On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:47:05 -0800 Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Celejar wrote: > > > On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:36:09 -0800 > > Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> It's a little disingenious to hide behind the success of World War II to > >> whitewash over the utter failure of every military action since. > > > > "Every" US military action since WWII has been a "utter failure" ? The > > first Gulf war (incontrovertibly a resounding success, the argument > > being over whether we should have gone further) > > Failrue, we had to go back a decade later to finish the job. > > > , the Korean war (not a > > victory, but hardly an utter failure), > > Failure, mission was not accomplished. > > > the Afghanistan campaign, > > Failure, we've hired warlords to hunt warlords again. Didn't we learn from > working with bin Laden in the first place that you just can't trust > warlords? > > > the efforts in the Balkans have been "utter failures" ? > > I'd hardly call any of the former Soviet-bloc stable. Your definition of "utter failure" is ... interesting. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
