I think this is relative....from yesterdays Wall St Journal.

It is a piece searching for the Obama doctrine on foreign affairs and how hard it is to really find one.

For all of you, and there are many, who refuse to read anything unless it contains a criticism of George Bush, this has a few.

"It is clear that the president’s strategy is failing disastrously. Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four, according to data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold, based on the University of Maryland’s Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism database. Nearly all this violence is concentrated in a swath of territory stretching from North Africa through the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there is every reason to expect the violence to escalate as the Sunni powers of the region seek to prevent Iran from establishing itself as the post-American hegemon.

Today the U.S. faces three strategic challenges: the maelstrom in the Muslim world, the machinations of a weak but ruthless Russia, and the ambition of a still-growing China. The president’s responses to all three look woefully inadequate.

Those who know the Obama White House’s inner workings wonder why this president, who came into office with next to no experience of foreign policy, has made so little effort to hire strategic expertise. In fairness, Denis McDonough (now White House chief of staff) has some real knowledge of Latin America. While at Oxford, National Security Adviser Susan Rice wrote a doctoral dissertation on Zimbabwe. And Samantha Power, ambassador to the U.N., has published two substantial books (one of which—“A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide”—she will need to update when she returns to academic life)."


To this last point, over the years, many posters have pointed out the Presidents lack of ever asking for advice and when he does never the correct people. He seems to feel he has the answers and this applies not just in the foreign affairs arena.

The piece ends like this and gives you pause when you think of the candidates running for office....

"Some things you can learn on the job, like tending bar or being a community organizer. National-security strategy is different. “High office teaches decision making, not substance,” Mr. Kissinger once wrote. “It consumes intellectual capital; it does not create it.” The next president may have cause to regret that Barack Obama didn’t heed those words. In making up his strategy as he has gone along, this president has sown the wind. His successor will reap the whirlwind. He or she had better bring some serious intellectual capital to the White House."

The Real Obama Doctrine - WSJ

[QUOTE=Guest;1127197]

Originally Posted by Guest

And something else you probably didn't know, Sadaam violated the no fly zone and that in itself warranted military action.

----------

And that was certainly cause to have 4500 Americans die in direct combat and tens of thousands more maimed for life.

There was no threat to America.

Was Vietnam a threat to America? Didn't we lose about 60,000 Americans there? Do you blame Kennedy or Johnson for Vietnam?

Why you brought Bush into the discussion is anyone's guess. Although, the liberal mantra hasn't changed in a while, has it?

[QUOTE=Guest;1127330]

Originally Posted by Guest

Was Vietnam a threat to America? Didn't we lose about 60,000 Americans there? Do you blame Kennedy or Johnson for Vietnam?

Why you brought Bush into the discussion is anyone's guess. Although, the liberal mantra hasn't changed in a while, has it?

Because of the limitations of the talking points issued. States if you don't know the answer or we have not given you what to say use the old standdby, Bush did it .......whether it makes sense or not does not matter. Just derail the discussion.

[QUOTE=Guest;1127330]

Originally Posted by Guest

Was Vietnam a threat to America? Didn't we lose about 60,000 Americans there? Do you blame Kennedy or Johnson for Vietnam?

Why you brought Bush into the discussion is anyone's guess. Although, the liberal mantra hasn't changed in a while, has it?

Do I blame Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam? You bet I do.

58,000 killed for no reason whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Guest;1127729]

Originally Posted by Guest

Do I blame Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam? You bet I do.

58,000 killed for no reason whatsoever.

I'd be careful saying that in front of those of us that served there. Easy to say that anonymously though.

Liberals don't understand why America fought socialism and communism. It's part of the liberal ideology and seems wrong to fight it. Maybe that is why liberals are frequently thought of as the ENEMY by patriotic Americans.

I had more respect for the enemy fighting us than for the liberals back home protesting or running to Canada. At least the enemy had the courage to fight for their country.

Originally Posted by Guest

I had more respect for the enemy fighting us than for the liberals back home protesting or running to Canada. At least the enemy had the courage to fight for their country.

Yes, the Vietnamese were fighting for their country. It was their war - the US had no business in a civil war that would have no impact on our country.

The 58,000 killed died for nothing. The US is now a trading partner with the Communist Vietnam.

Can you enlighten us on what was gained by having 58,000 Americans die in the Vietnam War?

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, the Vietnamese were fighting for their country. It was their war - the US had no business in a civil war that would have no impact on our country.

The 58,000 killed died for nothing. The US is now a trading partner with the Communist Vietnam.

Can you enlighten us on what was gained by having 58,000 Americans die in the Vietnam War?

Why don't you ask the democrat politicians that ran the war from D.C.? We could have easily won the war in short time and with a fraction of lives lost. But, nice deflection from the thread to Bush's fault to money spent, lives lost, etc. Now, get back on track or leave.

