Redstate

At least until the attack is "seen as", and then we get some spirited opinionating.

We will never see this:

"Cheney was not injured, but the attack is seen as a flailing, desperate act by insurgents."

At least they didn't try to play the "drunken Cheney with a shotgun" angle...yet.

even now the times has come out with it's own story, the picture they chose to run with the article? A man carrying a coffin! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/world/asia/27cnd-cheney.html?hp

I suspect this is going to be one of those media bias 10,696,432 stories and all in one day jobs.

I'm scanning stories as fast as I can and still have yet to come across one in the MSM that even hints toward's this being an affront toward the US.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

as opposed to the more accurate "terrorist". Then the word "bold" instead of fanatical. Now if it was Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton then you would see outrage.

But there's no bias.

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

Don't expect to get an answer any sooner than he has.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

Islamabad - A suicide attack at an Afghan air base where US vice-president Dick Cheney was staying shows that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have penetrated local intelligence agencies, analysts and officials said...

The day before the explosion Cheney warned President Pervez Musharraf of neighbouring Pakistan to crack down on militants regrouping in Pakistan's tribal areas to mount attacks across the border and further afield.

"This shows how much the militants have penetrated the intelligence of the Afghan security forces. It is a most shocking attack," retired Pakistani general turned analyst Talat Masood told AFP

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,9294,2-10-1462_2075713,00.html

I don't believe your intent was pejorative, but I thought I'd point out that the first word in your subject line is widely considered a racial slur.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paki

BUT I think this will be portrayed as an example of how we can never win against such a bold adversary for one, two, how long would it take for information that someone important was at the base and for a local to strap on a bomb and walk over there? They might have tried to talk a few dozen into surrounding the base and doing the same thing but only one was nuts enough who knows, I'm not into the whole conspiracy thing.

We do know from reading the papers every day though that one person with a bomb can do plenty of damage but for me that's not really the point, I want to see the media at least acknowledge that this had the potential for more than just another day in the VP's life.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Is it really necessary to condemn the Taliban?

Oh just give it a freaking try, flyerhawk. Would it hurt? Really? Honestly?

BTW, the answer to your question is yes. Did we stop condemning the Germans and Japanese after we went to war with them in '42? In our microwave society it's even more important to remind us (We're all "at the mall", after all) that there is a war going on.

Or are we supposed to be past that?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Well I hadn't really seen a lot of pro-taliban talk so maybe I'm just not seeing the big deal here.

The Taliban are certainly worthy of condemnation. But getting outraged! over the lack of outrage! is really just looking for a reason to criticize the media.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Thanks for sparing us the rantings from the pro-Taliban wing of the left blogosphere. < /snark >

Forgive my perceived OUTRAGE™. But you know, a little unabashed, unapoligetic pro-America "rah-rah!" type talk would be welcome from time to time. And if we cannot get it when a group of terrorists tries to assassinate the Veep, I'm not really sure when we're ever going to see it.

I suppose that's too much to ask in this enlightened day and age

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

But you know, a little unabashed, unapoligetic pro-America "rah-rah!" type talk would be welcome from time to time

From who? The media? The liberals?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

So you're fine with the media adding their emotions and opinions to stories, as long as they represent your point of view?

I disagree. The media should report. Period. That line about the ememy getting more bold was unnessacry. Likewise, a line about how outrages it is that they would think to attack our VP would be equally as unnessacry.

...as long as they represent your point of view?

At the risk of sounding like a culture warrior, I would like to think the media recognizes they are American from time to time. In other words, I would like to live in a country where a media-type being asked "Don't you want the US to win?" is once again thought to be a silly question.

The media should report. Period.

Any time they are going to start "Just Reporting. Period." would be fine with me.

Oh, are you of the "There is no bias in the MSM" school of thought? Because if you are we can end this silliness right now.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

I implied that there was bias in the media. However, I don't think we can have it both ways. Having an American-leaning, unbiased media is an oxymoron.

I would rather the media be unbiased than American-leaning. That does not mean that the media should have an unfetted look at everything American; the media should present the facts and allow the public to gain from it whatever there is to be gained.

I do think that CNN is biased. I do think that ABC is biased. I do think that Fox News is biased. But more than that, I think they are useless because they're not desiminating information; they are vehicles for infotainment. The facts are simply the stage they use to perform. It's digusting.

