Redstate

that CNN would soon realize the danger to their own embedded staff. What kind of corporate oversight do they have there, embedding reporters with their American enemy? That's awfully dangerous for them, being around American troops.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

It kinda did! ;-)

I said from the outset that embeds are partly to blame for why we are where we are today in Iraq. Now, I have been yelled at before here and elsewhere, but that tickles too...and I still maintain that we would have returned fire and blown up anything and anyone that resisted as we marched from Kuwait to Baghdad...including Mosques, and homes and people that fired at us instead of seeking shelter if they didn't want to be considered our enemy.

We have LOTS of stuff still standing and still storing arms and munitions and LOTS of people and places that could have been destroyed at the get go, if we didn't have reporters carrying their PC crap with them and "keeping us honest"...

sheesh...

winning wars means blowing up stuff and killing people...we haven't had free rein to do that when the media is running film, and sending it back home making us look like mass murderers.

Pulling embeds is LONG overdue IMHO.

Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.

Your post conveys a disconnect of unimaginable scale and breadth. I have been chuckling and smiling for at least a minute and a half.

Thank You

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocZoom_DocZoom&&E...

War is war. Death is death. Death happens during war. To not show death during war is to not cover the war.

CNN made the dying American soldiers unrecognizable. To me, that is the important part.

They showed what the enemy wanted them to show, and they showed the enemy successfully killing Americans. That is helpful to the enemy. It is unpardonable.

Boycott CNN.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

How does this help the enemy?

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I will argue in the negative. Seriously. You go first. If not, I'll argue both sides. I don't need you. But America needs Patriots to present a united front.

Seriously though? Are you so intellectually constrained that you can't think of any arguments for how the CNN tape airing helps the enemy?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Explain it to me in language comprehensible at an 8th-grade reading level, please.

PS "A united front"? What are we supposed to be united in that this tape contradicts? Surely we are not all supposed to be united in the opinion that no American soldiers have been killed in Iraq?

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

come up with at least 3 reasons how the airing of a propaganda tape supplied by the enemy could harm the war effort, then you have provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

...since you seem to be at a loss yourself.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

allowed to be shown the video from 911 showing American civilians being burned to death or jumping from skyscrapers. We don't get to see what caused us to go to war against the perpetrators of 911 and sponsors of terror groups and would be perpetrators of future 911's with wmds and oil money.

But we are shown enemy video designed to cause us to quit the fight.

We know our soldiers die in war without seeing enemy propaganda videos.

CNN refuses to show valiant Americans and Iraqis fighting side by side or Iraqi civilians that do see us as the liberators e are. We know the whole truth thanks to the alternative media on the Internet.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

First of all, there were no Iraqis involved with 9/11. Saudis and Egyptians only, based in Afghanistan, whose asses we rightfully kicked. We messed up by not comitting all of our forces there to begin with to turn them all into dust quickly.

If we are goint to fight the libs, we must do it factually. Saddam did not harbor Al Qaeda. They were ideological enemies. Saddam as a secularist, thus all of the shiite Imams tortured, executed or in exile in Iran. And Al Qaeda and the Taliban interested in theocratic societies. Saddam trusted them as much as we trust Pelosi.

I see images of planes crashing into the twin towers all of the time. You are right they don't show images of people jumping to their deaths. I am thankful for that. I don't know what twisted individual would desire to see those images, or those poor people burned to death.

As for showing our valiant troops fighting with Iraqis, I have seen that. Those images are hardly banned. The problem is when you show those scenes, you have to edit out the parts where the Iraqi troops go running past ours in retreat. They really are not doing a good job yet.

Also, most Iraqis do not see us as liberators. Most did for the first few months we were there. But now, they believe we are occupiers. Thus, we need to find a way to finish things up quickly. Hopefully Baker will have some ideas.

As for boycotting CNN, I imagine most regulars of this sight already do. I only tune in to catch that hottie Bay Buchanan.

