Interesting satire. It’s actually well-written and intelligent. I don’t exactly agree with your true point though.

kungfu,

Vietnam was winnable. It’s just that our strategy was horrible for most of the war. Rather like unescorted daylight bombing in WWII or our initial forays in North Africa or the initial use of the Sherman tank. Most wars catch us by surprise in terms of strategy, and sadly the initial stages are full of tragedy. After regrouping, a better strategy can be developed.
In Vietnam, we had the groundwork for keeping South Vietnam stable. It was a very precarious peace, and you would have to hope that the south would become like South Korea, but it was there. The downfall wasn’t just a liberal/hippy product – the isolationists played their part, as did Nixon’s criminal political machine.

You’re being a parodist, aren’t you?

I get the distinct feeling Tom is a liberal playing at parody here.

It’s funny. Real Saturday Night Live- Will Ferrel stuff.

Seriously, though, why do liberals AND conservative cling so strongly to their own myths. I see it here and on liberal blogs. In this case, it’s Vietnam was good, we got screwed by the pansy liberals, we are still fighting the Nazis, landing on Omaha, glorious, glorious. Let it go.

Chop!

And, it’s is true — if one assumes little or insufficient military support of S. Vietnam, or any US ally.
S. Korea? not viable — without US support AND troops (as a tripwire / fighters who won’t run)
Democratic Nicaragua? not viable — without the US
Berlin after the Wall is built? not viable.
Democratic W. Germany after WW II? not viable.
Democratic Israel? not viable
Democratic France in WW II? not viable — without US force.

Non-genocidal Darfur? not viable — until the US uses a bigger stick.
Democratic Iraq? not viable — unless the US stays until it is.

A 25 week old human fetus prematurely born? not viable — unless modern tech is used to save its life (recently 21 week old was saved). (If unwanted, viability isn’t considered because the unwanted fetus has NO human rights.)
Is this the wrong thread? No.

The issue of viability depends on the actions that the US, or other authority, is able AND willing to exercise.

Please consider that “rule of law” depends, first and formost, on the “lawmen” winning any fights. It is the group that is willing to win the fights that makes “the law”, which is enforced, and therefore obeyed.

Oh, LeMay of course…

Get the job done…the janitors can sweep up the debris late.

1) Good Ole Niccolo sez: “Better feared than loved…”

2) “The winners write the history…”

3) Good Ole Hank Ford sez: ‘History is BUNK!”

Words To Live By…

Who’s your pick?

Curtis Lemay or Thomas Powers?

Didn’t turn out too well for them.

Another good reason for not forgetting pre-9/11 history.

BTW: What is a “Volunteer army of Jessicas who cannot even read a map.” about?

Pol Pot was not American. Most liberals are like Neo, ashamed of every last shred of their past, but too old to actually enlist. We need a new militarism in the Good America in which war is rehabilitated. There is no reason why real Americans cannot learn to focus on the good side of war and no reason why the press or historians should focus on the bad side, if there is even a bad side. Some people die in war, true, some get injured. But as Alyssa notes Fate will deal with liberals and in the post 9-11 world, let us praise the pure good of hunting down our enemies and killing them.

Look at all the boo-hoo ing over torture. Any real American would torture when and where necessary and in doing so actually increase his goodness.