While I agree with his comment, I am left wondering just how much blood ol' Fred has shed for liberty?

Or is he just another pol playing to the crowd by trying to piggyback on the sacrifices of those Americans who have served and have shed real blood in combat?

--- Just a curious combat vet.

Thompson's meaning is obvious, when you fully apprehend American history.

We hate spilling *our* blood, so we put a lot of effort into minimizing the amount of *our* blood we shed in battle, while *maximizing* the blood shed by others.

And we have made others shed a lot.

Jeezus! Has nobody watched "Patton"?

CbtVet,

My mother had six sons; two joined the Navy, two joined the Marines and two stayed at home. It's what we fought for, remember?

CbtVet,

Or is he just another pol playing to the crowd by trying to piggyback on the sacrifices of those Americans who have served and have shed real blood in combat?

With the exception of Harry Truman, no wartime US president of the 20th century saw serious extended combat before coming into office.

I find the idea that military service is a prerequisite for holding national office revolting. America is not ruled by a military caste. Combat doesn't grant some magical insight into foreign policy. For example, Smedley Butler, the highly decorated commandant of the Marine corp during the 1920's became a major spokesman for the Fascist enabling isolationist movement of the 1930's. FDR by contrast, never heard a shot fired in anger.

I'm not a Thompson fan but he is correct about America's propensity to fight for others. Comparing the Soviets self-serving actions in WWII to those of America is just warped. America only got dragged into the war because of moral support for the chinese and the liberal democracies in Europe.

Fred may be right. Most blood shed in wars is shed not for liberty but rather to support one despot over another. Russians did not fight in WWII for liberty but to prevent German domination. True liberty is a very modern concept that means the protection of individual rights.

While Americans were shedding blood in Vietnam, ol' folksy Fred was betraying the trust of the American people by leaking info from the watergate committee to the Nixon Administration. He's damaged goods, people.

While you may not like the fact that so many Soviets died in WWII, the more important fact was the number of Germans engaged and killed by the Soviet armed forces during the conflict. You can complain all you want but the turning point in WWII in Eurtope occurred in June 1941.
Did Fred forget to tally the English and French soldiers who died in WWI? Or are we just counting WWII?

Fred, "On the Issues" (www.fred08.com)
National Security
The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan�the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America - or an America that appears weaker - will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it.

I find the idea that military service is a prerequisite for holding national office revolting. America is not ruled by a military caste. Combat doesn't grant some magical insight into foreign policy.

I agree fully though I do not see that assertion being made by anyone here.

We will never learn that we can not be the policemen of the world. However we are always ready to send personnel and resources to any country in the world, except our own. Stop listening to these lies, "I will bring the troops home" or "I will tax the rich so we can provide services from the womb to the tomb". Hey, these folks do not have children in combat and by the way last time I checked they are rich, so why would they tax themselves??? Citizens of the U.S. stand up and stop being hoodwinked by politicians and vote them out!! We do not need more bureaucrats in Washington.

melfamy - great handle. That's forty years ago.

John Percer. No one is claiming that Russians and others did not fight, nor that their contribution was not determinative in the war. But not all our allies were fighting for liberty, and certainly not the liberty of others.

I am trying to decide whether you understood that distinction and obscured it so that you could take a swipe at American exceptionalism, or if you really didn't get the difference.

Fred Thompson exhibited typical American myopia. James Joyner's numbers, referred to in this article, total out to 623,743 Americans dead in the seven wars that were cited. During WW 1 alone the British lost approximately 703,000 men, while the French had 1,385,000 men killed, each country surpassing the American total. If you then take in account British and French losses in WW 2, which were respectively 382,000 and 212,000 soldiers killed, the British total becomes 915,000 men lost and the number of French soldiers that were killed reaches 1,767,000. So in just two wars, the French and British losses significantly surpassed the American totals. If one were to add civilian totals then the difference would grow even larger. So it has come down to this in America that we have to brag (inaccurately) as school boys do: I lost more men than you did, no you didn't, yes I did. How sad.

I learned to read in l948-l950. I read what Fred said, and, I don't understand where all you are going. What he said is right on the money. What part of "Americans have shed more blood for the liberty of others than all of the nations of the world combined." I am seriously beginning to believe that the tinfoil hatted leftist loons in all levels of academia have finally done it: dumbed down our people to the point that no one can understand words on a page or words that come to our ears.

ned terry - right after my comment to John Percer, you make exactly the same mistake. I guess reading for information isn't as important as writing to tell people what you think.

Since I don't understand explain to me how the British losses in WWI would not be defined as fighting for the liberty of others.

Maybe Fred should have said that the US has spent more money than any other nation to support others liberty. I would have no arguement with that.

Fred is right. America has fought more wars and lost more troops defending the liberty of other countries than all other countries combined. Everyone seems to be forgetting, or omitting, the fact that, during WWI and WWII, nether France or England (or Italy, China, or any other country involved in WWI and/or WWII other than Australia) were fighting to protect another country, they were fighting to project their own. The same is true of Russia. Unlike America, none of these countries were involved until they were directly attacked and/or threated with invasion. They didn't fight as allies to protect another country, they were fighting to protect themselves. That includes England in WWI, they knew that if France fell to the Germans, they were next. That wasn't true of America, there were no threats to us directly. The only country that did attack America directly was during during WWII by Japan, and we defeated them while also fighting on the European front. Germany didn't attack us directly, they attached the shipping as we were already giving military and civilian aid to another country to protect their liberty. We lost men helping to defend other countries long before we were officially at war during WWII. We even lost "unofficial" airmen prior to Dec. 7 when we had Americans flying over China, who were know as the Flying Tigers.

America has long been known as the main defender of Liberty no matter where in the world that Liberty exists. It's only when we stop defending Liberty that it fails. Witness Vietnam as an example.

"Since I don't understand explain to me how the British losses in WWI would not be defined as fighting for the liberty of others."

Okay.

The Brits fought WWI to preserve the status quo, which meant British Empire--against an emerging rival in Germany.

I fully agree with Fred's sentiment, and those posters who point out that Stalin did not lift one finger for the liberty of others are dead on. But as far as the British contribution to WWII goes, some of us are being unfair. They held the line alone while we sat on our hands, for the better part of a year. They went to war when Germany invaded Poland, remember.

The Soviet contribution to the war was immense, but would have been impossible without the weapons, supplies, and raw materials that the Americans and British provided for them, at terrible cost, to see them turned against us in 1945.

Thanks Guys!!!!!