| Author |
Message |
    
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15118
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:13 am: | 
|
62 years later, the storming of the beaches in Normandy remains one of the most critical moments in the history of this country and the world.
Please take a few seconds to think about the brave men who took action on this day. |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 3713
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:17 am: |
|
Truly a great day of sacrifice and determination. God Bless the men and women who served for the quest of freedom, decency and liberation.
Thanks for the reminder. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4350
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:07 am: |
|
This Day In History | Civil War
June 6
1862 Battle of Memphis
On this day, the Union claims Memphis, Tennessee, the Confederacy's fifth-largest city, a naval manufacturing yard, and a key Southern industrial center. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5051
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:36 am: |
|
An amazing and unique achievement. Think about it: the Invasion of Europe. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7362
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 8:04 am: |
|
Stopping maniacs like Hitler, Saddam, etc. takes courage. Hats off to all who serve. |
musicme
Citizen
Username: Musicme
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:06 am: |
|
I guess the difference is we didn't hand Hitler the stick to beat people.... |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5674
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
I recall the rehearsal for D-Day cost the Allies 700 lives. Found an interesting piece written about the war's progress written with today's sensitivities:
The Present Debacle
May 1, 1945—After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed “island hopping.”
Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a “bunch of dead-enders,” was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history.
Worse still, our sources in the intelligence community speak of a billion-dollar boondoggle now underway in the American southwest. This improbable “super-weapon” (with the patently absurd name “Manhattan Project”—in the midst of a desert no less!) promises in one fell swoop to erase our mistakes and give us instant deliverance from our blunders—no concern, of course, for the thousands of innocents who would be vaporized if such a monstrous fantasy bomb were ever actually to work.
We are only now coming off even more terrible losses in Europe, after being surprised by a supposedly defeated enemy in the Ardennes where another 20,000 Americans were killed and another 60,000 wounded or missing—again, due to our continued strategic incompetence and abject intelligence failures. Macabre reports of American bazooka shells bouncing off German Tiger tanks and our Shermans ablaze like Ronson lighters have only now come to light as we plow the Belgium countryside for yet another new American war cemetery. Tragically, this is not the first, but the fourth year of this war, when victory rather than endless bloodshed has been long promised.
A number of issues arise. Why is Henry Stimson (“Gentlemen do not read each other's mail”) still Secretary of War? After the debacles at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines tragedy, the Kasserine Pass disaster, the unforeseen bocage in Normandy, the Falaise Gap escape, the Anzio mess, the fatal detour to Rome, the surprise at the Bulge, the bloodbath at Tarawa, and now the Iwo Jima and Okinawa nightmares, is not five years of his incompetence and arrogance enough? A number of our retired generals seems to agree, who have recently bravely come forward to remind us that Sec. Stimson long ago tried to dismantle key elements of our intelligence services, attempted to curtail the operational command of our Army Air Corps generals in conducting bombings of Europe, and has on more than one occasion intervened to remove targets from Gen. LeMay’s campaign over Japan.
As we see thousands of Americans dying and our enemies still in power after four years of war, it is also legitimate to question the stewardship of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. The Sherman tank tragedy, the daylight bombing fiasco, the absence of even minimally suitable anti-tank weapons and torpedoes—all these lapses came on his watch, and the man at the top must take full responsibility for mistakes that have now cost thousands of American lives. Indeed, it is not just that America has worse tanks and guns than our German enemies, but they are inferior even to the rockets and armor of our Soviet allies. The recent publication of “The Sherman Tank Scandal” follows other revelations published in “Asleep at the Philippines,” “The Flight of Gen. MacArthur,” “Gen. Patton and the Atrocities on Sicily,” “Do Americans Execute POWs?” “Torture on Guadalcanal,” “Incinerating Women and Children?” and “Civilian Massacres in Germany”—publications in their totality that suggest a military out of control as often as it is incompetent.
