CompuServe Thread

There in lies the problem. The US President (whether Bush or Clinton – it does not matter) had American troops go in under the UN flag (and I will point out with other UN member nations as well), then proceeded to dictate policy. In essence they tried to make a little political thunder and had it blown up in thier faces. The UN peacekeepers are _non_ political. For the last 30+ years all of thier actions have been non-political and they have worked (well Cyprus is still around, but the Greeks and Turks have not fought for the last 30 years also, so that's better than a failure). One nation can not dictate policy to the UN just to gain political face. It just does not work, no matter who the nation is. =>setting up a government to an ungovernable people The people were not ungovernable. A small segment of the population (namely the gangs) were ungovernable, they also had the guns, and were perfectly willing to use them on American soldiers. When the US military tried to respond, they were shot down by thier political masters who were responding to public outcry – namely, to get the hell out. Result – quid pro quo. It was not a failure in the attempt of trying to bring order to an area in chaos, but a case of a few men willing to use whatever means at their disposal and allow American public opinion take it's course. It appears that they were correct. =>As for Korea, we did what we did in Vietnam: did a half-assed job and get =>our butts thrown out. The US military is still in Korea – South Korea – and have been there since the cease fire. You are right about Vietnam tho. =>even if it is only a soldier Don't get me wrong. I was not trying to knock the military. What I was trying to get across was that if you are going to commit troops, then commit troops. Have a realistic idea of the goals that are needed for success and task the military to achieve them (and then get the hell out of the way). Leave the troops there until those goals are achieved, _then_ pull them out. If it takes years to achieve those goals, then so be it, but also be prepared for setbacks. While I do understand the sarcasm, George, I would like to explain that I served in the military and at no time was there a 'devaluation of human life'. If anything, there was a tendency to ensure that every opportunity was taken to decrease possible causalties. I also understand the reasoning behind wanting to protect sons and daughters (my parents probably felt the same way), but that does not mean they need to be cloistered either. Just living is dangerous, but _someone_ is needed to make this world a more peaceful place, and who better than a soldier if used properly? Personally, I would love to see a time when armies were no longer needed, but I also have to look at it realistically and realize that I may never see that time, nor could my son, nor his son. If it meant a little sacrifice now to achieve that goal, would it not be worth it? Trent 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'