Liberals have obsessed over diminishing America one way or another at least since Carter’s National Malaise speech assured us we would need to learn to do with less – on the eve of the most prosperous 3 decades any nation experienced in human history.

I’m quite bemused about what “empire,” exactly, liberals think we have. Does it include Germany? Seems like we have more troops there than anywhere. Maybe liberals should reference a dictionary definition of what an “empire” is, exactly…

I haven't ventured there in years. Are the other Kosites in agreement with this or is this just a lone loon?

Now that these lefties are up in arms about global warming, it becomes evident their desire to destroy the US might be tied to the fact they see us as the main reason that one world socialist government has not come about yet. Think of it. The Euroweenies are ready to give away the few freedomms they have left to big government if it but promisses to keep them all at the same level of misery. The left believes that if they but shift enough wealth to the third world, even they will buy into this big socialist government thing, and they can have their cake. The only country standing in the way of this socialist world government so far has been the US, because of its incredibly economic capability and military might, so they need us destroyed or deminished in order to prevent us from stopping them from forcing this socialist 1984-like government on the world. What a stupid ideology socialism and liberalism are.

Quite honestly, I think at this point the main function our troops in Germany serve is to keep on eye on the Germans... many an eastern European sleeps better at night knowing we exert a moderating influence on Berlin. I doubt relying on Paris would give them the same sense of comfort... that was tried once, in 1938.

People who post at KOS are f*cking idiots and should not be allowed to vote.

No. First of all nobody ever explains what winning and losing means. He certainly didn't mean losing the war as you interpreted him to mean, otherwise the guy wouldn't have said, "so that we can remain a free people"
Posted by farmer1 February 2, 2007 6:59 AM

Losing is losing no matter how you try to nuance it. At least this fool admitted to what all liberals want... a diminished America.

This is just another way of saying, "The war in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the US and terrorism, and everything to do with the Iraqis determining which religious faction will rule its country. We are merely attempting to make that choice for them and they don't want us to"

Poppa Bush's Iraq Strategy that Junior failed to heed.

The consequences of President Bush's decision to pre-emptively invade Iraq have placed the United States in a difficult and vulnerable position. Had Bush followed his father's reasoning at the end of Desert Storm, he would not have led this country into the worsening Iraqi quagmire.

In "A World Transformed," coauthored by former President George H. W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1998, the basis for the U.S. policy not to invade and occupy Iraq after the Iraqi army retreated from Kuwait is explained in detail. Bush and Scowcroft wrote that had the decision been made to pursue the retreating Iraqi army to Baghdad, the United States "would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq." This, they point out, would have collapsed the coalition and caused the Arab members to desert the coalition in "anger." The author's impression was that under those circumstances, "there was no viable 'exit strategy'... violating another of our principles."

Bush and Scowcroft also explained that the United States had been trying to "set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish." Furthermore "[had] we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

Bush's grand strategy -

Posted by CoolCzech
February 2, 2007 10:12 AM

You mean, Bush's Grand Mother-of-All Screwups? yeah, its a grand strategy for the beginning of WWIII.