0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 02:13 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
They won't read anything that doesn't fit their ideology MM. Or history for that matter. If we are comparing numbers, for instance, far fewer Americans et al died in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 than died on 9/11, while many tens of thousands died in the retaliation for that attack not even counting the many many more tens of thousands who died on other fronts as a result of us joining the war.


1. American soil is American soil. Otherwise we count everything, as MM wants to do!! How about the "Green Area" which we claim to be so safe, which takes it's occasional hit?? If you want your cake, we do too!!

2. "tens of thousands ..." I think you are referring to the Atomic bombs. If you are, that is exactly one of the reasons why I think we suck as a nation! That is a great example of our bullshit!! Now if you want to bring up it was a Democrat, that's fine. If it was up to me, I would just as soon put a bullet in Trumans head for that obvious war crime!!

Anon


As I posted above, there were no more attacks on American soil after Pearl Harbor, and you seem to imply that might have be a good reason not to get involved in a war.

And no, I am not speaking of enemy casualties at all re WWII. I am speaking of American servicemen lost in the line of duty during the four years we were actively involved in combat.

In other words your logic re Iraq, our casualties, their casualties, etc. is deeply flawed when compared to the realities of war and armed conflict. Had we not taken the war to the Japanese, would they have attacked again? Would a Nazi Germany have taken us on? Who can say for certain. But we elected to take the fight to them and that protected the homeland. We have done the same re Al Qaida.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 02:14 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

I know you hate to admit it,but under international law,all diplomatic treaties,and international custom,embassies ARE considered the soil of whatever country they represent.


No. They are extraterritorial areas - but still the soil of country they are in.

Show me one, just one of those treaties etc you called above, actual or in history, which claimed that otherwise.


Thanks, I didn't know that Walter.

Since we are counting attacks in foreign countries, we start with Iraq. How many have died since Bush declared victory??

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 02:19 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
They won't read anything that doesn't fit their ideology MM. Or history for that matter. If we are comparing numbers, for instance, far fewer Americans et al died in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 than died on 9/11, while many tens of thousands died in the retaliation for that attack not even counting the many many more tens of thousands who died on other fronts as a result of us joining the war.


1. American soil is American soil. Otherwise we count everything, as MM wants to do!! How about the "Green Area" which we claim to be so safe, which takes it's occasional hit?? If you want your cake, we do too!!

2. "tens of thousands ..." I think you are referring to the Atomic bombs. If you are, that is exactly one of the reasons why I think we suck as a nation! That is a great example of our bullshit!! Now if you want to bring up it was a Democrat, that's fine. If it was up to me, I would just as soon put a bullet in Trumans head for that obvious war crime!!

Anon


As I posted above, there were no more attacks on American soil after Pearl Harbor, and you seem to imply that might have be a good reason not to get involved in a war.

And no, I am not speaking of enemy casualties at all re WWII. I am speaking of American servicemen lost in the line of duty during the four years we were actively involved in combat.

In other words your logic re Iraq, our casualties, their casualties, etc. is deeply flawed when compared to the realities of war and armed conflict. Had we not taken the war to the Japanese, would they have attacked again? Would a Nazi Germany have taken us on? Who can say for certain. But we elected to take the fight to them and that protected the homeland. We have done the same re Al Qaida.


You are talking about "countries" that can be attacked. WWII was the last legitament war we have been involved in!

AlQueda is not in a single "country"! They weren't in Iraq until we made that possible for them to be. Our bad, very bad judgement!

We however have not attacked Pakistan, the very place the people that DID attack us now reside. If we want to take it to the people responsible for 9/11, we're in the wrong country. At least we were until we invited them in to practice on our military as targets. Very, very bad judgement.

Anon.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 02:20 pm
Thomas Sowell's most recent column is so related to this line of discussion I can't resist. Sowell fans enjoy. Sowell critics, please feel free to skip over this post.

The media's war
Dec 13, 2005
by Thomas Sowell

The media seem to have come up with a formula that would make any war in history unwinnable and unbearable: They simply emphasize the enemy's victories and our losses.

Losses suffered by the enemy are not news, no matter how large, how persistent, or how clearly they indicate the enemy's declining strength.

What are the enemy's victories in Iraq? The killing of Americans and the killing of Iraqi civilians. Both are big news in the mainstream media, day in and day out, around the clock.

Has anyone ever believed that any war could be fought without deaths on both sides? Every death is a tragedy to the individual killed and to his loved ones. But is there anything about American casualty rates in Iraq that makes them more severe than casualty rates in any other war we have fought?