Such problems start at the top. It is not out of “Roosevelt hating,” but out of the need for truth that requires this paper to remind the American people that Mr. Roosevelt, in whose hands our collective fate lies, has been untruthful to his wife about his liaisons, untruthful to the American people about the extent of his crippling illness, and thus, not surprisingly, untruthful to the United States Congress about the extent of our prewar involvement with the British Empire in its European war and the secret nature of our present commitments.
Recently we have learned that President Roosevelt, the former law school dropout, once again has violated basic freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Supposed German suspects were subject to military tribunals, tried in secret, and then executed. Tens of thousands of Italians, Germans, and Japanese war captives are detained in hundreds of American prison compounds, without charges and often in secret. How many were truly captured in uniform, and under what conditions, is never disclosed.
Unfortunately this violation of American values comes not in isolation, but on the heels of the unlawful internment of thousands of American citizens in Western concentration camps, the cover-up of the Cobra disaster in Normandy and the criminally negligent killing of General McNair, and still more rumors that hundreds of American soldiers perished in secret in training exercises on the eve of the Normandy invasion. Yet, the American people to this day have no precise idea how many of their enlisted men and officers have been killed, much less where they perished or how.
Indeed, what little we know comes to light only due to the brave efforts of a few unnamed operatives in the Office of Strategic Services who have in secret provided such information concerning patently illegal activities to the responsible news organizations.
Yet even this government’s propaganda efforts ring hallow, as we noticed with the recently released film footage purportedly showing Adolph Hitler incompetently handling a Colt .45 revolver. In fact, such a weapon, little known in Germany, is hard to load and shoot, especially the early model that the Fuhrer was shown trying to fire. To be fair, his apparent unease is not necessarily proof that Mr. Hitler was unfamiliar with firearms, much less fraudulent in his demonstration of military experience.
Remember as well that these clandestine transgressions of this administration follow a long record of constitutional disrespect—whether trying to pack the Supreme Court with compliant justices, unilaterally turning over our destroyers to the United Kingdom, or, well before Pearl Harbor, ordering, by fiat, attacks on the high seas against German submarines. Such abuses of presidential authority, characterized by intrigue with British agents and unauthorized spying on foreign nationals, go a long way in explaining the German decision to declare war against us on December 8, 1941, presenting the United States with the present catastrophe of a two-front conflict.
We can envision that when this lamentable war is over, fought with such malfeasance, the real heroes will not be Gen. Marshall, Secretary Stimson, or yes-men like Gen Eisenhower, but courageous mavericks such as a Charles Lindbergh or Senator Robert Taft, who long ago warned us that we were provoking an unnecessary war, one that, as they feared, was subsequently to be waged barbarically and yet incompetently at the same time.
The final irony is that we may well end up friendlier with our current fascist enemies than with our Communist allies. It is not hard to envision a policy looming on the horizon that soon coddles Hitler’s current friend Gen. Franco, while opposing his dire enemy Joseph Stalin. We have it on good authority that already there are postwar contingency plans to train and reform the Japanese and German militaries to serve as a bulwark against a Communist Soviet Union and a soon to be Communist China, as America readies for yet another war, one that may last not five, but 50 years. How ironic that a struggle that started out in 1939 to ensure a free Eastern Europe and China may well end up, at best, guaranteeing their enslavement to totalitarians every bit as cruel as Hitler and Tojo.
Citizens should not have to look to our actors and intellectuals for answers, but, in the absence of political accountability, they often do. After the release of The True Story of the B-17 Slaughter, Gary Cooper thankfully came forward to remind us how President Roosevelt took us into a British war that we were utterly unprepared for. Next look for Coop’s recently completed and powerful American Gestapo this fall. Likewise, Jimmy Stewart remarked from the front lines above Germany (so unlike our president, who failed to serve in any of America’s past wars) that it is hard to know who the real enemy is after we have bombed the children of Hamburg. And Clark Gable is currently preparing a documentary on the Pacific theater, 12/7, that outlines the racist nature of that campaign that seeks the extermination of all the living Japanese we encounter.
