>>>What if we had a truly armed enemy? How many trillions would THAT cost us?<<<
BC. I know that you are a really bright guy, but that was unworthy. The British failed in North America because we rebels hid behind trees and boulders and sniped at them, rarely forming cohesive units which could be destroyed in the field in a single battle or two.
A head on head war with us would be dirt cheap and over before lunch.
The true question is: having administered to the British in the late 18th century, a lesson in guerrilla warfare and the pain and expense of trans-ocean lines-of-supply, why did we willingly unlearn it or worse adopt those tactics which so demonstrably lead to failure?
One answer might be this bout of "Euro envy" or "one-world-government" which seems to be infecting the United States. You know - the Europeans always do everything right, and we sure can't figure which end is up by ourselves, so lets do what the Euros do. I even saw an article yesterday suggesting that the new $Franklin looked like a Euro note. Want to bet that it is programmable - an embedded chip somewhere in there - and that it can be turned into a Euro note by pressing a big red button in the Oval Office.
Why is it that all of those Dead White European males - which we have come to deprecate, ridicule and deplore, bugged out of Europe with all its wars and tyranny, came over here, and taught things like..."Babycakes, we have a good thing going here, a whole ocean between us and those inbred, militaristic, European nutcases, so lets have a doctrine where we simply don't get involved with foreign wars."
Ah well. Those who won't learn the lessons of history....... |
