[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think the closest analogy would be the world during the 1930s. There was a major change in the world order as the monarchies of the 19th century were swept away by World War I. The remaining powers like Britain, France and Russia were exhausted from four years of war, and the US had retreated somewhat from the world stage.

History shows that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were widely lionized by the media of the day, and the Soviet Union, especially, was considered to be the up and coming model for a progressive state. Voices like Churchill’s warning of how dangerous Hitler was, and the potential for a coming war, were ignored. Right up until Germany invaded Poland, the feeling was that war could be avoided. Granted, it involved appeasing Hitler by giving him Austria and Czechoslovakia, but it kept war from breaking out.

My point? First, that appeasement doesn’t work, and, second, even though the US has been humbled as of late, we still remain a force. We need to re-think our world position and realize that soft power and multi-lateral engagements are more effective in some instances. However, when you have players like Iran and China, the notion of a trigger happy and slightly psychotic United States can still buy a little peace and quiet.

No, I’m not for nuking Tehran or Beijing. But I’m also not for strapping on the rose colored glasses, either. If you think President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is out for anything less than regional domination, than consider his words and actions. Same goes for China. They will be challenging us for military dominance within the next generation. As goofy as the US can be, I would still vote for us running the show, versus the Communist Chinese. Nationalistic maybe, but we’re still better than the alternative.

I grew up in the SF/Bay Area during the 1970s and 1980s. I love hippies! Well, I like what I used to buy from hippies…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think the closest analogy would be the world during the 1930s. There was a major change in the world order as the monarchies of the 19th century were swept away by World War I. The remaining powers like Britain, France and Russia were exhausted from four years of war, and the US had retreated somewhat from the world stage.

History shows that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were widely lionized by the media of the day, and the Soviet Union, especially, was considered to be the up and coming model for a progressive state. Voices like Churchill’s warning of how dangerous Hitler was, and the potential for a coming war, were ignored. Right up until Germany invaded Poland, the feeling was that war could be avoided. Granted, it involved appeasing Hitler by giving him Austria and Czechoslovakia, but it kept war from breaking out.

My point? First, that appeasement doesn’t work, and, second, even though the US has been humbled as of late, we still remain a force. We need to re-think our world position and realize that soft power and multi-lateral engagements are more effective in some instances. However, when you have players like Iran and China, the notion of a trigger happy and slightly psychotic United States can still buy a little peace and quiet.

No, I’m not for nuking Tehran or Beijing. But I’m also not for strapping on the rose colored glasses, either. If you think President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is out for anything less than regional domination, than consider his words and actions. Same goes for China. They will be challenging us for military dominance within the next generation. As goofy as the US can be, I would still vote for us running the show, versus the Communist Chinese. Nationalistic maybe, but we’re still better than the alternative.

I grew up in the SF/Bay Area during the 1970s and 1980s. I love hippies! Well, I like what I used to buy from hippies…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think the closest analogy would be the world during the 1930s. There was a major change in the world order as the monarchies of the 19th century were swept away by World War I. The remaining powers like Britain, France and Russia were exhausted from four years of war, and the US had retreated somewhat from the world stage.

History shows that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were widely lionized by the media of the day, and the Soviet Union, especially, was considered to be the up and coming model for a progressive state. Voices like Churchill’s warning of how dangerous Hitler was, and the potential for a coming war, were ignored. Right up until Germany invaded Poland, the feeling was that war could be avoided. Granted, it involved appeasing Hitler by giving him Austria and Czechoslovakia, but it kept war from breaking out.

My point? First, that appeasement doesn’t work, and, second, even though the US has been humbled as of late, we still remain a force. We need to re-think our world position and realize that soft power and multi-lateral engagements are more effective in some instances. However, when you have players like Iran and China, the notion of a trigger happy and slightly psychotic United States can still buy a little peace and quiet.

No, I’m not for nuking Tehran or Beijing. But I’m also not for strapping on the rose colored glasses, either. If you think President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is out for anything less than regional domination, than consider his words and actions. Same goes for China. They will be challenging us for military dominance within the next generation. As goofy as the US can be, I would still vote for us running the show, versus the Communist Chinese. Nationalistic maybe, but we’re still better than the alternative.

I grew up in the SF/Bay Area during the 1970s and 1980s. I love hippies! Well, I like what I used to buy from hippies…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I think the closest analogy would be the world during the 1930s. There was a major change in the world order as the monarchies of the 19th century were swept away by World War I. The remaining powers like Britain, France and Russia were exhausted from four years of war, and the US had retreated somewhat from the world stage.