Finally, we welcome the upcoming courageous anthology edited by John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, and William Faulkner, Worse Than Our Enemies?, that charts the near criminal direction of American foreign policy under this administration’s plans of total and endless war, of preparing for a new imperial conflict against the Soviet Union before the current one with Germany and Japan is even over. It is in this context that the venerable John Ford recently resigned from the Navy, and instead will produce a series of films Why We Shouldn’t Fight that will reveal what was really behind this needless campaign of annihilation against the Japanese. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4356
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Yes, CJC, that is what might have happened if 50% or less of Americans believed that war with Japan and Germany was necessary. Bush and Cheney seemed to have overlooked this little detail of durable public support when planning their "splendid little war" in Iraq. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5676
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
I don't think the public was instructed to give up in World War 2 or painted a picture where that was the implied obvious conclusion. |
MBJ
Citizen
Username: Mbj
Post Number: 222
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
June 6, 1942.
The Battle of Midway ends. The turning point in the war in the Pacific, the Battle of Midway leaves 4 of the 6 Japanese carriers that carried out the Pearl Harbor attack at the bottom of the ocean. The battle is also noteworthy for the sacrifice made by the airmen of Torpedo squadron 8, 15 planes with two man crews, who, despite flying outdated machines and without fighter protection, pressed their hopeless attack against the Japanese carrier fleet. All the planes of Torpedo 8 were shot down, only one man survived. Although they, and their collegues in two other torpedo squads, had no hits, their attack was the focus of the Japanese combat air patrol. In an amazing stroke of good fortune (for the USA), two squadrons of dive bombers appeared over the Japanese fleet within minutes after the last torpedo plane left the area or was shot down. They were able to attack the Japanese carriers without being hindered by Japanese fighter planes, and destroyed 3 of them. The fourth was destroyed the next day. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3320
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:50 pm: |
|
cjc, this is a red herring, anyway. To compare WWII and Iraq is comparing apples and cement mixers. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5677
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
They also hit the carriers after their fighters had returned from downing the torpedo bombers and were all on deck surrounded by ammo and gasoline hoses. It was an amazing stroke of luck.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3321
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
BTW, you might want to credit Victor David Hanson and the NRO when you post their opinion pieces. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5678
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
The comparison is in the stomach of the American people over the tremendous number of deaths in World War 2 and 2500 in Iraq and the perception of what is winning and worthwhile and what is not. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5679
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Rastro -- you're right. Thought I had lifted and posted in it's entirety complete with credits. Sorry. Should have checked it again. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9741
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
1,400 civilians were killed in Iraq last month alone. We're there purportedly to help them, right? Giving them freedom and all that. Maybe we should have explained we were giving them freedom from life, from loved ones, from hope. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3324
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:07 pm: |
|
cjc, while that may be the comparison being made, there was greater belief in what we were doing in WWII. We were attacked. Countries declared war on us (ok, one initially). Heck, we didn't even get into WWII until it was brought to our doorstep. Even as Hitler was marching across Europe, we sent some support, but did not directly enter the war.
There is no comparison of the reasons we went into WWII and why we invaded Iraq. It's the difference between shooting a dog that is mauling children across the neighborhood and has finally attacked your own child, and shooting your neighbor's dog because he makes too much noise.
edited to add: We can stomach a lot of things if we believe in the purpose. It's when we are misled and when it is handled so incompetently that people begin to disbelieve there is any intent to win, that people lose their stomach for war. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 936
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:08 pm: |
|
cjc, can you post a few quotes ahead of WWII describing it as a cakewalk, and telling Americans they only need pitch in by hitting the malls? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5681
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Who killed the civilians?
