listen (RA and WM formats). It might give you a better idea of the genuine concerns of conservatives such as myself.

Report comment to moderator

White House denies Iran attack report
THE JERUSALEM POST — May 20, 2008

The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran’s push for a nuclear weapon “through peaceful diplomatic means.”

Note that when Obama says he’d talk with those regimes with whom we’re not on good terms, he’s decried as an appeaser.

But when Bush says it, it’s “resolving concerns through peaceful diplomatic means” …

Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.

The official reportedly went on to say that, for the time being, “the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic.

If this is true, then God bless Condi. Maybe she’s found Colin Powell’s cajones in some dusty corner of the White House, and is putting them to use.

(Read the entire piece here.)

Report comment to moderator

Frank: That’s what I linked to at (23)!

Report comment to moderator

You are so right.

Hussein did business with Cheney’s company Halliburton.

There is a nice picture on the Internet of Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld.

Hussein had been in power in Iraq since 1976, never once threatening the U.S., and all of a sudden he is a mortal danger to the U.S.?

Bush attacked Iraq not because they were strong but because they were weak.

Report comment to moderator

Frank: Your remark calls to mind something I’ve heard on several occasions that points out our nation’s absolute hypocrisy in Middle Eastern affairs, to wit:

One of the rationales offered for the necessity of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was the fact that he invaded Iran in 1980.

These warmongering apologists for the Empire say this with an absolutely straight face — as if there were no historical record of America’s support for Hussein.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard. You cannot take a villain like him under your wing when you think it suits your purposes, and then disown and attack him, citing the very actions in which you were complicit as evidence against him.

Report comment to moderator

I read your comments with absolute amazement.

We didn’t “liberate” Kuwait. Iraq War I was making sure Hussein didn’t get his hands on more Middle East oil. The U.S. couldn’t care less about Kuwait.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia was legit? Are you crazy? This is Islam holiest’s country. The thought of a military from a predominately Christian country and the blind supporter of Israel on their sacred soil must have riled them up beyond measure.

We are you so worried about Iran? Have they invaded another country? Have they threatened the U.S.?

As for Iran having WMDs’ in the future who is the U.S. to say that Israel can have WMDs’ but Iran cannot?

Report comment to moderator

Every case must be judged on its own merits, but this has often been exactly how the US army has been greeted, and rightly so. The USA has a long and proud military tradition, all told, and the world is a better and more peaceful place as a result.

Memorial Day is coming us soon and I am grateful for the sacrifices and work that have given freedom and liberation to many, includig us.

Report comment to moderator