Leon Trotsky - 03 July 2008 09:11 PM

dirty dan - 03 July 2008 07:29 PM

What high school do you attend Leon? And how’s summer school going for you? Do you think you’ll pass this time?

I see dan too has hit a wall and sunk to his usual low in the face unpleasant facts.

“...low in the face unpleasant facts”? So you are a high school student. That would explain your impressive absence of wisdom.

Leon, you’ve been proven wrong repeatedly on this thread. Your posts have been such idiocy that DM didn’t even try to come to your rescue as she normally does.

Yet as usual, you’re much too stupid to know when to quit.

I’m going to do you a favor and ignore you on this thread until you can come up with any proof (rather than your opinion) to your dullard claims here that;
1. The US couldn’t mount a military response on North Korea if we wished.
2. Bush has never used diplomacy “as a means to an end”. (like those 6 words make a difference to your meaning.)

His age and status aside dan, he’s just a plain idiot.  Sometimes when I’m bored I try to engage him, but most of the time his ramblings are so obtuse and juvenile, I just ignore him.

  You two should get a room.

If I do, I’ll let you and DM know where it is so you can hookup!!

During the same panel, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the next President—whether McCain or Obama—would have to continue drawing down forces because “the U.S. cannot sustain this level of deployment indefinitely.” Source

Someone should have told Powell that fred and dan disagree with him.

He already knows.

we’ve been lucky that no world threat has emerged that would require a sustained, mid to large scale, conventional military response since we decided to commit to iraq in 2003.  had one emerged (or emerges in the near future), some of the people posting in this thread would/will be in for a rude awakening when it comes to comprehending just how strained and overstreched our military is.

bignasty - 09 July 2008 05:17 PM

we’ve been lucky that no world threat has emerged that would require a sustained, mid to large scale, conventional military response since we decided to commit to iraq in 2003. had one emerged (or emerges in the near future), some of the people posting in this thread would/will be in for a rude awakening when it comes to comprehending just how strained and overstreched our military is.

Why do you limit a military response it to “conventional”? Are you of the belief that war should be compassionate?

dirty dan - 11 July 2008 10:28 PM

bignasty - 09 July 2008 05:17 PM

we’ve been lucky that no world threat has emerged that would require a sustained, mid to large scale, conventional military response since we decided to commit to iraq in 2003. had one emerged (or emerges in the near future), some of the people posting in this thread would/will be in for a rude awakening when it comes to comprehending just how strained and overstreched our military is.

Why do you limit a military response it to “conventional”? Are you of the belief that war should be compassionate?

do you truly believe conventional war is compassionate?  if you do then it is certain you have never fought in a conventional war.
when you juxtapose the belief by some (apparently like dirty dan) that it is of no real consequence that we have nearly two thirds of our armed forces at any given time tied up in iraq and afghanistan with the fact that nuclear weapons have been used only twice in one theater of one war over 60 years ago, you can make a genuinely bizmarckian realpolitik deduction that nuclear weapon usage is something to be confined to the most extreme of military conditions, such as an invasion of the homeland or a first strike by nuclear weapons to american interests anywhere in the world.  it is not likely to be an acceptable excuse to our allies, enemies, and most citizens to use nuclear weapons in any other situation, such as a strained conventional capacity through political miscalculation.  given this, the usage of nuclear weapons to merely contain north korea (or iran for that matter) is for all but the most extreme of hawks off the table.
you’re kidding yourself if you believe that our ability to respond to threats in a practical manner has not been eroded by the strain that our military has been put under in iraq and afghanistan.  george w. bush may have truly wanted a diplomatic solution to the north korea problem, but since our conventional military capability is in the state that it is currently in, he really had no choice.

Nasty, you killed them with sense. 

And no, none of the “strategery masterminds” posting here has served in the military and fought a conventional war.  Unfortunately, that’s the way it is with many Republicans these days.