Tony Hwang wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jan 29, 2:30 pm, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 1:33:55 AM UTC-7, harry wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4a__tcfFug

If I was an American I would definitely support Ron Paul.

My thoughts exactly.

When the UK abrogated its role as world policeman after WWII, the US
took over the job. If not the US, then who? China? Russia? Somalia?

In 1960, South Korea had the same per-capita income as Uganda.
Today, it ranks 4th. Most believe the 50,000 troops we have in the
contry have deterred the North from further escapades.

In Europe, there has been a war, historically, about every fifteen
minutes. With 120,000 US troops in place, minor irritations haven't
escalated into general war in almost seven decades (the longest
Europe has been at peace since before the invention of moveable type
(in China) ). And why should the U.S. BE the world's policeman?

"Because we're here, lad. There's no one else. Just us. Now face the
front and mark your target when he comes. There's a good lad."

If you want to talk anout it, you better know more anout the
historical truth first.

For one, Koreans did not want to divide their country after the WWII.
You, USA and USSR forced it upon them. Did you know that Roosevelt
wanted th share the secret of Nuke bomb with Russians? Churchill
objected to it. Why did you choke off gasoline supply for Gen.
Patton's tanks when he was advancing towards Russian border? Do you
know who really killed him?

Historical truth is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

You raise some interesting issues about which I knew nothing. Similarily,
I'm in the dark about dark matter, whether Madonna still shaves her private
area, the recipe for Coca-Cola, where the American National Standard Orgasm
is kept, where a fire goes when it goes out, how high is up, and other
pressing issues.

Regrettably, my ignorance on these matters has nothing to do with whether
the U.S. is, or should be, the world's policeman.