Not just hunting down one man.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, recognized as such by the US government since the early 90s, as if his public TV statements paying suicide bombers and harbouring Abu Nidal and Yasim, who was the #3 man behind the 1993 WTC bombing. He trained terrorists at Salman Pak and allowed Zarqawi to flee Afghanistan and operate in the open in Baghdad and in Mosul.

As if he needed terror groups to carry out his attacks on us. He was an oil rich mass murdering tyrant that almost succeded in assassinating Bush 41 w/o al qaida. He has his own Fedayeen islamic extremist cadre that his son's controlled. He changed the Iraqi flag to appease the mullahs.

If most Iraqis didn't see us as liberators, American casualties would be at WWII levels instead of quite puny by ant historical measure.

We need to see the result (see 911 videos) of the cut and run appeasement policies that would wait for more 911s to launch another revenge-,manhunt operation that you and your kind support.

You libs have never grasped the fact that before 911 al qaida had nothing to do with 911 and never had wmd. Yet wouldn't it have been good if we had invaded Afghanistan before 911 even if they didn't have wmd?

3000 dead scream yes from their graves!

Despite over a million war victims and 300,000 in mass graves, and over 100 Americans that died to achieve a ceasefire in Iraq in 1991, no more Americans or anyone else will die at Saddam's hands thanks to Bush.

Would you invade Iran now?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I'm a conservative who doesn't believe the crap most supporters of this war do.

I've been a student of the middle east for 30 years, including much travel to the region. I don't need to grasp at fictional straws like you do. I have Iraqi friends, including two who were tortured by Saddam. Don't tell me what a bad guy Saddam is. But most of your facts are wrong or half truths.

When we are done with this war, whenever that will be and the results of which are still very much in the air (we may have given birth to an Islamic republic), it will have cost us close to a trillion dollars after covering all of the medical costs of our soldiers. That makes my conservative wallet very sick. Especially since much of that money will have to be repaid to China, who scares me more than Iraq ever did.

the sentence mislead me into thinking that you were a lib. In many ways Libs are defined by hearing republicans say that Iraq was involved in 911 despite transcripts, audio and video tape evidence to the contrary.

You might want to re-read the relevant portion of my post and revise your response.

see especially the words "and" and "future"

"We don't get to see what caused us to go to war against the perpetrators of 911 and sponsors of terror groups and would be perpetrators of future 911's with wmds and oil money."

Please feel free to list my full and half truths. I can't learn unless, well-traveled realpolitik imagined stability freak conservatives that can't read much as bushlied libs can't like, you school me.

Sorry about the liberal labelling. I take it back. Now you can breathe easier as a cut and run conservative. Real

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I'm a never shoulda invadeder.

But if you want to talk about cut and runners, here are a few, Chuck Hagel, John Warner, James Baker, and most retired Generals who don't have to worry about Rumsfeld's wrath anymore, as well as the current head of the British Armed forces as well as all members of our Coalition who are now watching from the sidelines. Also, I bet after the elections, more cut and runners will emerge, as Joe Blow Biden has mentioned.

And if George Bush could admit a single mistake he's made as President, of which there are many, he would be a cut and runner also. But starting with Iraq as his first admission of mistake is not going to happen. He is simply going to leave this mess for the next President, possibly McCain, who is definitely not a cut and runner. But he also hasn't figured out where we are going to get the 100,000 additional troops he's calling for. Not that that would be enough to solve this mess.

"most retired Generals?"

Now you're just repeating what the Press-Democrat says...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/266638_solarosub16.html

Odom, Eaton, Zinni, Batiste, Newbold, Trainor, Gordon.

And this is from April.

Also add Powell, Paul Hammes, Charles Swannack, Jr., McCaffrey.

There are probably others if you looked. I don't have time now. Just opened a bottle of red.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

after being banned! Good work! sure hope the management doesn't notice!

See The World In HinzSight!

actually several of the generals you list are merely anti-Rumsfeld: Batiste, Swannack, McCaffrey, Eaton.

I'm real sure Newbold is in the same category but don't have the inclination to check.

Powell hasn't said we should lead, seems to me he's the proponent of the "Pottery Barn" theory.