On the contrary, the American deaths in Iraqi are a fraction of what they have been in other wars in our history. The media have made a big production about the cumulative fatalities in Iraq, hyping the thousandth death with multiple full-page features in the New York Times and comparable coverage on TV.


The two-thousandth death was similarly anticipated almost impatiently in the media and then made another big splash. But does media hype make 2,000 wartime fatalities in more than two years unusual?

The Marines lost more than 5,000 men taking one island in the Pacific during a three-month period in World War II. In the Civil War, the Confederates lost 5,000 men in one battle in one day.

Yet there was Jim Lehrer on the "News Hour" last week earnestly asking Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the ten Americans killed that day. It is hard to imagine anybody in any previous war asking any such question of anyone responsible for fighting a war.

We have lost more men than that in our most overwhelming and one-sided victories in previous wars. During an aerial battle over the Mariannas islands in World War II, Americans shot down hundreds of Japanese planes while losing about 30 of their own.

If the media of that era had been reporting the way the media report today, all we would have heard about would have been that more than two dozen Americans were killed that day.

Neither our troops nor the terrorists are in Iraq just to be killed. Both have objectives. But any objectives we achieve get short shrift in the mainstream media, if they are mentioned at all.

Our troops can kill ten times as many of the enemy as they kill and it just isn't news worth featuring, if it is mentioned at all, in much of the media. No matter how many towns are wrested from the control of the terrorists by American or Iraqi troops, it just isn't front-page news like the casualty reports or even the doom-saying of some politicians.

The fact that these doom-saying politicians have been proved wrong, again and again, does not keep their latest outcries from overshadowing the hard-won victories of American troops on the ground in Iraq.

The doom-sayers claimed that terrorist attacks would make it impossible to hold the elections last January because so many Iraqis would be afraid to go vote. The doom-sayers urged that the elections be postponed.

But a higher percentage of Iraqis voted in that election -- and in a subsequent election -- than the percentage of Americans who voted in last year's Presidential elections.

Utter ignorance of history enables any war with any casualties to be depicted in the media as an unmitigated disaster.

Even after Nazi Germany surrendered at the end of World War II, die-hard Nazi guerrilla units terrorized and assassinated both German officials and German civilians who cooperated with Allied occupation authorities.

But nobody suggested that we abandon the country. Nobody was foolish enough to think that you could say in advance when you would pull out or that you should encourage your enemies by announcing a timetable.

There has never been the slightest doubt that we would begin pulling troops out of Iraq when it was feasible. Only time and circumstances can tell when that will be. And only irresponsible politicians and the media think otherwise.

Thomas Sowell is a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow.

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 02:28 pm
"Sowell fans enjoy"

What does that mean?

Apart from the fact that this is an anodyne and imo rather asinine article, what enjoyment will reading it bring?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 02:29 pm
You onky get out of it what you want to McTag.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 02:51 pm
Well anybody who actually reads it can also get a lot of good information and food for thought out of it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:00 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
They won't read anything that doesn't fit their ideology MM. Or history for that matter. If we are comparing numbers, for instance, far fewer Americans et al died in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 than died on 9/11, while many tens of thousands died in the retaliation for that attack not even counting the many many more tens of thousands who died on other fronts as a result of us joining the war.


1. American soil is American soil. Otherwise we count everything, as MM wants to do!! How about the "Green Area" which we claim to be so safe, which takes it's occasional hit?? If you want your cake, we do too!!

2. "tens of thousands ..." I think you are referring to the Atomic bombs. If you are, that is exactly one of the reasons why I think we suck as a nation! That is a great example of our bullshit!! Now if you want to bring up it was a Democrat, that's fine. If it was up to me, I would just as soon put a bullet in Trumans head for that obvious war crime!!

Anon


As I posted above, there were no more attacks on American soil after Pearl Harbor, and you seem to imply that might have be a good reason not to get involved in a war.

And no, I am not speaking of enemy casualties at all re WWII. I am speaking of American servicemen lost in the line of duty during the four years we were actively involved in combat.

In other words your logic re Iraq, our casualties, their casualties, etc. is deeply flawed when compared to the realities of war and armed conflict. Had we not taken the war to the Japanese, would they have attacked again? Would a Nazi Germany have taken us on? Who can say for certain. But we elected to take the fight to them and that protected the homeland. We have done the same re Al Qaida.


You are talking about "countries" that can be attacked. WWII was the last legitament war we have been involved in!