Originally Posted by Guest

Why don't you ask the democrat politicians that ran the war from D.C.? We could have easily won the war in short time and with a fraction of lives lost. But, nice deflection from the thread to Bush's fault to money spent, lives lost, etc. Now, get back on track or leave.

No, I am certainly not going to leave.

I do not care if the war was run from DC or wherever and do not care if it was Democrat politicians or not.

You stupidly say that we easily could have won the war. Won what? Installed another puppet government and have to keep 30,000 troops there for 50 years?

Originally Posted by Guest

No, I am certainly not going to leave.

I do not care if the war was run from DC or wherever and do not care if it was Democrat politicians or not.

You stupidly say that we easily could have won the war. Won what? Installed another puppet government and have to keep 30,000 troops there for 50 years?

You "stupidly" forget that it worked in WWII for Japan and Germany. We gave them better countries and built their economies. We also did it for half of Korea with positive results. Look at N.Korea and how bankrupt and starving they are. Regardless of you liberal "screw them" selfish ideology, we have helped in the world.

D.C. politics messed up Vietnam, not the military. And if you don't think that the military trains to fight war, then there's something wrong with you. It's called the military and not the Peace Corps. But, generals should be directing the fight, not a bunch of inexperienced civilians.

But, when you have a so-called leader "leading from behind" that tells America that more important than fighting for right and national security, "My Definition of Leadership Would Be Leading on Climate Change" quote from Obama. What a joke! What a pathetic wannabee dictator. And COWARD.

Originally Posted by Guest

You "stupidly" forget that it worked in WWII for Japan and Germany. We gave them better countries and built their economies. We also did it for half of Korea with positive results. Look at N.Korea and how bankrupt and starving they are. Regardless of you liberal "screw them" selfish ideology, we have helped in the world?
.

Vietnam won the war! They are now a tourist destination for Americans as well as trading partners with the USA. They don't need American troops on their soil for the next 50 years.

As I said, I do not care which political party got us in Vietnam - it was wrong to do so. It was an internal civil war and the USA had no business being there. If you think different, tell us why and what was gained by having over 58,000 soldiers killed. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Guest

Vietnam won the war! They are now a tourist destination for Americans as well as trading partners with the USA. They don't need American troops on their soil for the next 50 years.

As I said, I do not care which political party got us in Vietnam - it was wrong to do so. It was an internal civil war and the USA had no business being there. If you think different, tell us why and what was gained by having over 58,000 soldiers killed. Thank you.

Obviously you don't know your history. By your reasoning, we shouldn't have been in WW1 or WWII. But, I expect nothing more from cowardly liberals that think only from the perspective of how much money the gov is spending elsewhere when they could be spending it on you.

Originally Posted by Guest

Obviously you don't know your history. By your reasoning, we shouldn't have been in WW1 or WWII. But, I expect nothing more from cowardly liberals that think only from the perspective of how much money the gov is spending elsewhere when they could be spending it on you.

It is you that knows little history. I asked for your reasoning as to why the US forces fought in an internal civil war and what was gained by the loss of 58,000 American lives. I hear crickets from your direction.

In WWII, the US was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and war was declared the following day. Nothing civil war about that.

Now, provide your reasoning about Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is you that knows little history. I asked for your reasoning as to why the US forces fought in an internal civil war and what was gained by the loss of 58,000 American lives. I hear crickets from your direction.

In WWII, the US was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and war was declared the following day. Nothing civil war about that.

Now, provide your reasoning about Vietnam.

Go away. You are like a little kid (probably are one) that baits and dares his peers. I'm not going to get sucked into your little traps so that you can get your little jollies. I made my statement and you cowardly diverted to the age old liberal tactic of "you hate women because you don't want them to have free birth control." You hate children because you don't want tax money to pay for free lunches" "You hate blacks because you want photo ID to vote." "You hate gays because you don't want them to get married."

You are so typical and liberal. So, go away. Go find someone else to play with.

And yes, I do believe in war if it is for a legitimate cause. If you really/really need answers, use your Google. If you need instruction on how to use Google, blame your teacher.

Originally Posted by Guest

Go away. You are like a little kid (probably are one) that baits and dares his peers. I'm not going to get sucked into your little traps so that you can get your little jollies. I made my statement and you cowardly diverted to the age old liberal tactic of "you hate women because you don't want them to have free birth control." You hate children because you don't want tax money to pay for free lunches" "You hate blacks because you want photo ID to vote." "You hate gays because you don't want them to get married."

You are so typical and liberal. So, go away. Go find someone else to play with.

And yes, I do believe in war if it is for a legitimate cause. If you really/really need answers, use your Google. If you need instruction on how to use Google, blame your teacher.

Well, you proved it to all the readers that you are just a blowhard who knows nothing about history. You could not give a single reason for the US to be in Vietnam.

58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam for no reason. America was in no danger from Vietnam.

4,500 Americans killed in Iraq for no reason. America was in no danger from Iraq.