Hammes's name is Thomas, not Paul, and he is a colonel.

Now go back to that bottle of red.

to achieve real conservative. Again, sorry. Seen Ahab?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

should appoint a Designated-Waiter to cover for you, you're going to have to sleep and vote eventually. :-)

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

I was thinking the other day that McCain may be the Republican Party's only hope for getting out of Iraq with a modicum of dignity. He is one of the few people who could "cut and run" without getting labeled a liberal or a coward or whatever it is the fight on forever crowd is afraid of being labeled. (Although undoubtedly some of them would have the gall to do so anyway.)

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

You seem call everyone who disagrees with you a Dem or a liberal. Since most of them aren't Dems or liberals, this doesn't do much for your credibility.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

See The World In HinzSight!

I rarely run into a liberal who is under the impression that the Republican leadership has said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. On the other hand, I've heard this from Republicans, in direct contradiction to what their own leadership has said. So it would seem that this particular form of illiteracy isn't all that defining of liberals after all.

_______________________________
www.electionintegritycandidates.info

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

The memo that every Dem in any leadership position uses every time they get before a television camera...you never heard it from a lib?

sounds like selective hearing!

See The World In HinzSight!

I just don't confuse "liberal" with "Democrat."

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

you're just totally disingenuous!

See The World In HinzSight!

I am many things, but never disingenuous.
_______________________________
www.electionintegritycandidates.info

Geopolitics isn't the same as buying a loaf of bread. The choices are much more murky and often deliberately obfuscated. There are however points of commonality. You buy bread because you must eat and it is one choice amongst alternatives. The same holds true for the Geopolitical situation.

Lets examine the costs of not getting involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan would have remained a free zone for Al Quaeda and their sponsors would have been sent a powerfull signal that they could attack the U.S. with impunity. I think it very possible we would have had follow up attacks and very likely been in a depression.

Not attacking Iraq is much more difficult to evaluate from the 2002 point looking forward but from 2006 looking backward the real brilliance becomes obvious. Saddam had become to weak to defend the sovereignty of his nation. Iran as demonstrated by their actions was building up their millitary and would have been able to take advantage of that weakness. They also currently have eyes on Kuwait. There is the further possibility that WMD would have been employed by both sides in any conflict. So you have to weigh the actual cost of the war against the potential cost of the conflict we might very well be involved in if we hadn't attacked.

As for being scared of china, Don't. We owe them far too much money for there ever to be armed conflict. I would worry if they started selling the debt off to third partys.

suggest, since we are joined at the hip! They are not the old USSR and they would suffer more than us from unpaid debt than we would. They have an aging population and a restless youth poised for a revolution due to raised expectations. more later

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

"we aren't allowed to be shown the video from 911 showing American civilians being burned to death or jumping from skyscrapers.

...we were shown these images.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

The difference is 42

What was the equation? well thats a little harder.

If you believe, one propaganda piece created by the terrorists for the purpose of weakening our resolve captures what actually happens in iraq, then you can believe 42 sums up the difference between that and reality.

Yes death and destruction happens during war but so do other things. When we are involved its more often kindness and charity.

As to your other posts about the cost have you thought about the cost of not being there ?

The "costs" of not having gone there would be 2,791 Americans walking around alive who are instead dead and 20687 unscathed, healthy, whole Americans who have instead been wounded. To say nothing of the other casualties of this war.

Those are the only certain costs of not being there. All else is conjecture.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Liberals don't think there are any conjecture conundrums to be resolved, any more than conservatives do. Liberals "know" that everything would have turned out fine if only we hadn't invaded Iraq; just as conservatives "know" that invading Iraq was the only way to prevent more terrorist attacks.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I notice you didn't subtract out what the expected mortality and injury ratse in the population would have been anyway. As to your other casualties of war, its a very clever omission of the casualties saddam and his govt were inflicting on an ongoing basis. Your stats and there lack of completeness while not relevant to the fact the situation would be worse do illustrate the partisan nature of your position. Or at the least that you are not thinking out your positions but taking them reflexively in response to things youd rather not hear.