I don't want the news to tell me what I want to hear or even what they think I need to hear. I want them to tell me the unbiased truth.

I would rather the media be unbiased than American-leaning.

"Unbiased media" is a myth - the Lock Ness Monster and Bigfoot all rolled into one. There has never been an "unbiased media". There will never be an "unbiased media". It is impossible to conceive of an "unbiased media".

Humans are not "unbiased" - to expect a collection of humans to collaborate on putting together an "unbiased" accounting of the events of the day is to expect the impossible. It. Cannot. Be. Done.

So, if they're going to have a bias, I would prefer that bias be "pro-America" when it comes to foreign affairs. No apologies.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

IS about reporting being FILLED with emotionally laden talk but here we have the sudden absence when it concerns the VP of the United States.

Suddenly there is no context about past attacks on VP's, or reports where previous VP's were endangered, nothing.

If this had been an abortion clinic how different would the story have been? What about an event where AlGore was speaking or attending and there and been a bombing, the reporting would be different. No only different but vastly different, so yes I feel justified in pointing out the bias.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

think the bomb going off was a staged event by the GOP..

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Look man, I know what you're trying to say here, but I think it's grossly unfair to tag our beloved 'hawk with the broad brush of left blogistan.

I am more than comfortable leaving flyerhawk out of that particular tin-foil hat brigade.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

explained...and if someone questions outrage over something like this...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Not what I said.

You want to see a certain level of outrage by our MSM. What it will achieve, seems unclear. But you want it nonetheless and you see the perceived LACK of outrage as proof of...... something.

It's not that I believe that outrage over the act is unwarranted. It's that I don't see what it achieves, in relation to the Taliban.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

back to work for me...you are one of the easier people from the left to engage here..however, you did question "outrage" over this. I for one, think that doing that for the sake of discussion is cr&p.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I did NOT question being outraged over this. I questioned why people feel the media needs to be outraged over this.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

And, come on, guys: ease back on flyerhawk a little. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

So it boils down to you don't like that the media doesn't wave the pom-poms enough. Your choice.

What would you like from the media? "Although we have spent the past 5 years hunting down the Taliban and killing we feel it is important express our true outrage over their attempted assassination of Vice President Cheney."?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

... they can start by referring to "insurgents" who target civilians (the target of choice for most "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan and Iraq) as "terrorists" and we'll go from there.

I know that's a little off the beaten path, but it would be refreshing none the less.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Well personally I think that terrorist and freedom fighter are both almost useless words these days because they represent someone's perceived view of the aggressor.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You know, I was going to reply (something along the lines of - you know of course that there is a legal difference between a terrorist and an insurgent, right?), but my Chinese Food is getting cold and I'm hungry.

Chow. (and yes, I'm mispelling it on purpose)

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

I'm more reluctant these days than I used to be to interject myself into tussles that other people are having (lest I be perceived as a freedom fighter by one and a terrorist by the other, natch) but I have to note just one thing:

You use the letters "OK" to title your posts almost reflexively when you start to get into these battles with someone, on virtually any subject. Someone contradicts you, you pivot on your heels, type "OK" and then go off in a seemingly random direction, or (as you did in this case) fall back on a liberal shibboleth like "One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter."

There is no RedState policy regarding people post titles (except for the obvious as stated in the posting rules and the general conventions of decorum on this site) -- so you have complete liberty to title your posts whatever you like. I too fall into a similar trap sometimes -- I have overused certain catchphrases that reflect a kind of habit of mind, a laziness on my part to title them in a way that reflects what I'm actually trying to say, instead of just a kind of spasmodic "Ok, whatever" sort of glib rebuttal.

I know you have powerful reasons for thinking the way you do, and I just think you'd serve yourself better by not sounding so reactionary in the titles of your posts. I'll bet if I did a search for "OK" and "Flyerhawk" I'd see about 200+ posts titled that way. Just one man's advice.

As to the substance of what you said about one person's terrorist being another's freedom fighter, I think it's a mindless summary of a nihilistic worldview. There are enormous differences between terrorists and freedom fighters and have been throughout history. Were the Nazi SS terrorists or freedom fighters? Were Genghis Khan's armies terrorists or freedom fighters? And most especially, were the people who hijacked the planes on 9/11 terrorists or freedom fighters?