Not at all. I am talking about huge chunks of the Pacific on open water or on obscure uninhabited islands, some which never had names until we needed to attach a battle to them. Only a tiny portion of our war with Japan was fought on or over Japan. We fought the war where the Japanese army, navy, and air force was which was in places that were mostly not Japan.

AlQueda is not in a single "country"! They weren't in Iraq until we made that possible for them to be. Our bad, very bad judgement!

This sir is so much baloney. I will refer you to the big thread for the thousands of words related to this subject, all well documented and verifiable, that not only is Al Qaida in Iraq now, they were there before the attack. That isn't why we attacked of course, but lets keep the story straight just the same. Bad judgment? Maybe. But we're there fighting them there and not fighting them here. Many Americans think that's a pretty good deal.

We however have not attacked Pakistan, the very place the people that DID attack us now reside. If we want to take it to the people responsible for 9/11, we're in the wrong country. At least we were until we invited them in to practice on our military as targets. Very, very bad judgement.

If Pakistan adopts a policy of giving aid and comfort to Al Qaida and adopt a policy of threatening the United States, we'll get around to them. Right now they are cooperating with us for the most part and threatening us with nothing. Al Qaida however has pledged to destroy us while Pakistan has not. Pakistan is providing material and practical assistance to us including providing a base of operations in some sectors. For the historically challenged, this is generally interpreted as friendly and not hostile.

Anon.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:03 pm
McTag wrote:
"Sowell fans enjoy"

What does that mean?

Apart from the fact that this is an anodyne and imo rather asinine article, what enjoyment will reading it bring?


Just a quick question McT - why should the Sowell op-ed Fox offered be considered any more or less anodyne and assinine, and/or more or less worth reading and enjoying than the op-ed you reference Here?
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:11 pm
Asinine and ass...inine are to different things.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:16 pm
McTag wrote:
"Sowell fans enjoy"

What does that mean?

Apart from the fact that this is an anodyne and imo rather asinine article, what enjoyment will reading it bring?


It means "McTag: Don't read the following article."


Too late.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:17 pm
Francis wrote:
Asinine and ass...inine are to different things.


Was that a joke, Francis?


Just checking.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:25 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Even after Nazi Germany surrendered at the end of World War II, die-hard Nazi guerrilla units terrorized and assassinated both German officials and German civilians who cooperated with Allied occupation authorities.


I've tries to contact Thomas Sowell to give one/some sources for that, because that isn't generally known here.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:28 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Francis wrote:
Asinine and ass...inine are to different things.


Was that a joke, Francis?


Just checking.


SpellCheck done! Yes...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:31 pm
Here ya go, Walter
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:36 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Even after Nazi Germany surrendered at the end of World War II, die-hard Nazi guerrilla units terrorized and assassinated both German officials and German civilians who cooperated with Allied occupation authorities.


I've tries to contact Thomas Sowell to give one/some sources for that, because that isn't generally known here.


TRY THIS.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:37 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Even after Nazi Germany surrendered at the end of World War II, die-hard Nazi guerrilla units terrorized and assassinated both German officials and German civilians who cooperated with Allied occupation authorities.


I've tries to contact Thomas Sowell to give one/some sources for that, because that isn't generally known here.


I do recall seeing a show on the history channel that said the same thing.
There were approx 1000 allied casualties after the war due to diehard SS units that refused to surrender and died fighting.
I will see if I can find a link to it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:39 pm
That's what I did, tico :wink:

Well, timber, I really suppose, he only can refer to Werwolf - but since Germany surrendered on May, and the Werwolf attacks were before that ...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:54 pm
Of course, the 'Werwolf-idea' was - and perhaps is - still around with Neo-Nazis: 1991 such a group killed a "liberal" in Bavaria.

A very active group was formed in 1950 by the CIA and various German (state and federal) minitries) financed besides others by Coca Cola, the ""Bund deutscher Jugend" ('Federation of German Youth"). Main pupose of this group should have been to act when Germany was knocked over by "the Bolshevists". Klaus Barbie functioned as their recruiter, Herbert Wehner, the chairman of the Social Democratic Party in the West German Parliament, and the Mayor of Bremen, Wilhelm Kaisen, were on their death list.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 03:57 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Even after Nazi Germany surrendered at the end of World War II, die-hard Nazi guerrilla units terrorized and assassinated both German officials and German civilians who cooperated with Allied occupation authorities.


I've tries to contact Thomas Sowell to give one/some sources for that, because that isn't generally known here.


I have written Sowell on occasion. The last time was when I was looking for an article he wrote on education more than a decade ago. He wrote right back and couldn't remember the specific article, but referred me to a source where I could get the information.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/20/2025 at 02:38:10