"Did You Hear the One About Hitler?"

blacksmithn wrote:

Your desire to find meaning in the bloody debacle that is Iraq has unhinged you. There is no parallel between Iraq and the American Civil War, except that-- through Shrub's ham-handed bungling-- we've managed to unleash a civil war there. There is similarly no parallel between Lincoln and the prideful bungler that currently occupies the Oval Office, except that they both happen to be President.

Lincoln had a civil war thrust upon him.
When he was elected the South left the Union.
The South did not thrust into the North.
He chose to invade.
However right or rong he may have been,
he made that choice.

Shrub went looking for a convenient, albeit irrelevant, whipping boy to demonstrate his manly post-9/11 resolve upon. Well, he found a target, although I fail to see how getting American soldiers killed and emboldening our enemies by sinking us deeper and deeper into a quagmire demonstrates anything at all. Beyond his personal woodenheadness, that is.

In any case,
u keep dodging the question:
Shud Lincoln have quit the Civil War and brought the boys home
to the North because of early military failures ?

Your chosen n conspicuously displayed motto
is that failures r supposed to cause changes in policy
and that NOT making those changes,
u allege, is stupid, corrupt, hubritic and woodenheaded.

I respectfully inquired of u
as to HOW u distinguish between that and
having the strength of character to stand up for what u believe in,
and stick to your guns. No answer yet; still waiting n hoping
for this information to issue forth from the blacksmith' s forge.
David

0 Replies

Failure: The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends.

As in Shrub failed in his duty to protect and defend the nation on September 11. No amount of "fortitude" will remake the past.

As in Shrub failed to fully root out the Taliban in Afghanistan such that they are now resurgent. Driven by a desire to invade Iraq rather than root out the architect of 9/11 and his protectors, Shrub has only succeeded here in proving that fortitude and ADD are a bad combination.

As in Osama is still alive and free. Given the fact that Shrub has admitted a lack of interest in finding him and that his CIA has closed their Bin Laden bureau, I submit that this constitutes failure and is not instead a show of stouthearted pluck.

As in Shrub has failed and continues to fail in Iraq, turning a secular state that feared Al Qaeda into a nation engaged in civil war and offering safe haven to Al Qaeda. This is an ongoing failure, from which it could well be possible to recover from the jaws of defeat given sufficient clear thinking and willingness to concede that current approaches aren't working. However, with the continuing woodenheaded and misguided methods pursued by Shrub and his minions, it appears unlikely that any good outcome for the US will result. In this case, fortitude without policy change equals only more dead American soldiers.

As in Shrub failed to take appropriate and timely measures, unless you count "Brownie, you're doing a helluva job" as a timely and effective measure, to alleviate the suffering and destruction resultant from Katrina. The dead, the shattered lives, a once great city in the most powerful nation on the planet still in ruins, and rubble stretching all across the Gulf Coast point to a clear failure of Federal disaster preparedness and relief on his watch.

You can cast these repeated failures as ongoing portraits of gumption and Lincolnesque gameness in the face of adversity, but it's clear to any that want to see that your man has failed-- in many cases irretrievably-- again and again.

Repeating the same actions over and over, hoping for a different result each time, is the definition of insanity, not of courage, heart or nerve. Now it's your turn, Sparky. Define how Shrub's repeated failures are a sign of gumption in your view rather than just foolish, wrongheaded decision making.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In any case,
u keep dodging the question:
Shud Lincoln have quit the Civil War and brought the boys home
to the North because of early military failures ?

This is a false analogy. Although Patterson bogged down in the Valley of Virginia, and McDowell was defeated at Mannassas, by the end of 1861, the Ohio River was secured, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was secured, and Johnston had evacuated northern Virginia, which was occupied by Federal troops. Despite rapid and brilliant campaigns by Lee, northern Virginia was never again to contribute to the Confederate war effort.

In the "western" theater, George Thomas destroyed Zollicoffer's army at Mill Springs, and by early 1862, Grant had taken Forts Henry and Donaldson, and was pushing deep into Tennessee. Despite the bloody debacle at Shiloh, the Federal armies in the West, with Halleck in command, drove into western Tennessee, and that territory was held for the rest of the war.