I used to think much the same thing -- and sadly, it's wrong. Believing it speaks to a kind of wish to absolve oneself of any kind of involvement, look at the world from the position of a Martian observer, and what is worse than that, a really glib and feckless Martian observer. I'd appreciate it if you'd cut that out.

I will freely admit that I often use OK as a general response. I often think that titles, during debates, are often pointless. Both sides know the position of the other and are arguing it. Unless you plan to change your point the title usually doesn't serve purpose, other than to perhaps draw more readers. And as generally lone voice for my perspective it is often undesirable for me to draw in more people into the fray, as it becomes difficult to debate 5 or 6 people simultaneously.

As for my point. I was not trying to detached morality with regards to the actions of the Taliban or other people. IMO, they are clearly vicious terrorists who deserve no pity.

The problem, as I see it, is that people use the terms terrorist and freedom fighters as short hand to assign a moral value to a group.

Are the Mahdi Militia terrorists or freedom fighters? I don't think that either term is entirely appropriate. Which is not to say that I think that they are morally neutral. Simply that those terms aren't applicable with them.

It is always easy to point to the terrorists. However pointing to the freedom fighters isn't always so easy. Were the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan freedom fighters? Was Menachem Begin a freedom fighter? How bout Tito?

I am an Irish-American. My mother was born in Dublin. I have family that will say to this day that the IRA were freedome fighters. While they would say that they shouldn't have killed innocents they felt it unavoidable given the actions of the British and the Ulster Army. And they will point to people like Bobby Sands as the epitome of what the IRA was really about rather than point to the thugs that would kill a Protestant family as retribution for some political affront.

Killing others for political reasons always requires a certain rationalizing of your actions. That doesn't mean that you are justified but killing someone else is inherently immoral and requires each of us to come to terms with those acts.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You're just wrong. The entire structure of our legal system is based on the idea that taking certain actions, especially defensive actions, is entirely justified.

If a person breaks into my house at night and threatens me, my wife and children with a gun, I have every moral right to use deadly force to defend myself, even if that includes killing them. I even have a right to use deadly force to kill another human being in defense of certain kinds of property. And there is nothing inherently immoral about an officer shooting and killing a soldier who snaps and turns on his comrades in the field of combat. You kind of take The Onion's view of the world, which collapses morality into a bromide: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and use it in reverse to attack the people who would sacrifice themselves to preserve your right to say it.

Killing is not a pleasant business, and any person who has ever done it knows that. My maternal grandfather killed a lot of people while he was [redacted]. But he also did it in self-defense, and more importantly, he saved a lot of other people's lives. One of my personal heroes, John von Neumann, once advocated a preemptive nuclear strike on the USSR to prevent them from developing the hydrogen bomb. And he might have been right! Because we did not go to war with the USSR early on, tens of millions of people were slaughtered under Stalin, and the Cold War threatened the entire world.

For that matter, police forces and SWAT teams around the world are trained to kill in defense of precisely the same principles. If a situation dictates that killing 2 people will save the lives of ten innocents, it's morally wrong *not* to do so.

You're a very confused boy.

Your simple solution is, once again, an attempt to run for the escape hatches. It's comforting to try to do that. It entitles you automatically to a kind of exalted moral high ground -- but it is a false and dangerous posture. I would certainly hope that nobody who ever thinks the way you do is charged with being the Commander In Chief of this country.

Sometimes broad philosophical points aren't very easy to explain here.

In the matter of killing someone as a matter of law enforcement we have made the necessary rationalizations to justify the actions. Due to the pragmatic necessity of killing in certain situations we must accept that, given those situations, we must kill and as such it is morally acceptable.

There is a cold calculating equation in definition what is murder and what is justifiable killing. It is a necessary calculation but it is still, when you strip away the moral rationalizations, still just a calculation.

I have no idea what your last paragraph is referring to. Have I suggested that we should not kill others that threaten?

Oftentimes here I am assigned any number of views that you guys assign to a amorphous entity called "The Left". It makes it easier for you to argue a point because, instead of following what I am saying, you can argue with the construct you have created. In this case you have created a construct in which I abhor violence and won't identify evil actions as being evil. Of course this ignores the fact that I have already condemned the Taliban on several occasions. It ignores that I have already said I support said our actions towards the Taliban as appropriate.

