You seem to think Stalin was fully rational, why aren't I surprised? As for the original post in this thread Annie agrees the money could have been beter spenton a mental facility near you.
a better parallel for Korean war is the Kuwait war. Similarly, the action to defend Kosovo was a defensive rather than pre-emptive war. These wars were DEFENSIVE police actions intended to prevent invasion and ethnic cleansing by a bordering country/territory. This type of police action is intended to be performed by the United Nations (not the USA). Therefore the UN building should NOT BE COLOCATED INSIDE THE USA. It should reside in an international country (which does not exist yet, but could be Jeruselem for instance, which is already fairly international). A large coalition of countries should be formed BEFORE any defensive police action. The USA failed to do that with the recent invasion of IRAQ, but did so quite successfully with WWII (allies against Germany/Japan/Italy), Kuwait and Kosovo. These types of "defensive" wars are the only justifiable purpose of centralized governments - to defend their people.
The problem is Vietnam and IRAQ wars are not defensive in nature. They are "pre-emptive" (meant to stop the spread of communism and terrorism respectively). Pre-emptive wars are doomed to failure because the aggressor is unclear, and often imperialistic in behavior - trying to force its own values on the country which is trying to find its own way.
>>what about Korea, same type of situation
Are you trying to tell me that the war in Korea was a success? I view it as a total disaster! The USA failed to secure N. Korea and exited that war without victory. The USA has since been subsidizing S. Korea at enormous expense! Using the same USSR-strategy of cold-war rather than pre-emptive strike would have worked better - and is working, where the former pre-emptive war failed. So it proves my point.
Nice visuals on your profile. Remind me not to invite you into my neighborhood. We like it peaceful here. You would be running around busting down doors trying to pre-emptively secure more peace!
Amen, the last thing we need is a trip and fall in charge, what happened to America, we usually choose "leaders" =govenors, lawyers are the very last thing we need, somebody who has only ran a school newspaper at that???????? At least a military officer has really led.
bad comparison USSR=rational Iraq=irrational
you don't know what steam Vietnam took out of the movement, you talk about Vietnam, what about Korea, same type of situation, do you think our involvement and a free S. Korea was a huge success, especially for those living there, or under your theory, Korea would all be like N. Korea. Would you think that was good????????????? Again your sense of history is lacking, you have to understand when actions are taken things are prevented, I know this is a difficult concept for you, but our involvement in Iraq may have prevented untold death and suffering over the next 100+ years, can you say it hasn't??? NO Can I say it will?? NO But my best guess is it will. The motivation for this was the greater good for the longterm, difficult for our drive through society.
it's a good comparison because the response to communism ("domino theory" was that it would spread, eventually threatening USA directly) was originally "pre-emptive" such as VIETNAM. The lesson learned in vietnam is identical to modern IRAQ, which is that pre-emptive policy fails. The natives perceive the invader (USA) as a greater evil than the native abusers. To win this type of war, the USA stood back from native abusers (USSR), and let them make fools of themselves. Then the natives revolt unaided by USA, and fix their own mess. Just as the USSR had WMD's (bioweapons/nukes), these attacks never happened because the USA could retaliate. That is "walking softly and carrying a big stick" concept versus "pre-emptive" policy.
Similarly in IRAQ, the USA fears a "domino theory" of spreading terrorism that would eventually lead to WMD attacks on US soil. Rather than use the "cold war" solution which would eventually topple abusers from the inside, the USA has decided to invade these countries and can no longer differentiate abusers from freedom-fighters because the invasion itself insults the natives making them want to rise against the USA using whatever abusive means possible.
This means that the USA has no way to win this war - any more than it could win Vietnam. Ultimately the USA will withdraw with its tail between its legs, and learn to fight terrorists using "cold war" tactics, the same as it used to beat USSR. If the USA fails to withdraw, then WORLD WAR III will begin, as other countries begin to side with freedom-fighters against USA tactics of pre-emptive invasion to protect their sovereign interests. And the USA will be destroyed - bombed into surrender and bankruptcy - along with the planet.
>>Something tells me that if the libertarian party ever gained any real power, they would end up working for the same crooks (if they hadn't already). The only way to really make a difference is with your own dollar and your own actions
This could be true. In the 1800's the republican party stood against slavery, for women's right to vote, and release of lands for settlement - basically FOR individual liberty. But in the 1900's it began to stand AGAINST individual liberty on such issues as abortion, gay rights, stem cell therapy, and intrusive foreign policy. However, the democrat party formed to resist the creation of public debt (national bank), tarrifs, support genocide of native indians to steal their land, continue slavery and get government involved in lending money to settlers. Both parties have morphed over time AWAY from their original ideals, so there is no reason not to believe that the Libertarian party would also.
However, it is sometimes necessary to empower a new party in order to return to sanity. For now, the Libertarian party is by far the most sane choice among the parties available. They insist on downsizing public control, thereby increasing supply/demand response to such issues as energy, reducing incarcerations/increasing-liberties (e.g. FDA, DOE would be out), and a foreign policy which is not "pre-emptive". By running candidates who are NOT lawyers, libertarians continue to prove that their intentions are sincere to reduce beaurocracy, increase-crisis-response efficiency and promote liberty by removing laws/laywers from power.