I could compare that to Dresden, except the Allies actually did the killing there. Leaving Nagasaki and Hiroshima aside for now. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5682
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Rastro -- Your characterizations of why we went into Iraq are faulty, given what we knew and thought we knew at the time. In both situations, the security of the country was thought to be at stake, and I'd say accurately so though I know you'd disagree.
And what we're doing here is veering off the comparison I was making. 400K in WW2, we're at 2500 in Iraq. And we bailed after 18 in Somalia, which is why we fought the Balkan campaign from 15K feet (collateral damage be damned). It's no surprise I guess. The first Gulf War was an aberration I suppose.
If we want to go back to the circular arguments about Iraq, I suppose we can. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4357
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Cjc,
The extent of our victory at Midway was lucky. However, going into the battle, we had a number of advantages which should have yielded some sort of victory for us. In carrier warfare, the Japanese were not all that good and we were not all that bad by June of 1942. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3326
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
cjc, even had all the reasons for going into Iraq been accurate, they would not have been similar to the reasons we went into WWII. We entered WWII because we were attacked, not because we feared Germany or Japan would attack us. For now, I stand by my analogy to the neighborhood dog. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
cjc - 
Keep recycling the bs. Most of America agrees with the point of view that Iraq was a major mistake.
You have always rejected the overwhelming evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, were wholly contained and of no threat to the USA at the time of Bush attacking.
You refuse to give any credence to the PNAC as author and driver of this neo con debacle and you still recycle old fully debunked arguments. |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hoops-
If cjc is "recycling the bs" then what are you recycling? Lies told over and over again that they become truth in your teeny weeny head?
-SLK |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:00 pm: |
|
teeny weeny head?
The next time you post something that has some substance will be the first time. Since you get all your opinions straight off the WSJ op-ed page you dont need to worry about what is a lie and what is not.
Trust the journal they are your friend.
You've shown time and time again what a deep thinker and cogent poster you are. The only one lower on the food chain here is strawberry but at least he's represented as a fruit, you're just vapor. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11733
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Cjc, who wrote the article you posted and, more importantly, when? It seems like one of the GOP American Firsters who didn't get with the program after December 7, 1941. Actually, I think it may be a recent article, not something written in 1945. It is interesting if it is a true 1945 article, but I suspect it is contemporary propaganda.
Midway was made possible because the US Navy had broken many of the Japanese military and diplomatic codes and the US carriers were able to essentially set an ambush for the very overconfident Japanese. Luck allowed a tremendous victory behond anyones expectations. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5683
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Hoops -- are you female? I ask that because using "always", "never" and the like in debating a point is something I've found to be common to the fairer sex.
What you could accurately say with that tactic and actually score a point now and then would be to say I NEVER bought into a Hussein/9-11 link nor have I posted otherwise. Hussein not a threat to the US? Now that's bs you're searching for. For starters, why 'contain' someone if they're not a threat? People think it's a mistake now, but that can change back to what it was at the onset depending upon the outcome.
Rastro: both wars were waged because of a perceived -- accurately or not as both sides would have it -- threat to national security. Stand wherever you want to. |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hoops-
Awww, Hoops sounds peeved. 
The day you and your lefty cohorts decide to offer anything challenging is when I will engage.
I am not claiming that none do. Reingold knows his stuff, so does notehead and a few others. But you are in the RL school of thought with tulip being the only other graduating member.
By the way, I read both the WSJ AND NYT Op-Ed pages everyday and develop my own opinions from there. You? Just because my opinion tends to conicide with the former doesn't mean a darn thing.