But that doesn't change the fact that perceptions do change how we define what is acceptable and not.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

In the matter of killing someone as a matter of law enforcement we have made the necessary rationalizations to justify the actions. Due to the pragmatic necessity of killing in certain situations we must accept that, given those situations, we must kill and as such it is morally acceptable.

There is a cold calculating equation in definition what is murder and what is justifiable killing. It is a necessary calculation but it is still, when you strip away the moral rationalizations, still just a calculation.

And claiming that they're "rationalizations" smacks of saying that they're just reasons that someone has made up out of thin air in order to enshrine them as official rules. But like it or not, we need those rules in order to have functioning societies that make sense. Everything we do is in some sense a rationalization by your definition, Flyerhawk. And if you strip it down to that level, even my deciding to continue breathing is a rationalization.

In fact though, you are correct: it is an evolutionarily preserved calculation, in the sense that the habit of mind that leads to it has allowed humanity to survive and prosper. It is a preferred strategy that has been stamped into our genetics because of its efficacy in preserving the species over very long timescales. In that way it is similar to capitalism, and the inherent natural right of property.

That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be people who object intellectually to the way things are arranged. But the vast majority of people who do, based on those primordial imperatives, tend to win in the long run. Even if Osama bin Laden was successful in establishing a global Caliphate based on his fundamentalist reading of Islamic Law, it wouldn't last (on long generational timescales) because inherently, people would eventually rebel against it, just out of sheer boredom. And then Osama's children would find themselves fighting terrorists within their own world order. Every parent who has a child and watches them go through their rebellious phase in their youth knows that's true.

But practically speaking (since I'm a pragmatist with a vigorous but subordinate ideological streak) it's really much better to kill the terrorists, as quickly as possible -- unless you believe in a fundamental overthrow of the way our laws and customs have developed over the years. Are you unhappy with your freedoms here in America? Do you think they would have been preserved under a 1,000 year Reich or if the Soviets had won?

I'm one of those people who looks at America's bombing campaigns in Japan during World War II as positively transformative given the enemy we were facing. And I also think the world would have been a much better place (especially for the millions of people who were slaughtered afterward) had America stuck it out in Vietnam. I feel the same way fundamentally about Iraq today.

Not a whole heck of a lot I really disagree with there. I would only add that part of my disconnect with many people here regards the belief in absolute morality. I do not believe it exists or at least there is no evidence that it exists.

I believe that our culture is practically superior to all other cultures. It provides the greatest freedoms and enables the most productive society possible today. However there are people who believe that, based on their morality, our society is not just morally wrong but truly evil. These people exist. And to me, they highlight why appeals to an absolute moral standard are so tenuous.

I don't know what would have happened had we stuck it out in Vietnam. Perhaps the North would have eventually relented. Then again, perhaps the end of hostilities began the endgame of the cold war. I don't know.

And I don't know if we should take a stick it out no matter what approach in Iraq. I am very torn on what the best approach is. Part of me thinks that we owe it to the Iraqis to see the whole thing through. Part of me thinks that our presences in Iraq increases the instability.

These are challenging times and I believe that the one thing this country needs now more than anything is a new administration. We need a fresh approach without the historical baggage that this administration has. Who the right person will be, we shall hopefully soon find out.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Are the Mahdi Militia terrorists or freedom fighters?

They're terrorists. They're supported from without to be terrorists within their society -- composed of more than 20 million people -- for reasons that only the Mullahs in Iran and a few people in the Kremlin are willing to explain (but not in public.)

A majority of Iraqi civilians disagree with you.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Why don't you write something that might convince them otherwise? Would you like to live under Moqtada's rule?

With just a glance at "Recent Comments", I can tell when the 'Hawk is on the prowl. Flyerhawk, Don't let 'em change you, OK?

A terrorist is somebody who advances a political objective by intentionally targeting civilian non-combatants as a means of instilling fear in the broader (and usually democratically empowered) populace. The strategy hinges on convincing people that:

A) Acts of terrorism are nearly impossible to stop, except ultimately by acceding to the terrorist's political demands

B) They or their loved ones could be the next ones hit unless the desired action is taken to get the terrorist to stop

That's terrorism, and it has a very precise meaning that could never be confused with "freedom fighting" as we all understand it.

