Corrected that for you....

You need to get out more.

Democracy is not always the answer. What happens in a country where the populations is simply too ignorant about politics to make an informed choice? Do you remember the Philippines in the 1980's when Corazon Aquino was elected because everyone that voted for her got a yellow T-shirt? Is that a meaningful democracy?

Or what about a place like Iraq or (the former) Yugoslavia, where there are such violent ethnic/tribal and religious tensions, that any merely democratic system would elected the majority tribe/group and ensure the minorities are wiped out?

And what about the many countries in the third world whose institutions are so corrupt that a fair and democratic election is not possible and the result rigged and meaningless?

And what happens when you have a combination of the three scenarios above?

You need to be a giggling virgin to seriously believe a meaningful democracy is possible and desirable in every country on this planet today. It is not. It is a laudable goal no doubt; but it is absolute friggin pie-in-the-sky in many places.

All the better. Because I'm truly a fan of Nixon in this regard. I feel the liberal media has done him a disservice by concentrating on Watergate in lieu of the fact he was one of the main architects of our exit from Vietnam.

Some people try to call it Nixon's war, they forget about Johnson,-ah will neva escalate the wa in Vitnam- and McNamara
Nixon started pulling troops out his first year in office.

But communism works everywhere right?

yes would have been so sad if we didnot have a falling dollar and sky high oil
along with a war in iraq that is totally with out reason
and maybe limit the war on terror to places that had terrorists
there by actually capture their leader
and a budget that was not only balanced but in the black lowering the nation debts
how did we ever get thru the horror of the 90's

So you think that Iraq has been void of terrorists, eh? :rolleyes:

Liberals don't think, that is the problem:rolleyes:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mopkn0lPzM8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mopkn0lPzM8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

before invasion yes it was
esp the al-kiddies who were hated by God-damm Insane himself

now once we got in there and made a bunch of new ones out of the local nuts
others did flock in to fight too
but mostly, there were damm few real terrorists there before

Obamunists, oh man, the muleaid is strong tonight! I have to apologize for poking the troll with a stick.
yet it was the Vietnamese who whipped our butts...
you are trolltastic

I have no doubt there is someone, somewhere, who would argue that Mr Obama is the spawn of Satan. He is dark, and he is a prince; or was until that euro campaign tour.

Dumbass could have put a digital camera in his shirt pocket, done the stupid hold the camera out and take a picture of the both of you, mail the signed 8 by 10 with a canned ham or a nice big cheese because maybe everybody is not a goy. He did not have to take his press people with him, all he had to do is keep his mouth shut and smile. I thought he was smart. What did those people in Cambridge do to him?
you will see in about 6 months. I am dubious about Mr McCain winning, and things will be very bad if he does not.

Mr Nixon was a great President, his problem is that he was not a good man.

Mr Nixon was a great President, his problem is that he was not a good man.

but he DID believe in America

Is that seriously and ad paid for by the McCain campaign? I mean if it is McCain is even dumber than I thought.

I don't care who paid for or okd that video, it is pretty funny and I think right on.

Really? Nothing like the voters coming to grips with the real issues, eh?

Sad, that this is the level to which politicking is reduced in your fine land.

LOL. Just what issues has Obama come to grips with? "We are the ones we've been waiting for"(?) or maybe; " A light will shine down . . and you will say to yourself "I have to vote for Barrack""(?)

The man is ALL SHOW / no go. (what has he done for anyone ...other than himself?)

What do you mean "admit"? It is a fact. And i am not culpable in any case, why should i deny the truth?

Vietnam was a proxy. A mere pawn...to both sides. The Soviets and Chinese didn't care about Vietnam's people either. Not one whit.

We were fighting the Soviets, the Chinese, and Communism in general. The Vietnam war had nothing at all to do with Vietnam other than that being the place that some of the world's most powerful leaders stuck a pin in a map and said "We will fight the enemy there." On both sides.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Elitist. (spit)

So why are you complaining about it?

In your racist-elitist view the unwashed brown masses weren't fit to govern themselves with democracy, therefore they needed to be 'helped along' by a dictator anyway.

I guess you prefer Uncle Ho to Diem.

Methinx Uncle Ho killed many, many times more people than Diem did.

Where do you come up with that? The CIA has reports from the 1990s that suggest connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

For the US to win a total war is just a matter of willpower and effective leadership. The military power is in place, and has been for decades.

For instance, Al Q and the alphabet soup of Islamist extremist groups are our mortal enemies and have pledged to fight us in Iraq "until the end."

How's that going for them?

Had Bush resigned in 2004 (As LBJ did) and his successor pulled us out of Iraq by early 2006 (As Nixon did), Iraq would be a total disaster right now, and the US war effort a total defeat. History would have repeated itself.

What was the difference this time? The president didn't meddle with the Military, and he didn't QUIT in the middle of a war like Johnson did.

LBJ would've done a WHOLE lot worse. He'd be personally approving/rejecting bombing missions and target lists as he did during the Vietnam War.

At least Bush lets the military run the show. Now that "the military" is not Donald Rumsfeld anymore, things have largely righted themselves and we should have the lions share of our guys out of Iraq and into Afdirtistan by 2010. And we will leave behind a functional representative gov't (the proper term for a 'democracy') in Iraq with a strong and highly experienced military in place.

As opposed to Saddam Hussien, who was a freakin maniac nutcase who liked to agitate us constantly. Invade his neighbors. Lob missiles at the Jews. Attack his own countrymen with nerve gas. Stuff like that.

And Afghanistan is no longer a sanctuary for terrorist groups.

And no attacks on US Soil since 9-11.

Seems to me that foreign policy wise the ONLY thing Bush hasn't done is catch OBL.

His domestic policies and judgement wrt apointees have been terrible though. Just terrible. I am no Bush fan, but he is 100000000000000000000x the war leader than LBJ ever was.

Elitist?

Maybe you can explain to me the value of a vote that is cast without any understanding of why you are casting it or who you are casting it for.

Does the mere act of casting that ballot have some inherent value to you?

That, sadly, is the case in many places in the world with largely rural, uneducated populations.

It is what it is.