-SLK
You do have somewhat decent taste in music though. Didn't you give props to PE (Public Enemy) on another board? One of the greatest rap outfits ever, even though their politics suck... |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5684
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Bobk -- it's a recent piece I cited. May 12 of 2006. Here's the link, though I posted it in it's entirety.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzRjMGE2MGViZGE3NDcyMmZhYzY3MWJjOTc1OTc3YmQ = |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Quote:both wars were waged because of a perceived -- accurately or not as both sides would have it -- threat to national security.
no kidding. I think we were pretty accurate in "perceiving" that attack on Pearl Harbor as a threat. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11734
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
I think that many of us originally supported the Iraq war because we had some confidence in the Bush Administration. I always considered Rumsfeld and Cheney to be highly inteligent and, more importantly, experienced in foreign policy and real "players". I suspected that after the failure of his Kuwait invasion and ten years of sanctions Saddam was weakened and that we were in contact with Iraqis who were willing to cooperate and join us when the invasion began. Never in my wildest dreams did I suspect that the above named gentlemen had bought into neo-con theroy and that we would invade and topple the regime with no clear plan on what to do next and not enough military force to even control looting.
Boy was I dumb. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
cjc - I use always when appropriate. Hussein was not a threat to the US because he was contained. Therefore threat contained, no reason to invade. Its simple logic and I am sure your highly perceptive analytical skills have no problem in understanding that. Therefore you are being purposely obtuse.
Clearly there was no imminent threat, nor danger to the USA coming out of Iraq. Clearly we were attacked by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden based in Afghanistan and clearly we did not achieve the goal of eliminating their leadership and eradicating them from the face of the earth. Instead we took the PNAC doctine and ran with it. Its been out on this board many times and its a smoking gun that you can not refute.
Show me a post where you concede that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and I will retract my 'always'.
However, now that I know you are a sexist, I have a different perspective on your personality.
SLK - once again you resort to name calling where your arguments are thin, no make that non existant. Thanks for agreeing that you take your opinions from op-ed pieces as opposed from actual information. Information is posted here daily from all sources showing your positions to be false, inaccurate or just plain wrong.
I dont mind being categorized by you in the RL and tulip class. Both of them have far more sense then you will ever have. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5053
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 4:56 pm: |
|
"The Present Debacle" is so far beyond stupid I hardly know where to start. It seems the Roosevelt-haters continue to breed, and pop up in the strangest places.
But let's see... How about the maps that appeared in the daily paper showing the "island hopping," and how you could see in black and white actual progress. Same with the advance across Europe after D-Day. Nobody talked about a quagmire because there was no quagmire. Instead, there was tangible progress.
As for what we can stomach, in 1941 was the Nazis, in control of virtually the entire continent of Europe along with with its industrial base, declaring war on us and nearly eliminating our major trading partners; and the empire of Japan with its overwhelming navy and control of much of the Pacific rim and its immense natural resources, having attacked us. Both were impossible to stomach. It was not a perceived threat to our national security, it was violent and it was real.
In Iraq all we have to stomach are the false promises and imaginary threats that have been tossed our way. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9745
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Saddam was posturing about weapons because he feared Iran. He was in a no win situation. So, apparently, are we. |
Gregor Samsa
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 528
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:38 pm: |
|
So...let me get this straight. Since a greater percentage of the population supported the US efforts in WWII, all the illegal and unconstitutional things that the Rossevelt administration did were OK.
"edited to add: We can stomach a lot of things if we believe in the purpose. It's when we are misled and when it is handled so incompetently that people begin to disbelieve there is any intent to win, that people lose their stomach for war."
Again, tell me how this is different? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5054
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 6:44 pm: |
|
"The only thing we have to fear is the New Deal itself."
Conservatives, beating the same dead old horse 70 years later.
But no, it doesn't justify everything Roosevelt did. Nothing justifies the internment camps, for example.
At the risk of being tautological, the fact that a greater percentage of the population supported the war meant that, well, a greater percentage of the population supported the war. The trick was and always will be maintaining that support by having measurable goals (unconditional surrender), a strategy for making tangible progress (moving across France, Belgium, the Phillipines), having a real and legitimate cause (Pearl Harbor and the Nazi declaration of war), and knowing we were doing whatever it took to win.