I believe this is one area where the left has completely lost its moorings -- and your post here is a shining example. How frequently do we hear that American colonial revolutionaries would be considered terrorists? But it's not true at all. They didn't go out and target non-combatants as a means of pushing other non-combatants to pressure their government.

So what is a guerrilla?

Comparing modern day war fighting with with revolutionary days is misleading.

Certainly the revolutionaries weren't blowing up roads. But it's not like C4 and Semtex were available at the time.

Was John Brown a terrorist? And how bout the people who terrorized loyalists? Were they terrorists?

And using your definition of terrorism most certainly makes the United States terrorists during both World War II and the Vietnam War as we intentionally targeted civilians in order to achieve a political objective.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

...but I do consider the actions in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki to be acts of terrorism.

Because, yes, they do fit the definition. Of course, that doesn't mean I put them on a moral par with something like 9/11 -- for a whole host of reasons.

But, clearly, the intent in each case was to kill enough non-combatants so as to move the rest of the non-combatants to demand surrender on the part of their governments.

If you intentionally target non-combatants in an effort to terrorize other non-combatants to force political movement from within....you are a terrorist.

And that clearly distinguishes, for instance, the Israelis and the Palestinians. If the Israelis ever get to a point where their strategy is to blow up villages, mosques, Palestinian shopping malls, etc...then they'll have become a mirror image of the Jihadist terrorists they've been fighting.

America: Rah-rah.

Is that enough, or do you need more? Do you have a scale by which you can measure these things, and chart the relationship between "rah-rah" and one's patriotism or hatred of radical Muslims (and yes, I do hate--not merely dislike--radical Muslims who would drag us back to the Dark Ages--is that outraged enough for you?)

If you want to vent OUTRAGE, as you put it, be my guest. But don't mistake the lack of OUTRAGE from some of your fellow citizens as evidence they like the Taliban or think it is a good thing that a terrorist apparently tried to kill one of America's leaders. Not everyone cheers as loudly as you apparently do.

As for the media, they are damned if they do, damned if they don't: I prefer a little dispassion rather than superficial cheerleading that, really, would add no new information to the story. Do you think the majority of Americans--lib, conservative, moderate, whatever--are so stupid they need to be reminded they live in the USA? Do you think patriotism is measured by the volume of one's voice? If so, we may as well give up and go home, as there is nothing much to fight for.

Thanks - we're all a little stupider for having read that little rant, but I'm sure it made you feel better.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

... how about this - that the media work-up the same level of shock and indignation over an attack on the Vice President of the United States as they work-up over a kook shooting-up an abortion clinic.

That would be just fine by me.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Captures it all. I haven't scrolled all the way down so I'll guess your post won't have much effect but it highlights that the media is fully capable of outrage & pursuing a story to death when it suits them.

Let's see: could we throw in Watergate, Iran-Contra, tax cuts, school choice, all white [private] country clubs, Bush's military record[ as opposed to Bill Clintons], Newt Gingrich, the list could be made quite long.

What the attack shows is the ferocity of intention that the terrorists have, to strike directly at the Executive branch of our government. Naturally the media will downplay this as it goes against their game plan. Attention must not be diverted from retreat and disgrace as well as the political destruction of George Bush.

I only wish the MSM was "America leaning", not to much to ask for in time of war. And if not outrage I'd settle for a little anger.

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

Perhaps I was amiss in using the term "outrage" when I began my rant against the media. It seems it's far too easy for my personal disgust, and it is just that, disgust, that there is no context associated to the stories.

How can it not be a big deal for the VP of the US to be in the vicinity of any type of incident, never mind a suicide bombing, and there be no "reaction" type of language.

Compare it to the stories just last week about Pelosi and the VP, or Pelosi and the plane deal she tried to fly past the American people.

Those stories were full of emotionally driven language, this story is not. Is this story of more import? To my eyes it most certainly is, but if the word outrage is what you are hung up on then find one that you can replace it with that fits the intent.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

That was a joke wasn't it?