If you believe our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan hasnt done alot to stabilize a vital part of the world you really need to examine the process by which you come to conclusions. Hezbollah and Hamas are not products of the last 4 years, the Iranian arms build up did not happen over night.

As to certain costs. 3000 dead on 9/11 is the certain cost of having not taken care of our problems when they were small. The casualties from Iraq are the latefee on the bill. TThe casualties in Iraq are the penalty we are paying for hiding our heads in the sand.

"its a very clever omission of the casualties saddam and his govt were inflicting on an ongoing basis"

As I said, "to say nothing of..." I was talking only about American lives and only about "not being there," and saying nothing about any costs (either way) to others, nor any costs related to the broad sweep of things...just the costs of not being there.

And no, I do not believe our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has done alot to stabilize a vital part of the world. I'm not a believer. I'm comfortable with uncertainty.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

to members and would be members of the Saddam-deadender-al qaida coalition on how to fight against us. Wonder if the tape also had a coded measage to the enemy as well?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

People who are currently on the battlefield fighting us need videos from the battlefield in order to figure out how to fight us. I think they have a front row seat already. And judging from the casualty counts this month, they seemed to have learned their lessons pretty well, and without any assistance from CNN.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Any enemy fighting us on the battlefield is DEAD! That's what happens when they fight us face to face!

The enemy fighting from behind women and children...hiding like cowards...that is the only way they can inflict casualties on us.

AND, the way they will win, is if willing IDIOTS in this country want to cut and run, because we just can't win!

I am sick of all of you libs aiding our enemies!!!

See The World In HinzSight!

Well, not to nitpick, but if you're fighting an enemy that has superior just about everything, you don't fight on a battlefield.

And is everyone who thinks that there should be some serious adjustment in what we're doing in Iraq a lib that is aiding the enemy?

Let's use a template from a war we won and have the discussions in private between military advisors and the Commander in Chief with elected reps and senators presenting a unified front to the enemy on the main stream media.

Rather than repeating the template for such discussions from a war we lost.

Sound like a plan?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Yeah, but I couldn't think of another word off the top of my head.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

No one put you in charge of deciding what positions are "conservative" positions. As far as I can tell, to you, the conservative position is your position on everything, and anyone who does not agree with you on absolutely everything is a liberal.

There is no "conservative position" on the Iraq War. There is a conservative viewpoint from which to assess the many different facets of the war (and everything else), but this viewpoint does not inexolerably lead all conservatives to the same foregone conclusion about everything, and certainly not to the same conclusions that you personally hold. Your position on everything is not the conservative position, just because you smack the label "conservative" on yourself.

As for "Democratic talking points"...and "Republican talking points" as referred to on DKos...as far as I can tell, these are simply crib notes that political partisans carry with them to help them remember what it is they are supposed to disagree with.
_______________________________
American lives lost due to terrorists attacking us, 1983 - 2006: ~3000
American lives lost due to us attacking terrorists, 2002 - 2006: ~3000

You're right, I was not put in charge of deciding conservative positions, rather it was Secretary of Patriotism! I think Newt or Neil Stevens is Sec of Conserv.?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

indicate that you think a) they are the same thing and b) we've reached parity so we should stop? Just what does it mean?

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

...that I'm more than a bit skeptical when someone tells me the Iraq War was necessary to protect American lives from the dire threat of terrorism. This approach seems to have gotten more Americans killed in a few years than all terrorists combined have managed to kill in over 20 years.

I think that being dead is the same thing as being dead.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Pearl Harbor death toll: 2403
Total US deaths in WW II: 291,500

So I guess we should have stopped earlier, eh?

These kinds of comparisons are among the reasons conservatives think that liberals don't take this seriously.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

all 50 million lives lost in WWII could have beeb avoided by just letting Hitler have his way!

See The World In HinzSight!

see appeasement is better, they were right. Who knew? :-)

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Just the other day you said that WWII and Iraq were "not even remotely comparable situations." And I agreed. Still do.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

60 seconds of my life I'll never get back.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Americans killed in Boston Massacre: 5.