Americans STILL support the effort in Afghanistan, because despite the current absence of the first two and the last one, we had a real and legitimate cause. Iraq is totally different. You MUST understand THAT ... don't you? |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 228
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Freedom Not the Issue
by Charley Reese
I'm getting tired of hearing politicians and generals talk about Americans dying for peace and freedom. No American has been killed in defense of our freedom since 1945. The main breaker of the peace in recent years has been the United States.
Since 1945, no nation on Earth has either declared war against us or attacked us. We intervened in a Korean civil war, a Vietnamese civil war and a Lebanese civil war, and we have gotten men killed to remove political leaders our political leaders didn't like (Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq). I can't think of a logical reason why we bombed Serbia, the only Balkan country that fought on our side in two world wars, unless it was because the Bosnians hired a better public-relations firm.
A Muslim fanatic, Osama bin Laden, has declared war on us, but he does not have a nation, a government or an army. He sent 19 young men against us. They penetrated our multibillion-dollar intelligence and defense apparatus and hijacked and crashed four airplanes, killing themselves in the process. That was five years, two American invasions and a quarter of a trillion dollars ago, and we still have not found bin Laden, who is a very tall man hiding among short people.
For five years, we've offered a $25 million reward for bin Laden, and in areas where poverty is unbelievable by our standards, there has not been one single taker. What does that tell you? It tells you that to the Afghans and the tribal people in the border area, bin Laden is a hero. They like him. They don't like us.
The blood of this nation's sons and daughters is the most precious treasure it has. It is dishonorable to spend that treasure for any reason but the defense of the United States and its people. It is unconstitutional to send them to war without a formal declaration of war by Congress. The last time that happened was in 1941. It is despicable to send them to war based on lies.
President Bush let the cat out of the bag in his recent speech at West Point. He didn't talk about world terrorism. He talked about reshaping the Middle East, a fool's errand if ever there was one. Our precious people are not dying for peace and freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are dying for corporate profits and to make the Middle East a safer place for Israel. The only people who are dying for freedom are the Iraqis and the Afghans who want to free their countries of our presence.
It is perhaps that cynical attitude on the part of the politicians that is responsible for turning the Memorial Day concert in Washington into a patriotic rally and booster night for the military services. That is inappropriate.
To honor survivors of the wars, we have Veterans Day. For patriotic rallies, we have the Fourth of July. To celebrate the military services, we have Armed Forces Day. Memorial Day is for the dead, for those men and women whose military service put them in the ground or under the sea. It is a day to remember the dead and to honor their sacrifice, because regardless of the war in which they died, they all died believing they were serving their country. Ceremonies for Memorial Day should be solemn and reverential.
It seems to me that we the living have an obligation to those dead. One is to make sure the country they died for remains worth dying for. Two, make sure the civilian leaders are worthy of the young men and women they might put in harm's way. To allow a bunch of corrupt liars and incompetents to feed our youth into the meat grinder of war for hidden and frivolous reasons dishonors both the dead and the living.
It's been said that a patriot loves the land and the people, and a nationalist loves the government. That is something to think about. The government is not our country; it is only one aspect of it. Plenty of American heroes don't wear uniforms or carry guns. The work of America is not done in Washington, and every politician in the Senate, the House and the White House is a temporary worker whom the people can fire if they so choose.
A lot of those "temps" deserve to be fired, and the people can start this November by dumping incumbents wholesale. Now that would be a fitting Memorial Day tribute.
June 6, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese286.html
I couldn't put it any better.
Cheers
|
musicme
Citizen
Username: Musicme
Post Number: 1696
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
Oh, and by the way, I am a quasi-liberal, semi-conservative that honors the still-living vetrans that served, and the memory of those that passed in service to this great country. I honor my own father that was a guest of the fascist for a couple of years in one of the Stalags. I support the troops, just not the ill-conceived mission of adventurism and sleight of hand. Polls dragging? hey look at those immigrants. Over here we have the thrills of gay marraige. For your viewing pleasure let's stop abortion.