Despite the defeat of the small Federal army in Missouri at Wilson's Creek, and the death of the commander, Nathaniel Lyon--thanks largely to the idiot Franz Sigel's failure to cooperate--Sterling Price and Ben McCulloch could not operate effectively together, and retreated into Arkansas. When Earl Van Dorn took command of the united Missouri, Arkansas and Texas forces, and re-invaded Missouri, the Confederates again failed miserably to effectively fight the Federals, and were defeated at Pea Ridge, when McCulloch was killed outright.

One year after the Civil War had begun, northern Virginia was firmly under the control of the Federal government, all of Kentucky and Missouri were under Federal control, and western Tennessee was firmly under Federal Control. Burnside had taken New Bern, North Carolina, and the single port of Wilmington was operating in that state, while the United States Navy more and more effectively drew a noose of blockade around the southern coasts.

The analogy fails because the Federal war effort succeeded from the very beginning, despite set backs. From 1861 to 1865, no Federal defeat was sufficient to prevent the United States Army and the United States Navy from choking the southern Confederacy to death. Lincoln could see that, and there was absolutely no reason for him to assume that his efforts were failing.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Failure: The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends.

As in Shrub failed in his duty to protect and defend the nation on September 11.

I doubt that u r being fair,
or realistic. I doubt that if u or I were president
either of us cud have or wud have prevented 9/11,
or that whoever your favorite president is
wud have done better.

Quote:

No amount of "fortitude" will remake the past.

I did not suggest that fortitude will remake the past.

Quote:

As in Shrub failed to fully root out the Taliban in Afghanistan such that they are now resurgent. Driven by a desire to invade Iraq rather than root out the architect of 9/11 and his protectors, Shrub has only succeeded here in proving that fortitude and ADD are a bad combination.

As in Osama is still alive and free. Given the fact that Shrub has admitted a lack of interest in finding him and that his CIA has closed their Bin Laden bureau, I submit that this constitutes failure and is not instead a show of stouthearted pluck.

As in Shrub has failed and continues to fail in Iraq, turning a secular state that feared Al Qaeda into a nation engaged in civil war and offering safe haven to Al Qaeda. This is an ongoing failure, from which it could well be possible to recover from the jaws of defeat given sufficient clear thinking and willingness to concede that current approaches aren't working. However, with the continuing woodenheaded and misguided methods pursued by Shrub and his minions, it appears unlikely that any good outcome for the US will result. In this case, fortitude without policy change equals only more dead American soldiers.

As in Shrub failed to take appropriate and timely measures, unless you count "Brownie, you're doing a helluva job" as a timely and effective measure, to alleviate the suffering and destruction resultant from Katrina. The dead, the shattered lives, a once great city in the most powerful nation on the planet still in ruins, and rubble stretching all across the Gulf Coast point to a clear failure of Federal disaster preparedness and relief on his watch.

You can cast these repeated failures as ongoing portraits of gumption and Lincolnesque gameness in the face of adversity, but it's clear to any that want to see that your man has failed-- in many cases irretrievably-- again and again.

Repeating the same actions over and over, hoping for a different result each time, is the definition of insanity,

Yes.

Quote:

not of courage, heart or nerve.
Now it's your turn, Sparky.
Define how Shrub's repeated failures are a sign of gumption
in your view rather than just foolish, wrongheaded decision making.

W is my man in the sense that I voted for him 2ice,
to deflect dangerous liberals from that office.
I never especially liked W, nor wud I have chosen him
nor his father, as the Republican candidate for President.
I thought Reagan erred, at the time,
in choosing a non-conservative
to balance Reagan 's own conservatism.

I supported, and continue to support both
invasions and the successful prosecution of those wars
( up to our arrest of Saddam ),
except that Bush shud have removed Saddam the first time,
so that we 'd not have to pay for the same real estate twice,
as George Patton put it some years b4.