History shows that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were widely lionized by the media of the day, and the Soviet Union, especially, was considered to be the up and coming model for a progressive state. Voices like Churchill’s warning of how dangerous Hitler was, and the potential for a coming war, were ignored. Right up until Germany invaded Poland, the feeling was that war could be avoided. Granted, it involved appeasing Hitler by giving him Austria and Czechoslovakia, but it kept war from breaking out.

My point? First, that appeasement doesn’t work, and, second, even though the US has been humbled as of late, we still remain a force. We need to re-think our world position and realize that soft power and multi-lateral engagements are more effective in some instances. However, when you have players like Iran and China, the notion of a trigger happy and slightly psychotic United States can still buy a little peace and quiet.

No, I’m not for nuking Tehran or Beijing. But I’m also not for strapping on the rose colored glasses, either. If you think President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is out for anything less than regional domination, than consider his words and actions. Same goes for China. They will be challenging us for military dominance within the next generation. As goofy as the US can be, I would still vote for us running the show, versus the Communist Chinese. Nationalistic maybe, but we’re still better than the alternative.

I grew up in the SF/Bay Area during the 1970s and 1980s. I love hippies! Well, I like what I used to buy from hippies…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Surface Navy or submariner? We deployed with the SEALs from a sub one time. Man, I wouldn’t want to do that again.

If you were a submariner, you have my respect. I would have gone completely bonkers inside there after about a week.

You guys did have the best chow, though. I went to the O Club at Pearl once and really envied you guys after that. Go to the O Club at Bragg or Benning and it’s like a honky tonk bar in rural Mississippi in comparison.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Surface Navy or submariner? We deployed with the SEALs from a sub one time. Man, I wouldn’t want to do that again.

If you were a submariner, you have my respect. I would have gone completely bonkers inside there after about a week.

You guys did have the best chow, though. I went to the O Club at Pearl once and really envied you guys after that. Go to the O Club at Bragg or Benning and it’s like a honky tonk bar in rural Mississippi in comparison.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Surface Navy or submariner? We deployed with the SEALs from a sub one time. Man, I wouldn’t want to do that again.

If you were a submariner, you have my respect. I would have gone completely bonkers inside there after about a week.

You guys did have the best chow, though. I went to the O Club at Pearl once and really envied you guys after that. Go to the O Club at Bragg or Benning and it’s like a honky tonk bar in rural Mississippi in comparison.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Surface Navy or submariner? We deployed with the SEALs from a sub one time. Man, I wouldn’t want to do that again.

If you were a submariner, you have my respect. I would have gone completely bonkers inside there after about a week.

You guys did have the best chow, though. I went to the O Club at Pearl once and really envied you guys after that. Go to the O Club at Bragg or Benning and it’s like a honky tonk bar in rural Mississippi in comparison.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Surface Navy or submariner? We deployed with the SEALs from a sub one time. Man, I wouldn’t want to do that again.

If you were a submariner, you have my respect. I would have gone completely bonkers inside there after about a week.

You guys did have the best chow, though. I went to the O Club at Pearl once and really envied you guys after that. Go to the O Club at Bragg or Benning and it’s like a honky tonk bar in rural Mississippi in comparison.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: You miss both points. The argument was 1.3MM tons during 1999 – 2001 versus 1.44MM tons during WWII (European Theater). Obviously, we are agreeing to disagree and more research is necessary, but my central point is this: No way, no how that 2,700x more bombs were dropped over Europe than Clinton dropped over Iraq in nearly the same period of time (3 years v. 2 years). Modern jet aircraft are far more capable than those used during WWII, and carry massive bomb loads. That is why I used the comparison to Vietnam and the article referencing “sustained bombing”. Both points speak to the significance of the campaign and the amount of ordnance used.

I challenged you to say what you said to my face for one reason and one reason only: It is far different to attack someone’s character face-to-face and your use of the word “liar” is an attack on my character. If you think my modus operandi is to use physical force, think again. I strongly subscribe to personal responsibility and accountability and that includes practicing restraint.

I would ask that you respond to the questions I posed, as well as to acknowledge that much of what you attribute to Presidents like Bush and Nixon also applies to Presidents like Clinton and Johnson. You have strongly avoided any such discussion and have proven yourself unwilling to open the dialogue up in that direction. If you consider yourself fair and open-minded, then respond.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: You miss both points. The argument was 1.3MM tons during 1999 – 2001 versus 1.44MM tons during WWII (European Theater). Obviously, we are agreeing to disagree and more research is necessary, but my central point is this: No way, no how that 2,700x more bombs were dropped over Europe than Clinton dropped over Iraq in nearly the same period of time (3 years v. 2 years). Modern jet aircraft are far more capable than those used during WWII, and carry massive bomb loads. That is why I used the comparison to Vietnam and the article referencing “sustained bombing”. Both points speak to the significance of the campaign and the amount of ordnance used.