Don't mind the man behind the curtain. That's not his hand in your pocket lifting your wallet. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 564
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 9:30 am: |
|
Please read Cobra II, for the unadulterated facts about our Iraq venture, as well as the relevant chapters in The Right Nation.
The Right book is both entertaining, and, along with Cobra II, unravels how we got to where we are.
The facts are unpleasant, but the decisions are understandable.
jd
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 9:33 am: |
|
Bob K,
I respect and admire your previous post. You are absolutely blaming the right person and should be applauded for your candidness. You blame yourself and no one else. I am serious not ridiculing. Everyone should have that same mind set. You voted for Bush based on your perceptions of him at the time. In your mind he is far from those perceptions and instead of blaming him for not adhering to your perceptions, you blame yourself for not seeing this. Very admirable.
I'll give a similar situation I found myself. I hated Clinton, hated Clinton, hated Clinton when he first got into office. Over the eight years he grew on me and I realized he wasn't nearly as bad, especially since he couldn't get any true liberal legislation passed and because he helped lead us to the Republican revolution. I can say I was wrong in my opinion of him. I thought he was a far left die hard lib. He wasn't anywhere close to that.
What I really find laughable is the many posters on this board who, like you, voted for Bush but yet blame him because he didn't conform to their perceptions of him. I find this hilarious. The man is a born again Christian from Texas running on the Republican ticket, and the fence sitting Dems who voted for him whether in 2000 or 2004 are shocked and dismayed at his views. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck don't be surprised when it quacks. I especially love this since those Dems who voted for him helped him win and now are miserable. Priceless.
Again, I admire your honesty. We need more of it on this board. I'm sure you are not alone in your assessment of your vote, but no one else is willing to place the blame in its proper place. As for me, I voted for Bush and he is doing pretty much what I expected from him and I'm happy with it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5686
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hoops -- I'm not a sexist. I just made an observation that those who argue with "every" "always" and "never" tend to be female. Not all, but most. You have company in that.
I'll "concede" nothing, but I'll state unequivocally that Saddam had nothing to do with the specific 9/11 plot and it's execution. This is something I've maintained all along.
YOU are the one saying I said otherwise. Is it something YOU read that gave you that conclusion? Surely then YOU can find it.
Save yourself the time and admit you've applied a train of thought to me which I do not hold. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
really? And all those arguments where you posted about the supposed Iraq Al-Qaeda linkage that were meant to express your support for the Iraq invasion are simply misdirections on your part?
As you must be well aware MOL has no working search engine, so these things can stay open to disagreement, however I will accept that you dont 'always' conflate 9/11 with Iraq.
Now, tell me again how this is a just war, why we removed our troops from Afghanistan where Bin Laden was and how Saddam was imminently threatening the USA. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
I missed this thread yesterday, but the date always brings to mind my Dad who landed with the U.S. Army and fought in every major engagement through the end of the war. He was a changed man by his own admission, but he was proud of his service until the day he died. I'm proud of him too, and I am eternally grateful to all who have served, then and now. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5688
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
I didn't go along with the thinking there was no terrorist link with Saddam. I think there was, though not with the 9/11 plot specifically. That in and of itself is a good reason in my thinking for this war to have taken place. Saddam was a threat which is why we were enforcing no fly zones and sanctions, and a gathering one at that with terror links and opportunities resulting from same.
There still are and always have been troops in Afghanistan since we entered that theater. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4359
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
After 9/11, I am sure that Saddam Hussein was awash with Schadenfreude. That alone was grounds for invasion. After all, our very own Dear Leader said, "if you aren't for us, you're against us." The fact that Saddam was not sad to see the 9/11 attacks proves that he was providing significant and tangible support to Bin Laden. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15133
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
Brett,
Thanks for staying on point. I started this thread in the hope that others would recognize and remember the sacrifices that were made all those years ago. My own father spent 30 years in the Navy.
You ought to be very proud of your dad. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page