Americans killed in subsequent war: 4,400.

There are probably very few wars on record where the number of people killed in the war did not dwarf by several orders of magnitude the number of people killed in the action precipitating the war.

we should have stopped that foolishness sooner also -- before Concorde actually. That way no one would have been hurt.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

NT

That we should have stopped in Iraq before any number of American lives were lost, much less before the same number of lives were lost that had been lost due to terrorist attacks on us?

You jump to your own conclusions and then argue with them.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I'm more than a bit skeptical when someone tells me the Iraq War was necessary to protect American lives from the dire threat of terrorism. This approach seems to have gotten more Americans killed in a few years than all terrorists combined have managed to kill in over 20 years.

You say what you say and then deny saying it.

And I wouldn't think of denying it. I expressed my skepticism about a particular justification for the Iraq War.

I did not say that that we should have stopped in Iraq before any number of American lives were lost, much less before a particular number of American lives were lost. This is a long thread now, but I wouldn't be surprised to read over it and find that I never said we should have stopped at all. Or that I never said it wasn't justified.

As I said, you jump to your own conclusions and then argue with them.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

indicates he has decided that he can use pointey sticks all he wants without repercussions and he or she or whatever has probably discovered by now they were mistaken.

Just when I was starting to think you were semi-sensible.

American lives lost due to Japan and Germany attacking us, 1935 - 1941: ~ 2400.

American lives lost due to us attacking Japan and Germany, 1941 - 1945: ~ 300,000.

be kidding; poopyface semi-sensible? Tell me you are kidding --- please. :-)

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

I'm always looking to find good in people!

on poopyface, its clearly a lost cause.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

However little sense that makes.

How long did we continue to fight in Europe after Germany forces surrendered? And how many American lives were lost in Europe after the surrender? After Allied forces entered Berlin?

How long did we continue to fight in Japan after Hirohito surrendered? And how many American lives were lost after US forces entered Tokyo?

Mere statistics cannot be sensible or not sensible. If I have expressed an opinion or come to a conclusion that you think is not sensible, by all means call me on it. But don't point to some numbers and say they are not sensible. That makes no sense.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

there were still Japanese soldiers found on islands in the Phillipines 30 years after the end of the war who didn't know the war was over...ready to continue the fight if necessary. Relatives?

See The World In HinzSight!

But we didn't sacrifice more American lives than were lost during the war itself in an effort to track them down, on the theory that, if we didn't, they might reorganize and mount another attack on us, did we?

Nor did we sacrifice more American lives than were lost in the war trying to track the Nazi leaders who fled to Brazil. Why didn't our military attack Brazil for harboring these enemies, who hated us and wanted to destroy us and our way of life?

_______________________________
www.electionintegritycandidates.info

But everything you say is slanted by omission. Your utterances are at best quarter truths.

The above is a prime example.

You start with a false equivalence. That the campaigns against the axis armies and saddams were the same. The war against Saddam took roughly 6 weeks and a couple of months to track him down afterward. World War II took from 6 to 7 years depending on how you count.The loss of life in the war against saddam was minimal in WWII it was horrendous. At the end of WWII the germans were desperate to surrender to us and they were scared into a unity position by the russians. In Iraq we are now fighting a proxy war against our remaining enemies and doing a spectacular job of it.

As to your second point there was no need to. The nazis in brazil and argentina weren't blowing things up. They weren't blowing up subway stations, they weren't seizing schoolhouses or blowing up transpacific airliners. The only plans they made were pipe dreams.

I don't know if you actually believe that doing nothing when our enemies attack us is good policy or if you just like seeing republicans dealing with a difficult situation. I do know the arguments you have used so far have been the most unreasoned propaganda imaginable.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

READ QUICK, BEFORE IT MELTS!

You start with a false equivalence. That the campaigns against the axis armies and saddams were the same.

I couldn't agree with you more, which you would know if you read all my posts. In fact, a mere two posts up, I say: "OK, let’s do compare WWII and Iraq...however little sense that makes." What is it about this statement that leads you to conclude I think they are equivalent?

