Re: What 'War' Was That Idiot Talking about?

On Jul 25, 1:30 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> dead kennedy haters wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 10:17 pm, retrogro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:49:49 -0700 (PDT), dead kennedy haters
>
> >> <bvall...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> .
> >>>>> The difference is that with the two Marshall Plan countries, we
were
> >>>>> dealing with countries that both had a strong sense of
nationality, and
> >>>>> both were very sick of war.  Thus it made sense to build them up.
..
> >>>> Not to mention we were dealing with countries that had planned to
go
> >>>> to war and invaded others.
..
> >>> And this is different from Nazi German and WWII Japan exactly how?
..
> >> LOL. WE INVADED IRAQ moron.
..
> > We invaded Japan and Germany, too.
..
>    The obvious difference Is that Japan attacked us and Germany declared
> war. Iraq did neither.
..
Of course, the discussion isn't about how we entered the war, rather,
how we have historically handled our post war victories.

At the end of WWI, Wilson set about on a strategy similar to the one
Obama demands - bug out at the first possible chance, and leave the
country to fend for itself.  The result was the rise of Adolph Hitler,
the Holocaust and 40 million innocent souls dead.  Let's refer to this
plan as "Operation Short Sighted ****heads".

At the end of WWII, Truman set about a program similar to what George
Bush wants.  The Marshal plan has led to uninterrupted peace in Europe
since 1945, prosperity for that continent, and strong allies for the
United States.  Let's refer to this option as "Operation Eternal Peace
And Happiness Which Is Hated By Shortsighted ****heads".

Why do you insist that we repeat Wilson's idiotic, shortsighted
mistakes, while ignoring Turman's option, which is the most successful
post-war operation in world history?