🚀 go-pugleaf

"Joseph Crowe" <jcrowe@io.com> wrote
>   1. Rebuttal - had Wilson not gotten the U.S. involved in the first
>      conflict (after outright lying about never sending our boys over
>      there), then events leading to the rise of the Nazis may never have
>      even occurred.  Even at that, do you believe that the U.S. government
>      has a mandate, either constitutionally (no) or ethically (no) to
>      correct all of the conflicts in the world?  If so, please explain
>      how FDR and Stalin were such bossom buddies..after all, Stalin had
>      many more people killed than did Hitler.

Possibly true but more probably false, and our
behavior was NEVER the proximate cause.
The proximate cause was the behavior of the
British (including starvation blockade of Germany
even after the Armistice) and the French, in
forcing the "Treaty of Versailles" and driving
Germany into rampant inflation and continuing to
take territory as "punishment" for failure to pay
even when the Germans had NOTHING.  Also
note this was codified as part of the "League
of Nations."

We refused to sign the Treaty (never did) and
join the League even though we proposed both
ideas.

>   2. Rebuttal - the scope of the military is to defend the country,
>      period.  Bush's current strategies should have him impeached, tried
>      for treason and punished accordingly.  The current economic woes

Can't be illegal in and of itself since Congress voted
to support it.  The U.N. has voted it too.

People keep missing this; especially those who just
LOVE to criticise the President or ANY Republican.
Let's see, no war yet, and President Bush got Sodamn
Insane to agree to inspections.

Wow, Clinton couldn't do that.

So, he is DEFENDING the country.  Or do you have
some idiotic idea that we can only defend when the
enemy crosses into our territory.  IF so, just stand
over there away from everyone else while Sodamn
Insane and the North Koreans learn to lob ballistic
nuclear missiles at you.

>   3. Rebuttal - military and defense spending is a net loss to the
>      economy.  If we had a free market, we would not have the problems
>      we now see in the economy.  Military and other spending does not
>      buy our economy anything.  It merely consumes a much higher
>      percentage of private sector capital that cannot then be reinvested
>      to really improve the economy.

Not strictly true.  True for bombs not for everything.
Still cheaper and more HONORABLE than another
"World Trade Center" coming down.

Think it through before you embarrass yourself again.

>    This is not.  If anything, the War of 1812 proved how difficult it is
> for even a powerful nation to win a war overseas.  It ended up in
> stalemate, which was to the advantage of the U.S.  All in all, England
> never had a chance.

Sure, like D-Day, WW1, the 1st Gulf War proved
it can be done by those who understand the risks,
and the methods of success.

>   Our military has the capability to defend the U.S.
> right now and is in no way ill-prepared or minimalist.  What the U.S.
> military is not prepared for, but which Bush favors anyway, is to go and
> occupy a significant part of the rest of the globe.  Every friggin'
> empire in history has learned that lesson and now Bush's will too.

You don't even know the meaning of "empire", do you?

Were the U.S. interested in Empire, we would own
3/4 of the world already.  We have given almost
that much BACK to the PEOPLE who live there
when we freed them from oppression and tyranny.

Think it through.

Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds

>
> > Try again when you have a better idea.
> > > Cheers,
> > Larry G.
>
> --
> Joseph Crowe
>