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

when Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha stop fronting policy initiatives for them.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

Which policy initiatives are the Democratic leadership supporting that are supportive of the Taliban, even using the Right's rather broad "emboldening" standard?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Pelosi and Rep. Off want a recreation of the Dems defunding the Vietnamese in the '70's. It's a clear AQ win and a major recruiting poster for them.

Frankly, I'd feel better about the Democrats if it could be shown they are taking money from AQ & the Taliban. I rather think they could be bought, rather than what seems to be the truth of the matter, they will willingly oppose American interests for political points.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

but I was pretty clear about saying I was looking for a media response, while you acknowledge it below clearly in my eyes to you it's no big deal and that's my point about the media.

Try to blow up the VP, OK didn't happen but look a guy from South Korea did get blown up a bunch of locals. Should we all be grateful that the MSM acknowledged we actually have coalition forces with boots on the ground, or rather dead ones anyway

Your perspective was exactly my point.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

My intended target was President Musharraf and his Waziristan accords, which effectively cede control of the tribal areas to the terrorist factions. We cant win in Afghanistan if the Taliban has sanctuary in Waziristan. I apologize if I was too subtle.

N/T

Have you read any contemporary news accounts from the WWII era? Ever?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

And I didn't notice any outrage at the actions of the enemy against American forces. Yes, there was hate. There was a desire to destroy. But after the Battle of the Bulge, there was no "Those bastards were shooting at us!!". That much was understood.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Yes, hate for the enemy, if anything. Not outrage because of their actions. There is a subtle difference.

Now there's a combo worth talking about. Well actually, it's not.

Ta.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

...

I'd love to have one from a universe where the Malmedy Massacre hadn't taken place, myself.

Moe

PS: You're up against people who read military history as a hobby, Sparky. Don't let your ego write checks that your body can't cash.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I was assuming that the conversation was focused on relatively "normal" war actions. By that I mean, tactics that have been established by the enemy to combat our forces. Suicide attacks on the military falls into that realm, as would kamikaze attacks during the last throws of the War in the Pacific.

Anything that can be considered an atrocity definitely does not fit what I was thinking.

When taking a look at the attack on the VP, I think it falls it the former catagory rather than the latter.

Do remember that those people existed, had human lives - and are now dead because somebody decided to commit a war atrocity. They weren't cardboard cutouts.

They were real.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

...they were unfortunately casualties of war. Is an atrocity commited every time a civilian is killed?

Rather, what seperates an atrocity from a tactic? Was the bombing of Pearl Harbor an atrocity or a tactic? The bombing of Berlin, an atrocity or tactic?

I can understand the mindset that war is simply a string of atrocities and retribution, and if that's the case, yeah, I share the outrage.

Somebody who thinks that it's OK for the Taliban to keep fighting for the 'right' to shoot women in the head for daring to think and drop walls on homosexuals for daring to be.

Get the Hell off my website.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

How do some people formulte these ideas and then feel free to express them in public?

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

from the LA Times..

"Gen Y's ego trip takes a nasty turn"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-esteem27feb27,0,225486,full.stor...

I suspect it's not only gen y...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

It sounds to me like a tired old leftie Boomer academics are upset that the self esteem indoctrination and forced-volunteerism has backfired. The Y's are confident, oriented and motivated and they want a "just the facts, m'am" education without all of the PC hoop-jumping. It's too bad the physics majors and the business majors didn't have time for the sociology major's survey...soooo narcissistic, they are.

The Boomer tell:

"...current freshmen are much more interested in financial success and less in "a meaningful philosophy of life" than students were in the 1970s"

Been there, done the "meaningful philosophy", want some fries with that?

And Marc Flacks doesn't care what they say, he won't stay in a world with self-love:

"Marc Flacks, an assistant professor of sociology, said that he believed that narcissism was too harsh a description for current students and that it was more important to discuss why "we have a society in which narcissistic behavior is a good quality to have."

More Flacks:

"The old model was a collegial one in which students and professors alike sought knowledge for knowledge's sake. The new model is 'I paid my money, give me my grade and degree."

Hey Flacks, the new model is "I paid my money, give me my education, hold the indoctrination".

Can the academics next tell us how the narcissistic Gen Y is faring in the military? No, I guess that would require doing surveys off-campus.

end threadjack/

Try Okinawa.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

The answer to that $64,000 question could be, well, not very pleasant at all (COUGH-isi-COUGH).

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?