I challenged you to say what you said to my face for one reason and one reason only: It is far different to attack someone’s character face-to-face and your use of the word “liar” is an attack on my character. If you think my modus operandi is to use physical force, think again. I strongly subscribe to personal responsibility and accountability and that includes practicing restraint.

I would ask that you respond to the questions I posed, as well as to acknowledge that much of what you attribute to Presidents like Bush and Nixon also applies to Presidents like Clinton and Johnson. You have strongly avoided any such discussion and have proven yourself unwilling to open the dialogue up in that direction. If you consider yourself fair and open-minded, then respond.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: You miss both points. The argument was 1.3MM tons during 1999 – 2001 versus 1.44MM tons during WWII (European Theater). Obviously, we are agreeing to disagree and more research is necessary, but my central point is this: No way, no how that 2,700x more bombs were dropped over Europe than Clinton dropped over Iraq in nearly the same period of time (3 years v. 2 years). Modern jet aircraft are far more capable than those used during WWII, and carry massive bomb loads. That is why I used the comparison to Vietnam and the article referencing “sustained bombing”. Both points speak to the significance of the campaign and the amount of ordnance used.

I challenged you to say what you said to my face for one reason and one reason only: It is far different to attack someone’s character face-to-face and your use of the word “liar” is an attack on my character. If you think my modus operandi is to use physical force, think again. I strongly subscribe to personal responsibility and accountability and that includes practicing restraint.

I would ask that you respond to the questions I posed, as well as to acknowledge that much of what you attribute to Presidents like Bush and Nixon also applies to Presidents like Clinton and Johnson. You have strongly avoided any such discussion and have proven yourself unwilling to open the dialogue up in that direction. If you consider yourself fair and open-minded, then respond.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: You miss both points. The argument was 1.3MM tons during 1999 – 2001 versus 1.44MM tons during WWII (European Theater). Obviously, we are agreeing to disagree and more research is necessary, but my central point is this: No way, no how that 2,700x more bombs were dropped over Europe than Clinton dropped over Iraq in nearly the same period of time (3 years v. 2 years). Modern jet aircraft are far more capable than those used during WWII, and carry massive bomb loads. That is why I used the comparison to Vietnam and the article referencing “sustained bombing”. Both points speak to the significance of the campaign and the amount of ordnance used.

I challenged you to say what you said to my face for one reason and one reason only: It is far different to attack someone’s character face-to-face and your use of the word “liar” is an attack on my character. If you think my modus operandi is to use physical force, think again. I strongly subscribe to personal responsibility and accountability and that includes practicing restraint.

I would ask that you respond to the questions I posed, as well as to acknowledge that much of what you attribute to Presidents like Bush and Nixon also applies to Presidents like Clinton and Johnson. You have strongly avoided any such discussion and have proven yourself unwilling to open the dialogue up in that direction. If you consider yourself fair and open-minded, then respond.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: You miss both points. The argument was 1.3MM tons during 1999 – 2001 versus 1.44MM tons during WWII (European Theater). Obviously, we are agreeing to disagree and more research is necessary, but my central point is this: No way, no how that 2,700x more bombs were dropped over Europe than Clinton dropped over Iraq in nearly the same period of time (3 years v. 2 years). Modern jet aircraft are far more capable than those used during WWII, and carry massive bomb loads. That is why I used the comparison to Vietnam and the article referencing “sustained bombing”. Both points speak to the significance of the campaign and the amount of ordnance used.

I challenged you to say what you said to my face for one reason and one reason only: It is far different to attack someone’s character face-to-face and your use of the word “liar” is an attack on my character. If you think my modus operandi is to use physical force, think again. I strongly subscribe to personal responsibility and accountability and that includes practicing restraint.

I would ask that you respond to the questions I posed, as well as to acknowledge that much of what you attribute to Presidents like Bush and Nixon also applies to Presidents like Clinton and Johnson. You have strongly avoided any such discussion and have proven yourself unwilling to open the dialogue up in that direction. If you consider yourself fair and open-minded, then respond.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I’m an ex-Ranger. Of course ego plays a part in that, right or wrong.

The larger point I was making is in having respect for those who served. And here I am not speaking for myself, but for someone like Ex-SD. This guy did two tours in Vietnam. Most of my senior NCOs were Vietnam vets and the human cost of that war was awful. For someone like justme to snottily demean his time there is abhorrent. I cannot imagine how many of his friends went into body bags, but after two years in-country I would imagine it was a lot.

You seem reasonable and well-intentioned. I’m guessing USAF or Navy, right?

[Author]

Posts