However, we went to war to depose Saddam 's dynasty.
We succeeded 3 years ago,
when we killed his princes
and arrested HIM. Enuf is enuf.

It strikes me as somewhat odd that after military victories,
American presidents act as tho the Constitution required
that the territory of defeated enemies ( Germany, Japan now Iraq )
must be turned into Paradise.

Were it my choice,
I 'd have brought the troops home as soon
as we arrested or killed Saddam;
perhaps treat him as Manuel Noriega,
if that is legally feasible.

What we r doing now is NOT defensive warfare
( as it was when we invaded to remove the menace
of a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us,
and access to nukes ).
NOW, it is just foreign aid for the Iraqis.

I do not support foreign aid.

Having said all that,
I take cognizance that in response to my inquiry
qua your philosophy of conduct as evinced in
your professed motto citing to Phillip II,
instead of telling us your distinction between strength of character,
and stupidity, corruption, hubris and woodenheadedness,
u set forth a long list of W' s inadequacies.

I move to strike as unresponsive, Counsellor.

I surmise and infer from the said motto,
that if u were counselling your young son,
whose rapt and earnest attention were focused upon u,
eager for your golden words of wisdom,
u 'd tell him: " if at first u don 't succeed, GIVE UP "
and point to Phillip.

I inquire yet again:
( without continued reference to W )

HOW do u distinguish between
having the strength of character to stand up for what u believe in,
and stick to your guns,
on one side,
from
" stupidity, corruption, hubris and woodenheadedness "
on the other side ?

In your mind, IS there a distinction
between the 2 ?
David

0 Replies

Whats all this got to do with jokes in Hitler's Germany?

0 Replies

>sigh< That's what I wanted to know.

0 Replies

what colour is the screen going to turn next Evil or Very Mad

?
hbg

0 Replies

My screen color remains stable

0 Replies

I'll try one more time and then give it up as a lost cause-- much like Iraq is for W. I apologize in advance for the digression and promise not to hijack the thread further.

Sadly, the qualities of courage, hubris and wooden-headedness are not mutually exclusive. Thus, one can possess the vaunted quality of courage, and yet be so self-deluded, arrogant or vain as to march to certain and pointless ruin. It is to labor under a false assumption to believe that one can possess only one trait or the others.

To attempt to distinguish true selfless fortitude in the face of adversity from "courage" driven by selfish reasons, wilful wrongheadedness or prideful error, then I suggest you look to both the motive for the action and to the result of the same (for who benefits from the actions of the "courageous" is often indicative of the reasons for the fortitude displayed).

Get it?

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

I'll try one more time and then give it up as a lost cause-- much like Iraq is for W. I apologize in advance for the digression and promise not to hijack the thread further.

Sadly, the qualities of courage, hubris and wooden-headedness are not mutually exclusive. Thus, one can possess the vaunted quality of courage, and yet be so self-deluded, arrogant or vain as to march to certain and pointless ruin. It is to labor under a false assumption to believe that one can possess only one trait or the others.

To attempt to distinguish true selfless fortitude in the face of adversity from "courage" driven by selfish reasons, wilful wrongheadedness or prideful error, then I suggest you look to both the motive for the action and to the result of the same (for who benefits from the actions of the "courageous" is often indicative of the reasons for the fortitude displayed).

Get it?

I accept that as being the best effort
of which u r capable in answering the question.
Accordingly,
I will not ask your thoughts about dreaming the impossible dream,
nor whether the Poles had selfish reasons or prideful error
in resisting the visit of the 3rd Reich in 1939,
nor whether Churchill was ureasonable or woodenheaded
in his commitment that
"We will fight them on the beaches, in the fields,
on the landing grounds, in the streets, in the hills -
we will never surrender!" Thus, I will not ask u
whether he shud have been more pacifisticly minded
and more willing to negotiate, like Chamberlain.

My own vu
is that everyone deals with reality
according to his perception of it.

No one does anything
because he believes it to be a mistake to do it.

So now, let 's get back to the German chuckles.
David

0 Replies

"Did You Hear the One About Hitler?"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know