If you want to attack me as the poster, fine...read everything I've said (on this one thread at least) and what I was responding to when I said it and then attack away. But that doesn't seem to be what you have done. You seem to have attacked a single post taken out of context.

BTW, I think the overriding inequivalence is in the fundamental nature of the two conflicts from a military perspective. WWII was a traditional war against an organized army directed by organized governments; Iraq started out to be the same, but it has now degenerated into another exercise in shadowboxing. History has shown that we are excellent at the former and not excellent at the latter. We steamrolled Saddam’s army easily enough...twice. I think we would have been wise to quit while we were ahead twice.

As to your second point there was no need to.

That would be the sensible argument to make, yes. I’m not in a position to make it or deny it, because I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable on the details of the close of WWII.

That said, I certainly don’t recall reading anything about Nazis in Brazil blowing things up. I do recall no small amount of fear during the two decades that followed WWII that the Third Reich would regroup and try to rise again, but our government chose to ignore them (possibly because the Mossad was single-mindedly mopping up one war criminal at a time?) and eventually they all got old and started dying off and that fear dissipated over time...although it still flares up sporadically whenever the Aryan Nation folks seem to be getting out of hand.

I also recall a similar pervasive fear that, once Japan and Germany had recovered economically, the Japanese and the Germans would also rise again. (Thus many were adamantly opposed to aiding their reconstruction.) The latter fear surfaced yet again after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 (mostly among elderly Jews who knew exactly what it was they were afraid of, instead of those of us who have merely read about it in neatly sanitized textbooks).

I don’t know (but wouldn’t be surprised) if isolated groups or individual soldiers continued to blow things up and otherwise try to kill Allied soldiers here and there in both Europe and Japan after their leadership had already surrendered. That's usually how wars end.

I don't know if you actually believe that doing nothing when our enemies attack us is good policy or if you just like seeing republicans dealing with a difficult situation.

I agree you don’t know.

I certainly don’t believe that doing nothing when our enemies attack us is good policy. I wrote in a reply to gamecock on another blog earlier this week:

"Since Vietnam, Democratic and Republican presidents alike have lacked the courage to wage a war of any kind in defense of this country. They have happily waged wars in defense of everything and everybody else, from Grenada to the Panama Canal to Kuwait to Somalia to Haiti to Bosnia to Kosovo, but any significant direct attack on Americans has been met with the most anemic responses imaginable."

I would add now that Ronald Reagan (for whom I voted) did not distinguish himself from Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton in this regard.

I would prefer not to see anyone having to deal with this difficult situation, but obviously someone has to. Who would you "like" to see dealing with it...the Democrats? Be careful what you wish for.

I don’t think "the Republicans" are dealing with it. I think specific individuals who got themselves elected as Republicans are dealing with it. I wish we had elected some individuals (and I could care less what letter they had after their names) who could have dealt with it better, but we didn’t.

I do know the arguments you have used so far have been the most unreasoned propaganda imaginable.

If you mean that it is unreasonable to compare WWII and Iraq, as I said, I couldn’t agree more. You will have to take that up with jsteele, not me. If you also think that the campaign against King George and Saddam is a false equivalence, you will take that up with Jon, not me.

As for using arguments...I ask again: arguments for what? What it is you imagine me to be arguing for or against?

As for propaganda, you confuse me with a partisan. I am not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view about anything.

--the recently (but not so dearly) departed poopyface

____________________________________

The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.
- Plato, Dialogues, Phaedo

Nearly 50 Years.

In Asia its pretty much still ongoing. Of course a good portion of that is because a democratic president couldnt see the value in stopping the rise of communism in whats now the most populous nation in the world. The same president also believed that a tie was good enough.

its how you misused them.

And with that I am going to permanently end my participation in any further exercise in inanity with you. And I suggest others follow suit.

--30--

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

How did I "misuse" them? I don't think I used them for anything. I posted them without any commentary whatsoever.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

and Pound was declared insane and incarcerated for broadcasting on behalf of Fascict Italy. Not a bad idea for today!

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville