cosmosdan, do you keep typing “soilders” instead of “soldiers” on purpose?
Pretty scary to me when the Nuremberg charter gets ignored to such an extent(not you Steve). Have we past that measure of humanity already? Did I mention already how scared I am? What will it take this time around?
“No matter how far you’ve gone down the wrong road, turn back.” It’s a Turkish proverb, and it applies.
magellan, when you say things like
you are exaggerating to the point of a lie. A desire to see more US troops die is extremely rare on the left; it is as if I took an abortion-doctor murderer to be an example of the hate-filled right.
That said, I disagree with you that once war has begun, we should hope to see as few people die, especially those on our side. I hope to see as few people die, but especially those who didn’t choose to fight. That is, I think the highest priority in a war ought to be on not killing civilians, especially when both armies fighting comprise volunteer forces.
It’s a horrible choice, but if the choice is between an American soldier dying and a 17-year-old Iraqi kid on his way to school dying, I’d rather the American soldier die. Yes, his family will miss him; yes, it will be devastating; but he made the choice to join a military and put himself in harm’s way. The Iraqi on his way to school did not make such a choice. And the Iraqi kid’s family will be just as devastated by his death.
Daniel
Hm. The History Channel, or David Simmons?
I’ll put my money on Mr. Simmons. 
Judging from his actions, – starting a pointless war to drum up militarism, trying to suppress free speech, building up the security apparatus, instituting torture, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, I’d say the whole impetus of the Bush Administration has been to make the United States into a banana republican and the Bush family its dictators-for-life. That’s why I call 'em Banana Republicans.
Yes, yes. But besides starting a pointless war to drum up militarism, trying to suppress free speech, building up the security apparatus, instituting torture, and making the rich richer and the poor poorer, what’s he really done that was all that bad?
That’s been the underlying, hinted at theme all along. Bush talks all the way around it, and lets his pundits and shill say it out loud. If we want to bandy the “T” word around, then Bush and his adherents are the traitors, using their defiinition of the word. I know all about the definition as it applies to the law, I am using it in the broader sense. Anyone who deliberately causes harm to their country and countrymen.
Yeah. We used to hear an awful lot about nonexistent landslides (really. 51 percent was a landslide) and a Mandate. We don’t hear that so much anymore.
By the way, I am STILL waiting for a cite of any sort from the pro people that defends Bush, the war, the reason for war, or any other goddam thing. They have a lot of worn out talking points, but no facts or documentation. I want CITES of Actual reports. White House propaganda blurbs and excerpts from Bush speeches will not be accepted as facts.
In other words, the lies need to be bolder, broader and more outrageous, and have an even more combative tone. “Bring 'em on” and all that. Why doen’t he just call a fatwa or holy war or something. “kill an Muslim for Christ”." “kill the foreign infidels”. Yeah, that’ll work. Bush is NOT articulate. He can’t even handle canned speeches and canned interviews. Maybe if he told the truth for once, he’d be a better talker. Maybe he’d be able to speak in a more direct and cogent manner. It’s tough trying to remember all the lies and keep them all straight.
“It’s tough being president”. That right there was an unitentional admission that he was groosly unqualified.
Here we are in complete agreement.
An article in this morning’s Los Angeles Times deals with the administrations struggles with low approval ratings and what to do about them. One striking thing was that a change in policies wasn’t on the short list of possible fixes, at least from those that GW seems guided by. The general tone seemed to be that they weren’t communicating adequately. If people could only get the correct message they would see than nothing that GW has done is wrong.
We can expect more of the same from GW. Criticism is only from the “hate America” crowd. Criticism gives “aid and comfort to the enemy.” Criticism “undermines morale in the military.” Stuff like that.
I get a little dislexic when I hurry and my brain doesn’t seem to spot those mistakes in proof read. Gosh I hope I didn’t ruin the whole thread for you.
Hey, I hear you, brother! Dyslexics Untie!
Now that’s pretty dam interesting,
I thought this was relevant.
I did not know that. Thanks furt
He makes me want to vomit. I wish we could institute a recall and get his sorry ass out of office right now.
Of course. Why would I want them to die/kill rather than stop fighting and come back home?
Of course. My point is that you can’t demand that someone kill/die for some cause someone, somewhere, for some reason, has decided was good enough. Now, if you’re personnally willing to kill/die for this cause, go ahead. You might end up being a hero or a criminal. Choose wisely.
If you agree that this cause is worth fighting, then by all means support the troops (whatever this might mean), support the president, etc… (or support the other side by providing them with intelligence or giving them “aid and comfort”).
Once again you might end up having done the right thing or being an accomplice.
Though if you’re really convinced the cause is just, the proper thing to do is probably to volunteer if you’re fit, not to claim you’re “supporting” the guys actually putting their life on the line. That’s why I’m very reluctant to state that a war is “just” because then, I would feel like a hypocrite just claiming “I support”.
Nope. It’s enough to justify it for them, not for me. If I disagree with them on this issue, I’m not going to “support” them. I might even accuse them of being evil-doers. Or do worse (assuming that I’d have the balls to do worse, which isn’t a given).
I am, going to take issue with the emphasis of Richard Hill the author of furt’s cited essay. I don’t think that there is anyone who has claimed that the U.S. did not look on Germany as the enemy, in 1941. However, he appears to be responding to remarks by two other authors and he overstates his case in trying to refute their statements.
I would really like to see a citation for this assertion that FDR “repeatedly” blamed Germany for Pearl Harbor.
There is no question that the U.S. saw Germany as an enemy and that FDR spent the greater part of 1941 encouraging that belief among U.S. citizens. On the other hand, despite having read numerous articles from papers and magazines written between 1940 and 1945, the only time I have ever seen a reference that associated Pearl Harbor and Germany was in Animal House. Germany had begun acting as though the entire world ocean was a combat zone and had attacked neutral ships, including American-flagged freighters and U.S. warships, througout the oceans. On the other hand, the U.S. had declared certain regions of the ocean off the coast of North America and (at the time, neutral) Iceland as “defense” zones. We came into confliuct when Germany began attacking ships within those zones. There was no need to make an issue of Germany’s December 11 declaration because everyone who could read a newspaper or hear the radio knew that we were clearly on the verge of hostilities with Germany.
Beyond that I have never seen a historian that claimed that the only reason we declared war on Germany was their declaration of war on us. I think that most people, then and now, recognize that the trans-Atlantic war was inevitable. The point that most historians make, (substantiated by Hill’s essay), is that the U.S. waited until Hitler acted so that there would be no confusion regarding “who started it.”
Unlike the recent silliness about an “axis of evil” (that combined sworn enemies with a totally irrelevant player), the original Axis had a basis in fact: militarized nations acting in concert to conquer territory, with treaties of mutual aid and support among them. FDR’s statements reflect that visible association. He may have oversold the reality of the control exercised by Germany over Japan, but Germany was the close and more critical enemy which FDR and Churchill had agreed needed to be taken out first. Most of FDR’s comments following the attack on Pearl Harbor should be seen in the light of preparing the nation for a two-front war when many people were focused on the immediate outrage in the Pacific.
Hill seems to be arguing a strawman position (although he may be making a legitimate response to claims or errors by Harvey Asher and Manfred Jonas whose essays I have not yet dug up). No history of WWII that I have encountered has claimed that the U.S. was going to ignore Germany except that Germany declared war. With German aggression on the seas, we were moving directly toward a conflict with Germany (with direct parallels to our entry into WWI). FDR’s “chessmen” allusion is only made after he has already outlined a fifty-year campaign of conquest by the Japanese, then links them to Germany with a statement that Hitler brought the three Axis powers together.
We were clearly going to fight Germany.
We were almost as clearly going to fight Japan.
When Japan got in the first blow, FDR waited for Hitler’s declaration to reduce cavilling about “who started it,” but I see no evidence that anyone ever believed that we would not fight Germany at some point.
It was already a foregone conclusion, the only question was when. It would have happened sooner or later.
That was my thread, I never got around to rebutting your rebuttal, so let me do it now since you think you made a point worth making (you’re wrong about that): best case, if the individual hasn’t made any screw-ups of a similar nature, you get the word out about the defect without implicating them. That way, everybody wins – If the individual HAS made similar screw-ups, you let people know he did it: allowing someone who’s prone to make mistakes that will get people poisoned to stay in a position where he or she can make mistakes that will get people poisoned is NOT really helping them. Sooner or later, a lot of people will get poisoned, there will be an investigation, and the person in question will be identified as the source of the problem. Better for all concerned, INCLUDING the real person you know who might lose their job, to prevent that.
As for your current concern, c’mon, I haven’t seen a single halfway decent response to elucidator’s point that people having to shut up and get in line when war is declared is a scoundrel’s wet dream. And apparently, quite appealing to the scoundrel’s supporters too, for some reason. Until I see a respectable response to elucidator’s point I will just have to assume that this line of reasoning is just a disingenuous attempt to silence opposing voices. In conjunction with TomnDebb’s point about the lack of historical evidence that opponents pay a hell of a lot of attention to war protests, I can’t say I’m at all impressed.
Apparently the Administration has settled on a strategy to deal with the present disenchantment with the President and the widespread sense that the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was not as honestly and forthrightly argued as one might expect from the man who pledged to restore honor to the federal government. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, was on the chat shows this morning. Josh Marshall talks about it here. The answer is to defend the misrepresented need for the war with misrepresentations.
This outfit doesn’t know any other way to operate. They have gotten away with taking us for dummies before and see no reason to change a sucessful tactic now.