World Cup!

@Der:

USA by far. Andrew Sisters, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland - game over!

I’d have to agree completely, but you left out Swing, Jazz, Jive and Big Band.

Duke Ellington, Cab Calloway, Glenn Miller, etc. that music still works.

France had Edith Piaf, but otherwise I don’t think many would choose Wagner over The Duke.

Tipperary was WWI.

The NFL will attempt an overseas adventure with an team, i can’t say it will work or not. Worth a try, better than a small U.S market city. The London game should have been better teams, first class teams like a Dallas Cowboy and Oakland Raider match up.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chinese-hackers-breach-key-u-weapons-designs-133849940.html

@M36:

Speaking of Korea though, it is true that South Korea is an immensely prosperous nation, while North Korea languishes in poverty. South Korea became “Americanized” and now places that where once rice patties and dusty mountain roads are prosperous metropolises. ( I know this because my sister is serving in Korea with the Army engineers) Without our intervention, South Korea would have been conquered, and would be no better off than North Korea is under the heel of communism. The Korean conflict was one of our more noble military ventures.

Sure, military means money.  S. Vietnam had a huge jump in economy when we were there that mostly collapsed after we left.  It would happen no matter where we go.

However, the state of Korea today has less to do with them being dirty communists, and more with the disintegration of the USSR and a horrible famine during the 90’s.  They simply could not support themselves because their primary trading partner disappeared and was unable to supply what they needed, only to be subjected to a series of disastrous floods and drought.  Of course, it’s not helped by their military-oriented economic policy, but we do similar and still sustain ourselves (but we’ve got the goods).

But we took a number of casualties in Korea, was it worth that sacrifice of American lives? As a Marine I believe we are all expendable to accomplish our mission, but the call is yours. How many of us will you sacrifice to accomplish the objective? You should be willing to sacrifice all of us. That kind of resolve no longer exists in America.

Tough to say.  As an elite group of fighters, I wouldn’t send Marines in frivolously.  When it comes to Korea, we are exactly where we were after WW2 (except no skirmishes and such).  So did it do any good?  I guess so, primarily economically.  Are your lives worth promoting the economy of another country?  Are anyone’s?  Especially when that country actually competes with our own?

But here’s the thing: we installed an unpopular dictator in S. Korea that resigned.  A military coup followed that was just was tyrannical and ruthless.  It really goes unnoticed because the economy surged and we “saved” them from communism.  But I don’t think we accomplished all that much.

I’m not sure when or where you guys should be deployed.  Hopefully never, but that’s a pipe dream.

http://cooltech.iafrica.com/technews/940180.htm

The end is near…yikes!

@F_alk:

Clausewitz would be quite astonished.

touche! :wink:

I think its not. That thing you quoted is an US law proposal, and the only difference from the situation today is that a UN controlled lightly armed force would subsitute the US controlled heavily armed forces…. maybe that difference between “N” and “S” is the thing you dislike that much.

P_Bear
.
.
.
.
cough Xi
.
.
.
.